Forscher, P. S., Wagenmakers, E.-J., DeBruine, L. M., Coles, N. A., Silan, M. A., & IJzerman, H. (2020). A Manifesto for Team Science [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/2mdxh

Grossmann, I., Weststrate, N. M., Ardelt, M., Brienza, J. P., Dong, M., Ferrari, M., Fournier, M. A., Hu, C. S., Nusbaum, H., & Vervaeke, J. (2020). The Science of Wisdom in a Polarized World: Knowns and Unknowns [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/w9ygc

Krause, N. M., Freiling, I., Beets, B., & Brossard, D. (2020). Fact-checking as risk communication: The multi-layered risk of misinformation in times of COVID-19. Journal of Risk Research, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1756385

I'm ngl I'm not a huge fan of either of the proposed solutions for this. Just because I'm happy to allow third party cookies provided by hypothesis.is on example.com, doesn't mean I'm happy to allow all the other third party cookies on example.com, which is what the more conservative of the two solutions suggests.

Maybe there's some form of whitelisting we can do so that Brave automatically unblocks all hypothesis.is third party cookies, regardless of URL?

Buitrago-Garcia, D. C., Egli-Gany, D., Counotte, M. J., Hossmann, S., Imeri, H., Salanti, G., & Low, N. (2020). The role of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: Rapid living systematic review and meta-analysis [Preprint]. Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.25.20079103

Fischer, H., & Said, N. (2020, May 12). Metacognition_ClimateChange_Fischer&Said_Preprint. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/fd6gy

This is what I'd expect for tobacco, but it tells me little about nicotine. Most of the subjective effects are not from tobacco, so It's still plausible that nicotine does not develop tolerance. Indeed, the effects that don't go away are the effects expected from nicotine.

Moyers, S. A., & Hagger, M. S. (2020, April 20). Physical activity and sense of coherence: A meta-analysis. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/d9e3k

Fischer, R., Karl, J. A., Bortolini, T., Zilberberg, M., Robinson, K., Rabelo, A. L. A., … Mattos, P. (2020, April 22). Rapid review and meta-meta-analysis of self-guided interventions to address anxiety, depression and stress during COVID-19 social distancing. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ndyf4

Meta-moderation: second level of comment moderation. A user is invited to rate a moderator's decision.

Jefferson, T., Jones, M., Al Ansari, L. A., Bawazeer, G., Beller, E., Clark, J., Conly, J., Del Mar, C., Dooley, E., Ferroni, E., Glasziou, P., Hoffman, T., Thorning, S., & Van Driel, M. (2020). Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Part 1 - Face masks, eye protection and person distancing: Systematic review and meta-analysis [Preprint]. Public and Global Health. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217

Under review at Meta-Psychology. Contribute with open community peer review comments directly on the preprint.

The fully transparent editorial process can be found here: https://osf.io/4tgq9/

Submitted to Meta-Psychology. Follow the fully transparent review process here: link

Contribute with open community peer review by commenting directly on this preprint.

This firing of Snopes managing editor reiterates previous concerns over an unhealthy working environment. This article is old enough I'd like to see followups.

Diminishing your 50/50 partner's contributions & erasing their attributions (accidentally or not) is one of the things I find the most annoying.

Impressive. Her alleged painstaking data-hoarding makes me like her. I'm not sure what to think of David's ambiguity yet.

everything is an echo chamber; the concept itself is so meta its no surprise that by simply believing in something you are unknowingly (or knowingly) submitting yourself to an infinite world of echo chambers

With this text appearing on bookbook.pubpub.org being an excellent example of just this. #meta

I'm sort of hoping for some discussion of Kathleen Fitzpatrick's process behind her book Planned Obsolescence which was released in draft form for open peer review in fall 2009, much like Annotations. It's the first example I can think of a scholar doing something like this digitally in public, though there may have been other earlier examples.

I can't help but glossthe word gloss, [a brief explanation (as in the margin or between the lines of a text) of a difficult or obscure word or expression].

It also seems a bit like the following paragraph actually glosses over a more concrete definition of the word?

