2,386 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2021
    1. Thematic analysis was used to explore the qualitative data captured in the online survey. [22,23] describe thematic analysis as a method that seeks to find patterns, or categories, that emerge from the data, enabling the researcher to organise and provide detailed description.

      This seems like an interesting area to look into further.

      Two cited sources here:

    2. All statistical comparisons were therefore performed using non-parametric methods, to avoid introducing errors based on assumptions of normality in the data. Repeated measures comparisons were performed using the Friedman test, except where specified, with post-hoc pairwise comparisons made using the Friedman-Nemenyi test. Although no direct measure of effect size for the Friedman test is generally recognized, an indirect measure of effect size was obtained using the Kendall’s W-statistic (KW), computed from the Friedman Q value [19,20]. Effect sizes were interpreted as follows: weak: KW< 0.19; moderate 0.20< KW< 0.39; strong 0.4< KW.

      Delve into these techniques.

    3. The numbers of correctly recalled items were not normally distributed, due to a ceiling effect. This was likely attributable to the fact that the incoming medical student population were pre-selected as high academic achievers, and many may have already had personal systems for memorising information.

      Nice that they note this potential effect and skewing of the data.

    4. Participants were instructed to associate items to be remembered with specific objects and locations in the imagined space, with as much detail as possible (e.g. a red lamp with an adjustable shade and a power switch in the center of the lamp base sitting on a desk to the left hand side of the entrance to the room. As items were added to the memory list, each new item was associated with an object and position in the imagined room. To recall items, participants were instructed to imagine themselves walking into the room, approaching each object and location which had a list item associated with it, and to attempt to recall the list item in conjunction with the imagined object.

      No instruction about the five senses, exaggeration, hyperbole, etc?

      Given how much I see missing here in the Western method which I'm more versed, I wonder what I'm missing with the Australian method which I'm well aware of, but not as versed?

    5. Following the 20-minute rest, a final recall test was performed, this time without the opportunity for students to review the list prior to recall testing.

      It would be highly useful to do another test at a larger interval, say a week or a month later as well, both with and without the suggestion of spaced repetition with all three groups.

    6. After 10 minutes, the word lists were collected and students were asked to write down as many of the list items as they could recall within five minutes.

      Were students asked or told if they'd be tested with this on long-term memory?

      Personally, I'd have used a simple major system method to memorize such a list for short term memory, but would have used other techniques for long term memory.

    7. They were also instructed not to mark or write on the word list, and not to use their mobile phones or any other electronic devices or aids to assist in the activity.

      Doing this specifically prevents the non-mnemotechniques group from adding their own visual loci in the form of annotations, drolleries, etc.

    8. Group 1 participants received particular instruction in Western memory techniques. Group 2 students received instruction in the Australian Aboriginal technique.

      What was the instruction? How long did it last? Was it reviewed at a later interval?

    9. Each student was assigned randomly to one of three study groups and assigned an individual study ID number.

      Were students queried as to their knowledge or experience with any of the techniques prior to the study?

    1. As someone who knows both methods and has likely practiced them in reasonable depth, I'm curious what Dr. @LynneKelly thinks. I'd love to see this same study done to include song, dance, painting, etc. to expand the potential effects.

      If nothing else, it's good to see some positive research on the methods which will hopefully draw more attention to the pedagogy and classroom use.

      Dr. Reser said the Monash School of Rural Health is considering incorporating these memory tools into the medical curriculum once teaching returns to a post-COVID normal. “This year we hope to offer this to students as a way to not only facilitate their learning but to reduce the stress associated with a course that requires a lot of rote learning,” he said. —https://scitechdaily.com/ancient-australian-aboriginal-memory-tool-superior-to-memory-palace-learning-technique/

    1. Jonathan Rothberg 🦋. (2021, March 2). Testing works. I test daily. Insist on HOME testing. @michaelmina_lab @JoeBiden Research suggests B.1.526 needs to be closely watched “for its ability to evade both monoclonal antibody and, to a certain extent, the vaccine-induced antibody,” said Fauci [Tweet]. @JMRothberg. https://twitter.com/JMRothberg/status/1366755339912306688

    1. Dron, L., Taljaard, M., Cheung, Y. B., Grais, R., Ford, N., Thorlund, K., Jahan, F., Nakimuli-Mpungu, E., Xavier, D., Bhutta, Z. A., Park, J. J. H., & Mills, E. J. (2021). The role and challenges of cluster randomised trials for global health. The Lancet Global Health, 9(5), e701–e710. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30541-6