This manuscript is under peer review at Meta-Psychology. Please contribute with open community peer review directly at the preprint.

The transparent editorial history can be found here:

https://osf.io/y369z/

Types of feedback sought:

• Ideas for stories that can be told by scientists and engineers about their work that could illustrate (and humanise) this scenario – perhaps an anecdote about a particular challenge that has been solved in an innovative way or simply sharing the name of a great communicator I might not know.
• Ideas for objects that could be available to illustrate the scenario.
• Maybe you can share an idea for an experiment that you’ve seen in a museum somewhere or in a workshop, or know some-one at CERN who’s prototyped something that fits with our story?
• Or perhaps there’s a new idea for an experiment or game that comes to mind when you read the scenario?
• Also do you have an idea for a fun location that would tie the exhibits of Quantum World together?
• Do you have suggestions for existing photos / film / VR / 360 degree images that you find particularly spectacular and that could be used at a particular point in the exhibitions? Or ideas for locations that it could be useful to film or photograph (particularly during LS2)?
• …. or indeed any other input you’d like to share!

Under review at Meta-Psychology. Follow the transparent editorial process here:

https://osf.io/q9gb3/

Under review at Meta-Psychology. Follow the history here:

https://osf.io/f9udb/

In his commentary, Alex Holcombe makes the argument that only ‘one or two exemplars of a color category’ are typically examined in color studies, and this is problematic because a color such as ‘red’ is a category, not a single hue.

Although in some fields it is very important to examine a range of stimuli, and in general examining the generalizability of findings has an important place in research lines, I do not think that currently this issue is a pressing concern in color psychology. Small variations in hue and brightness naturally occur in online studies, and these are assumed not to matter for the underlying mechanism. Schietecat, Lakens, IJsselsteijn, and De Kort (2018) write: “In addition, we conducted Experiments 1 and 3 in a laboratory environment, but Experiments 2, 4, and 5 were conducted in participants’ homes with an internet-based method. Therefore, we could not be completely sure that the presentation of the stimuli on their personal computers was identical for every participant in those experiments. However, we expected that the impact of these variations on our results is not substantial. The labels of the IAT (i.e., red vs blue) increased the salience of the relevant hue dimension, and we do not expect our results to hold for very specific hues, but for colors that are broadly categorized as red, blue, and green. The similar associative patterns across Experiments 2 and 3 seem to support this expectation.”

We wrote this because there is nothing specific about the hue that is expected to drive the effects in association based accounts of psychological effects of colors. If the color ‘red’ is associated with specific concepts (and the work by Schietecat at all supports the idea that red can activate associations related to either activity and evaluation, such as aggression or enthusiasm, depending on the context). This means that the crucial role of the stimulus is to activate the association with ‘red’, no the perceptual stimulation of the eye in any specific way. The critical manipulation check would thus be is people categorize a stimulus as ‘red’. As long as this is satisfied, we can assume the concept ‘red’ is activated, which can then activate related associations, depending on the context.

Obviously, the author is correct that there are benefits in testing multiple variations of the color ‘red’ to demonstrate the generalizability of observed effects. However, the authors is writing too much as a perception researcher I fear. If there is a strong theoretical reason to assume slightly different hues and chromas will not matter (because as long as a color is recognized as ‘red’ it will activate specific associations) the research priority of varying colors is much lower than in other fields (e.g., research on human faces) where it is more plausible that the specifics of the stimuli matter. A similar argument holds for the question whether “any link is specifically to red, rather than extending to green, yellow, purple, and brown”. This is too a-theoretical, and even though not all color research has been replicable, and many studies suffered from problems identified during the replication crisis, the theoretical models are still plausible, and specific to predictions about certain hues. We know quite a lot about color associations for prototypical colors in terms of their associations with valence and activity (e.g., Russell & Mehrabian, 1977) and this can be used to make more specific predictions than to a-theoretically test the entire color spectrum.