    1. Park, J. J. H., Grais, R. F., Taljaard, M., Nakimuli-Mpungu, E., Jehan, F., Nachega, J. B., Ford, N., Xavier, D., Kengne, A. P., Ashorn, P., Socias, M. E., Bhutta, Z. A., & Mills, E. J. (2021). Urgently seeking efficiency and sustainability of clinical trials in global health. The Lancet Global Health, 9(5), e681–e690. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30539-8

  2. Apr 2021
    1. As I was gearing up to start my PhD last fall, I received a piece of advice that made a lot of sense at the time, and continues to do so. My colleague, Inba told me to 'write while I read', meaning that I should take notes and summarize research while I read it, and not just read and underline article after article. That way, not only do I not lose my thoughts while I'm reading an article, but I am actively thinking through the arguments in the paper while I am reading it and my writing is thoroughly grounded in the literature.

      This is generally fantastic advice! It's also the general underpinning behind the idea of Luhmann's zettelkasten method.

      I'll also mention that it's not too dissimilar to Benjamin Franklin's writing advice about taking what others have written and working with that yourself, though there he doesn't take it as far as others have since.

    1. An interesting outline of how Colin Madland uses Notion for his Ph.D. research work.

      He's got a good list of some pros and cons at the bottom. The export sounds a bit hairy on one front, but at least gives you some sort of back up in case the worst were to happen.

      Not sure it's the thing for me and I'm happier with my workflow using Obsidian at the moment, though some of the ideas about process here could be helpful.

      It looks like he's got some of the same issues in using Grav for his knowledge work as I do in WordPress, though the taxonomy and Webmention portions do tend to help me a bit.

      Colin brought this to my attention at the OERxDomains21 conference.

    1. 1). The core principle, or underlying premise, is that students at all levels of the curriculum can benefit in multiple ways by engaging actively in research and enquiry.
    1. Experts in Business to Business Market Research

      B2B research agency, FOTP Research is known for Business to Business bespoke market research with expertise in gathering feedback from key stakeholder groups, and in particular Customers, Employees and Suppliers.

    1. Future studies should be conducted to test if the decreased cortical brain activity after nimodipine is associated with improved working memory performance in patients with schizophrenia, particularly those who carry the risk-associated genotype.

      Interesting hypothesis.

    1. Dr Ellie Murray [@EpiEllie] (2020) I saw a tweet about how there isn’t enough discussion of what experts got wrong on COVID, so here’s a thread of things I got wrong. Tweet. Retrieved from: https://twitter.com/epiellie/status/1378016842174898185

    1. Robson, S. G., Baum, M. A., Beaudry, J. L., Beitner, J., Brohmer, H., Chin, J., Jasko, K., Kouros, C., Laukkonen, R., Moreau, D., Searston, R. A., Slagter, H. A., Steffens, N. K., & Tangen, J. M. (2021). Nudging Open Science. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/zn7vt

  3. Mar 2021
    1. Matias has his own lab, the Citizens and Technology Lab at Cornell, dedicated to making digital technologies that serve the public and not just private companies.

      [[J. Nathan Matias]] Citizens and Technology Lab

      I recall having looked at some of this research and not thinking it was as strong as is indicated here. I also seem to recall he had a connection with Tristan Harris?

    1. This uses techniques such as SIL International's Dictionary Development Process (DDP),[4][5] RapidWords, or software such as WeSay[6] or FLEx. These techniques rely on extensive lists of semantic domains that are relevant to vernacular languages.
    1. Research byPennycook, Cheyne, Barr, Koehler,and Fugelsang (2015)suggests that an organiza-tion’s capacity to produce and accept workplacebullshit decreases with the prevalence of andvalue placed on critical thinking in that organiza-tion. They outline how individuals have differentsensitivities to bullshit: Those who have the abilityto stop and think analytically about the substanceof statements are less receptive to bullshit, whilethose with lower cognitive skills and less insightare more receptive.

      This is why workplaces must encourage and maintain critical thinking.

    1. Iversen, K., Bundgaard, H., Hasselbalch, R. B., Kristensen, J. H., Nielsen, P. B., Pries-Heje, M., Knudsen, A. D., Christensen, C. E., Fogh, K., Norsk, J. B., Andersen, O., Fischer, T. K., Jensen, C. A. J., Larsen, M., Torp-Pedersen, C., Rungby, J., Ditlev, S. B., Hageman, I., Møgelvang, R., … Ullum, H. (2020). Risk of COVID-19 in health-care workers in Denmark: An observational cohort study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30589-2

    1. Prof. Devi Sridhar. (2020, March 25). We will be stuck in an endless cycle of lockdown/release for next 18 months, if we do not start mass testing, tracing, & isolating those who are carriers of the virus while pursuing rapid research for antiviral treatment or vaccine. This is the message the public needs to hear. [Tweet]. @devisridhar. https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1242743618986745861

    1. Buss, Lewis F., Carlos A. Prete, Claudia M. M. Abrahim, Alfredo Mendrone, Tassila Salomon, Cesar de Almeida-Neto, Rafael F. O. França, et al. ‘Three-Quarters Attack Rate of SARS-CoV-2 in the Brazilian Amazon during a Largely Unmitigated Epidemic’. Science 371, no. 6526 (15 January 2021): 288–92. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe9728.

    1. In the attached YouTube video Dan talks through his post as usual, but he has the added bonus here of showing a split screen of his annotated copy of the book with his Obsidian notebook open. We then see a real time transcription of his note taking process of moving from scant highlights in the book to more fleshed out thoughts and notes in his notebook. We also see him cross referencing various materials for alternate definitions and resources.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HBL-c_nXXQ

    1. ReconfigBehSci. (2020, November 9). Great talk by Chiara Varazzani from the OECD on the two speed systems of policy and ‘normal’ research and the challenge that poses to pandemic response #scibeh2020 https://t.co/Gsr66BRGcJ [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1325725690935832576

    1. ReconfigBehSci. (2020, November 9). Now underway at SciBeh workshop are our 3 hackathons: 1. Combatting COVID-19 misinformation with lessons from climate change denial 2. Optimising research dissemination and curation 3. ReSearch Engine: Search Engine for SciBeh’s knowledge base & beyond [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1325796158887882752

    1. ReconfigBehSci. (2020, November 5). In 4 days: SciBeh workshop ‘Building an online information environment for policy relevant science’ Join us! Topics: Crisis open science, interfacing to policy, online discourse, tools for research curation talks, panels, hackathons https://t.co/SPeD5BVgj3… I https://t.co/kQClhpHKx5 [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1324286406764744704

    1. Patricio R Estevez-Soto. (2020, November 24). I’m really surprised to see a lot of academics sharing their working papers/pre-prints from cloud drives (i.e. @Dropbox @googledrive) 🚨Don’t!🚨 Use @socarxiv @SSRN @ZENODO_ORG, @OSFramework, @arxiv (+ other) instead. They offer persisent DOIs and are indexed by Google scholar [Tweet]. @prestevez. https://twitter.com/prestevez/status/1331029547811213316

  4. Feb 2021
    1. Ghio, D., Lawes-Wickwar, S., Tang, M. Y., Epton, T., Howlett, N., Jenkinson, E., Stanescu, S., Westbrook, J., Kassianos, A., Watson, D., Sutherland, L., Stanulewicz, N., Guest, E., Scanlan, D., Carr, N., Chater, A., Hotham, S., Thorneloe, R., Armitage, C., … Keyworth, C. (2020). What influences people’s responses to public health messages for managing risks and preventing infectious diseases? A rapid systematic review of the evidence and recommendations [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/nz7tr

    1. ότι δήθεν ο Δ. Κουφοντίνας πήγε σε αγροτική φυλακή λόγω κάποιου ευνοϊκού νόμου του Σύριζα

      Δεν είναι έτσι??

    1. Francis Bacon

      Francis Bacon was an English Renaissance statesman, philosopher, and author, most famous for inventing the scientific method. He was born on January 22, 1561, in London, England, in the family of Sir Nicholas Bacon, Lord Keeper of the Seal for Elizabeth I. The younger of the two sons of the family, Francis Bacon started attending Trinity College, Cambridge, at age 12, completing his course of study 2 years later. He attended Gray’s Inn, the school his brother went to, after but did not like the program there and left school early to work under the British ambassador to France. Two and half years later, Bacon was forced to return to England because his father had died. The small estate he inherited from him left him broke, but, still a teen, he was not able to find a job until 1581 when he landed a position as a member for Cornwall in the House of Commons. Having found a way to earn money, Bacon managed to finish his education at Gray’s Inn and, in 1584, became a member of Parliament, a place he would hold for nearly four decades until 1617. He was knighted in 1603 upon James I's ascension to the British throne but still continued working his way up legal and political ranks. In 1617, he reached the same position his father had held, and, in 1618, he surpassed him by becoming Lord Chancellor, one of the highest political offices in England. In 1621, Bacon also became Viscount St. Albans, but then, the same year, he was accused of accepting bribes and lost his reputation and long-standing place in Parliament. Thus, Francis Bacon turned to the philosophy of science. Much of the science in his period was based on Aristotle’s idea that the scientific truth could be reached by way of authoritative argument. Bacon challenged this, striving to create a new method for the sciences, which is based more on empirical proof. The scientific method he invented involved gathering data, analyzing it, and performing experiments. Francis Bacon died on April 9, 1626, in London (118).