Indeed, across the literature many slightly different variations of red are used, or in online studies (Schietecat et al., 2018) studies have been performed online, where different computer screens will naturally lead to some variation in the exact colors presented. This doesn’t mean that more dedicated exploration of the boundaries of these effects can be worthwhile in the future. But currently, the literature is more focused on examining whether these effects are reliable to begin with, and explaining basic questions about their context dependency, than that they are concerned about testing the range of hues for which effects can be observed. So, although in principle it is often true that the generalizability of effects is understudies and deserved more attention, it is not color psychology’s most pressing concern, because we have theoretical predictions about specific colors, and because theoretically as long as a color activates the concept (e.g., ‘red’), the associated concepts that influence subsequent psychological responses are assumed to be activated, irrespective of minor differences in for example hue or brightness.

Daniel Lakens

References

Russell, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. (1977). Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions. Journal of Research in Personality, 11(3), 273–294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(77)90037-X Schietecat, A. C., Lakens, D., IJsselsteijn, W. A., & Kort, Y. A. W. de. (2018). Predicting Context-dependent Cross-modal Associations with Dimension-specific Polarity Attributions. Part 2: Red and Valence. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/COLLABRA.126

Submitted to Meta-Psychology. Contribute with peer review directly on this preprint. The editorial process can be found here:

https://osf.io/vg5wa/

Always interesting to read how Engelbart builds organizational schemes which build off of themselves, very very meta

Under review at Meta-Psychology. Contribute with peer review here. The editorial process can be followed at:

https://osf.io/s6yr4/

Unless, for example, annotation was baked into the platforms, and offered any reader the opportunity to collaboratively discuss.

Well, here I am on YouTube, watching a Hypothes.is video and commenting using it. I'm annotating YouTube, which is pretty open in terms of what people can say in the comments, and almost universally derided as being where the dregs come to say whatever they want, bringing civil discourse along for the ride.

I believe in freedom of speech and eliminating censorship, but what is it about this new platform that will prevent the problems of the old? Here we are, at the intersection.

good meta-review -> weight more heavily from reviews, and why

good meta-review: -> consider all of the reviewers' opinions

Like this!

For a blog post commenting on an earlier draft of this article (many points raised remain relevant) see here.

Hello Hypo users. I've never really used it much, but was one of the backers when it launched its kickstarter in 2011. Very good to see it in action here, so I'm going to start using it to engage in conversations in the general area of open science.

If you see this comment, please take a moment to register at http://hypothes.is and say hi, even if you don't want to engage in thematic discussions about our paper :)

Really? I think they all had to move to California.

Pienso en cómo otros lenguajes y tecnologías se encuentran en Grafoscpio: Pandoc, Lua, Smalltalk, lo escritural, lo hacker y en la deconstrucción y diálogo que favorece esta herramienta, que otras maneras no logocéntricas están por venir.

¿Metaherramientas para metaculturas?

Para compartir el comienzo del Data Week.

Como la tecnología nos cambia, cambiamos la forma de cambiarnos.

el cuidado se puede estructurar en el diseño de herramientas y equipos a través de lo que denomina «presenciación” (presencing), un concepto relacionado con la noción del diseño transparente de las interfaces tecnológicas que es clave para la incorporación en las herramientas de hábitos ecológicos a través del diseño para transformar nuestras acciones rutinarias en formas de comportamiento ecológico; esto ha de lograrse mediante la incorporación de ‘guiones’ en el diseño de productos. De esta manera los diseñadores tendrían que ir mucho más allá del objetivo de satisfacer las necesidades de los usuarios para articular, de formas novedosas, las preocupaciones y deseos de una colectividad. Las nuevas rutinas encarnadas se volverían lentamente colectivas y transformarían, eventualmente, la conciencia social y las estructuras institucionales. [...] El enfoque, sin embargo, sigue siendo básicamente teórico y no aborda, explícitamente, la dimensión política.

Esto pasa en alguna medida con Grafoscopio, pues debido a su caracter de metasistema y su condición de objeto activista, embebe prácticas referidas a la disponibilidad permanente del código fuente, tanto de la herramienta, como de los escritos creados en ella y ejemplifica otras ecologías del conocimiento, asociadas al conocimiento como bien común.