    2. Demosthenes

      Demosthenes was an Athenian statesman and one of the greatest orators of Ancient Greece. His written speeches provide great insight into the political, social, and economic life of 4th-century Athens, his most famous ones rousing Athens to oppose Philip of Macedon and, later, his son Alexander the Great. However, Demosthenes did not climb to a position of such high recognition easily. His father, a wealthy sword maker, died when Demosthenes was just seven years old. The large inheritance he left behind was given to Demonsthenes’ guardians, which took advantage of it, and by the time Demosthenes reached proper age, there was almost nothing left. Demosthenes wanted to sue his guardians, but in 4-century democratic Athens, every citizen who wished to prosecute a lawsuit had to do the speaking himself, so Demosthenes needed to first train himself as an orator. To improve his speech, he built an underground study where he could exercise his voice without disturbing anybody and shaved half of his head, so he would not be able to go out in public and would continue training. However, he also had a speech defect - he stammered and was unable to articulate words well. To overcome it, Demosthenes started speaking in front of a mirror and with pebbles in his mouth. He also trained his lungs by reciting verses when running or out of breath. After years of exercise, he managed to overcome his speech defect. His lawsuit against his guardians, though now very successful, didn’t earn him much money. However, he had learned much about speaking and strategies of argument preparing for it. With this knowledge, Demosthenes became a speech writer and orator, which for him proved to be a very stable, well-paid lifelong career (117).

    3. cuneiform tablet

      Cuneiform is the earliest known system of writing. It emerged around 3500-3000 BCE and is thought to have first been developed by the Sumerians of Mesopotamia because most of the early cuneiforms come from the Sumerian city of Uruk. Cuneiform texts were created by drawing with a pointed tool on a damp clay tablet. Their name comes from the Latin word cuneus, which means “wedge”, and it refers to the wedge-shaped marks made when the stylus is pressed into the tablet. At first, the writing was mostly pictorial, but as the subject matter became more intangible, the strokes began to convey word-concepts and word-signs, as well. By 2285-2250 BCE, when the priestess-poet Enheduanna wrote the famous hymns to Inanna in the Sumerian city of Ur, cuneiform could express emotional states and reasons behind those emotional states. The last known cuneiform tablet is an astronomical text from 75 CE. During its more than 3000 years of development, the cuneiform system was used to write in around 15 different languages, including Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Akkadian, Hittite, Elamite, Urartian, and Old Persian. Although cuneiforms were first used only to record the storage and movement of goods, some of the oldest known literary works were also written in cuneiform, including The Epic of Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, The Descent of Inanna, The Myth of Etana, The Enuma Elish. Cuneiform was first translated into modern language in 1872 CE when George Smith deciphered The Epic of Gilgamesh and translated it into English. Today, more than half a million cuneiform tablets are held in museums around the world, with the largest collections belonging to the British Museum, the Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin, the Louvre, the Istanbul Archaeology Museums, and the National Museum of Iraq (117).

    1. In academia it’s critical to have a system that allows us to read and mine important ideas from papers into your vault as efficiently as possible. My method has continued to evolve and I’m finding it more efficient now. In a nutshell, I’m now adding the one-sentence summaries to highlights as I’m reading (and the tags where possible). This means I don’t need to read the source more than once; instead I’m processing them as I’m reading because that’s when I discover them as important points in the first place. I then bring them into Obsidian in a single note per paper/source. I title each note Surname, date (e.g., Smith, 2018). It’ll make sense why in a moment. Each idea within the note is structured like this: One-sentence summary of idea | Original idea in the author’s words (Reference, date, page number). T: #tags #go #here C: Any connections to other notes or ideas - not necessary to include for every idea but it’s useful to think of connections where possible If you structure all the notes this way, it means you can then add the ideas straight into your index with transclusion without needing to create any additional notes (in the past I created a new evergreen note for each idea). An example of a transcluded idea to pop into your index would be like this: ![[Smith, 2018#One-sentence summary of idea]] This allows you to see the source and the summary of the note in edit mode and just that idea transcluded from your note page in the preview mode. I have another approach for actually turning those ideas into publications, but this is the main approach for processing notes into my index. There may be even more efficient ways to do this. The key I think is being able to process ideas into your vault as quickly as possible while still tagging and making connections to help with later retrieval of ideas. Since changing to this approach I’ve written a couple of book chapters with very little cognitive strain and I’m reading more than in the past (it’s addictive because every paper has the potential to be used to level up your knowledge base). Hope this is somewhat helpful to others. The evolution will undoubtedly continue. I know there are awesome examples of how to do all kinds of things in Obsidian but all I’m really aiming for is being more productive in my academic role. The rest is all interesting but additional to my main purpose for this wonderful app.