La comunidad de práctica alrededor de Grafoscopio comparte, deconstruye e incorpora dichas formas de entender y ser, de modos progresivos, configurando una identidad propia, que es distinta al grueso del hackerspace. Una ventaja de nuestro enfoque es que lo político es explícito y la teoría y la práctica dialogan en él a través de dispositivos digitales hacktivistas..

La idea de meta-prototipado: prototipar la construcción de prototipos, implicaría el código fuente de las prácticas de prototipado y los prototipos mismos, como menciono en la primera parte de la tesis.

This is a pretty useful example of a paragraph with subtext, don’t you think? Could easily imagine future readers and annotators coming to this passage and scratching their heads for a minute while looking at the date. What happened nine months before June 2017? Living outside the US, it took me a few seconds to guess it (and my guess may be wrong). Of course, Martha was “playing for the audience” (though DoOO is having an impact outside the US). There’s indeed a shared understanding that events in the political arena may be relevant in our work on digital literacies.

Therein lies the rub. Especially if this is to be “easy”.

Whaa..? This sounds seriously hard. But remarkably clever.

Which is probably why @judell’s tate doesn’t show up in Chrome on my system and there’s weirdness with the scrolling once we accept to load unsafe scripts.

Speaking of which: https://hyp.is/RmUKwLvpEeezPrvjHE4Lwg/wisc.pb.unizin.org/objectivists/chapter/lorine-niedeckers-blackhawk-held/ via https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JoWwyQMpX8ge9Oxk3o3reECVfiJJ6SvB6zPzUbgDDt8/edit#slide=id.g2293d0c2ef_0_69 Gives:

http://media.sas.upenn.edu/pennsound/authors/Niedecker/Niedecker-Lorine_08_Foreclosure_Factory-School-Archive_11-1970.mp3

Ha! So that’s where the comment about Rory McGreal should come in.

Hence the need for #OpenAnnotation to pair up with some of the other opens. Hypothes.is people are doing their part, but still.

Years ago, link suggestions were pretty high on my wishlist for WP. Did notice early implementations of this feature but haven’t used the improved version. It does sound like the current version is pretty useful and can lead to something interesting. Might also work well with annotations, come to think of it.

A literal and more general question.

Roger on the pattern of productizing scholarly workflows.

Respect.

결국 메타언어에 존재하는 정보를 프로그래밍 언어에 합리적으로 추가하면, 더 유용하게 사용할 수 있다.

Corder is arguing that we are, each of us, an argument. That is hard to argue with.

Interesting how they see this fitting in with their mission.

An annotation about annotation.

An annotation about annotation about annotation.

We learn by doing. (And annotations do work on the text version. Neat!)

Didn’t expect to find [h] embedded here. Problem is, it doesn’t allow for annotations of the actual content.

Ah, so quizzes are fair for Rhetoric, I see.

"Blueprints for the future are a fool's errand" - Ron Swanson

"Stop being meta" could be applied in some sense to meta systems like Smalltalk and Lisp, because their tendency to develop meta tools used mostly by developers, instead of "tools" used by by mostly everyone else. Burring the distinction between "everyone else" and developers in their ability to build/use meta tools, means to deliver tools and practices that can be a bridge with meta-tools. This is something we're trying to do with Grafoscopio and the Data Week.

Oh yes, many more! (Was actually looking for a list.)

Ha! The Chronicle’s summary framed these categories somewhat differently. Interesting. To me, the “application” part is really about student retention. But maybe that’s a bit of a cynical reading, based on an over-emphasis in the Learning Analytics sphere towards teleological, linear, and insular models of learning. Then, the “representation” part sounds closer to UDL than to learner-driven microcredentials. Both approaches are really interesting and chances are that the report brings them together. Finally, the Chronicle made it sound as though the research implied here were less directed. The mention that it has “the potential to influence institutional practices and interventions” may be strategic, as applied research meant to influence “decision-makers” is more likely to sway them than the type of exploratory research we so badly need.

Also applies for sensible & concerned humans, which are worried about their own relation with the planet and other beings on it, despite of not being gods (or aspiring to be). On the case of tools for understanding and metatools for improving those tools, again Perfection & Feedback Loops, or: why worse is better seems enlightening, particularly in the context of Smalltalk legacy. Grafoscopio could make a humble contribution on the seeing, understanding and debating part

Will 2017 be “the year of annotations”?

Sounds like a description of Shepazu’s Annotation Architecture.

Cool thing is. Udell and the gang are pretty open to suggestions, it sounds like. At the same time, it’s quite possible that webmentions wouldn’t fit in their overall vision of the tool.

Had missed this announcement. The annotation scene has this interesting ambivalence between being old and new, forward-looking and somewhat nostalgic. Wish Diigo were forward-looking enough to get into Open Annotations.

This pithy statement brings together all sorts of previous annotations. Would be neat to map them.

Kind of surprised not to see other [h] annotations, here.

Shoutout to h?

Flattery will lead us nowhere… But it’s still a warm and fuzzy feeling to be in such illustrious company.

Obvious case for h. Imagine the possibilities of linked open data used in annotating presentations which would be part of scholarly books along with all the necessary material? The mind wanders…

Funny how frequently this terms comes up, when talking about Genius. The difference between annotation platforms is significantly a matter of usage. Usage of Genius has a lot to do with snarky comments made by “the smart kid at the back of the class”. My perception of Hypothesis is that it’s much more oriented towards diversifying voices. But that has less to do with technical features of the platform than with the community adopting it.

Just got in touch with @DoyleOwl. Neat approach to annotation. My sense is that Genius can have a useful effect similar to that of those programmes using basketball to keep kids off the streets.

Glad this was mentioned. To the Eric Raymonds of this world, such a response sounds “perfectly legitimate”. But it’s precisely what can differentiate communities and make one more welcoming than the other. Case in point: Arduino-related forums, in contrast with the Raspberry Pi community. Was looking for information about building a device to track knee movement. Noticed that “goniometer” was the technical term for that kind of device, measuring an angle (say, in physiotherapy). Ended up on this page, where someone had asked a legitimate question about Arduino and goniometers. First, the question:

Trying to make a goniometer using imu (gy-85). Hoe do I aquire data from the imu using the arduino? How do I code the data acquisition? Are there any tutorials avaible online? Thanks =)

Maybe it wouldn’t pass the Raymond test for “smart questions”, but it’s easy to understand and a straight answer could help others (e.g., me).

Now, the answer:

For me, google found 87,000,000 hits for gy-85. I wonder why it failed for you.

Wow. Just, wow.

Then, on the key part of the question (the goniometer):

No idea what that is or why I should have to google it for you.

While this one aborted Q&A is enough to put somebody off Arduino forever, it’s just an example among many. Like Stack Overflow, Quora, and geek hideouts, Arduino-related forums are filled with these kinds of snarky comments about #LMGTFY.

Contrast this with the Raspberry Pi. Liz Upton said it best in a recent interview (ca. 25:30):

People find it difficult to remember that sometimes when somebody comes along… and appears to be “not thinking very hard”, it could well be because they’re ten years old.

And we understand (from the context and such) that it’s about appearance (not about “not thinking clearly”). It’s also not really about age.

So, imagine this scenario. You’re teacher a class, seminar, workshop… Someone asks a question about using data from a device to make it into a goniometer. What’s the most appropriate strategy? Sure, you might ask the person to look for some of that information online. But there are ways to do so which are much more effective than the offputting ’tude behind #LMGTFY. Assuming they do search for that kind of information, you might want to help them dig through the massive results to find something usable, which is a remarkably difficult task which is misunderstood by someone who answer questions about goniometers without knowing the least thing about them.

The situation also applies to the notion that a question which has already been asked isn’t a legitimate question. A teacher adopting this notion would probably have a very difficult time teaching anyone who’s not in extremely narrow a field. (Those teachers do exist, but they complain bitterly about their job.)

Further, the same logic applies to the pedantry of correcting others. Despite the fact that English-speakers’ language ideology allows for a lot of non-normative speech, the kind of online #WordRage which leads to the creation of “language police” bots is more than a mere annoyance. Notice the name of this Twitter account (and the profile of the account which “liked” this tweet).

Lots of insight from @BiellaColeman on people who do things “for the lulz”. Her work is becoming increasingly relevant to thoughtful dialogue on annotations.

Same experience, even in the Genius guidelines. The tool’s affordances (and name) revolve around snark. In the abstract, there’s nothing wrong with that. We need spaces for people to have fun, even if it’s at the expense of others. But the startup is based on a very specific idea of what constitutes useful commentary. That idea is closer to pedantry, snark, intellectual bullying, and animated gifs than on respectful exchange.

That part never worked. But maybe these annotations will? That’d be neat.

It may annoy many, but overtagging can be playful.

We’re here! We’re always here. You can hide us, but we’re in your webpages, annotating away.

In my wishlist to Jon Udell (still in draft), these two modes can be separate phases with Hypothesis. But in reverse order. First pass is the distributed commentary about the whole piece, similar to social bookmarking and potentially affording a very cursory look (or even just a glance at a headline). It says: “Hey, please read this and tell me what you think!” The second pass could be the deep reading, with one’s personal comments visible, but not influenced by other comments. Then comes the “fun part”, which is also a form of distributed commentary, but is much more conversational. “Distributed” might not be as appropriate, though. At least in computer lingo.

This one remains to be demonstrated. As we keep saying, exclusion may be passive but inclusion is by definition active. Open annotations may not sound so exclusive for those who appropriated it as a technology, the same way literacies are often taken for granted. But we often tend to take “democratization” as a given.

Despite an important continuity.

Could soooo imagine a presentation on using #Hypothesis with #PressBooks!

Just got to think about our roles, in view of annotation. Using “curation” as a term for collecting URLs sounds like usurping the title of “curator”. But there’s something to be said about the role involved. From the whole “guide on the side” angle to the issue with finding appropriate resources based on a wealth of expertise.

Wish [h] had a similar feature. And that NB supported #OpenAnnotation.

Sounds like something interesting for Dr. Jeremy Dean.

Like an algorithmic version of Hypothesis? Is McGraw-Hill part of the Coalition? Looks like it isn’t. Is it a “for us or against us” situation?

Oops! Started annotating the Forbes version but this one might be better (no preload). Wish I could transfer my annotations from one version to the other…

Useful list, almost a roadmap or set of scenarios. The last two might be especially intriguing, in view of the Semantic Web.

The “Open World Assumption” is central to this post and to the actual shift in paradigm when it comes to moving from documents to data. People/institutions have an alleged interest in protecting the way their assets are described. Even libraries. The Open World Assumption makes it sound quite chaotic, to some ears. And claims that machine learning will solve everything tend not to help the unconvinced too much. Something to note is that this ability to say something about a third party’s resource connects really well with Web annotations (which do more than “add metadata” to those resources) and with the fact that no-cost access to some item of content isn’t the end of the openness.

Sometimes an annotation is just an annotation.

Let’s imagine that future. What else could [h] do, if we were to make a wishlist?

Chain of attribution, as @Shepazu would have it.

Will our annotations issues be solved, in nine years?

Interesting that SVG guru Shepazu would talk about Hypothes.is…

Besides the piece’s content, the interactions which happened through a layer of Diigo annotations were quite interesting.

The future of news is still about journalism? We can annotate any content. This piece makes it sound as though journalism should become even more controlling.

Wonder how Colwiz compares to Annotator.js …

Tell that to Genius!

Indeed! The only tricky thing is the current bookmarklet, but this can be integrated into sites themselves.

what is this resource? what does it do?

Altmetric guidelines for optimising web pages

This documentation describes the technology behind indexing of websites with scholarly articles in Google Scholar. It's written for webmasters who would like their papers included in Google Scholar search results. Detailed technical information is helpful if you're trying to fix an error in indexing of your own website, or you need to make sure that your article hosting product is compatible with Google and Google Scholar search services.