      Another great synopsis of useful tips in using Obsidian for research.

      The idea of using the general form ![[Smith, 2018#One-sentence summary of idea]] can be particularly powerful for aggregating smaller ideas up into a longer work.

    2. I’m an Australian academic in the field of education. I read the How to take smart notes book and a couple of Luhmann’s articles which were translated into English. I also would recommend looking at the writing of Andy Matuschak on how to label your notes, what to include in them, and so on. Here’s the process I’ve come up with (which continues to evolve): Initial highlighting: Read journal article via Zotero. Highlight the parts that are relevant to you using the default PDF viewer on your computer. Use Zotfile to extract the highlights (and any notes) in Zotero, then paste them into Obsidian in a new note. I have a template I copy and paste to start each new highlight note with relevant details like the author names, date of publication and so on before the highlights. Refine highlights: Look through your highlights from the article and use the Obsidian highlighting feature (==like this==) to pinpoint what’s valuable in each highlight. This makes it easier to complete the next step, particularly if it’s a long paper or you have to come back to it. Skip if necessary. Process highlights into literature notes: Summarise the highlights into your own words. Add any personal insights. Each literature note should relate to one idea. I do this directly above the highlight notes using bullet points and a L - for literature notes and a H - for highlight notes. Try to write the literature note as if it was part of a journal article. Add a label to each literature note: Above each literature note, I add a label, which should be the briefest possible summary of the literature note. Have this label inside double square brackets. Avoid labels like “Definition of X”. Instead, write “X is y and z”. Try to be specific. I mainly use the bracket links in this way. An example label might be [[E - X is y and z]]. I use E - because it will soon be an evergreen note. Add each label to an index: The index will be a long list of all your literature note labels. Categorise the labels in a logical manner. Create evergreen notes: Click the label (which is a link to a new note) and copy/paste the literature note text (which will be quite short) into this new evergreen note. Add connections to other notes categorised in the same place in your index plus any other relevant evergreen notes. Add relevant tags. The index may not be overly important in the long run, but it definitely helps at this point with connection making. I also add the reference details at the bottom of each evergreen note. Next it’s time to create your paper. 7a. (Top down approach) Create journal article outline: Create an outline for your article, chapter, application, or whatever you’re working on. You can make a quick template with the relevant stages of the genre (e.g. introduction, literature review, and so on). Then, drag relevant evergreen notes into the sections. You’ll need to massage the gaps between notes to make it cohesive. If you use a note, add a tag to say so. You’ll need to reword the note if you use it again in another paper to avoid self-plagiarism. 7b. (Bottom up approach) Add evergreen notes to papers: Instead of starting with a paper outline, you might look at your notes in the index and consider what kind of interesting questions they might help you answer, then build your paper from there. I hope someone out there finds all this useful. One of the best things I’ve done is create a note called master production line which includes these numbered steps as headings, and then I can add my highlight notes as they’re created and move them down the production line as they’re processed. I also organise them in certain steps (like 2 and 3) as high, medium and low priority. It means you never lose track of notes and there’s always something you could be working on. The bit I’m still figuring out is the last step: how to go from evergreen notes to paper drafts as efficiently as possible. I’m a little old fashioned, so I’ll probably so the final edit in Word once everything else is done in Obsidian. The multiple window support in Obsidian is great, but still a bit janky, and this method requires multiple windows to be open at a time. Hopefully a future update keeps the windows in the one spot.

      This is an excellent overview of how to take notes for academic research and creating writing output.

    3. Others on the page here (specifically Dpthomas87's A, B, C) have done a great job at outlining their methods which I'm generally following. So I'll focus a bit more on the mechanics.

      I rely pretty heavily on Hypothes.is for most of my note taking, highlights, and annotations. This works whether a paper is online or as a pdf I read online or store locally and annotate there.

      Then I use RSS to pipe my data from Hypothes.is into a text file in OneDrive for my Obsidian vault using IFTTT.com. I know that a few are writing code for the Hypothes.is API to port data directly into Roam Research presently; I hope others might do it for Obsidian as well.)

      Often at the end of the day or end of the week, I'll go through my drafts folder everything is in to review things, do some light formatting and add links, tags, or other meta data and links to related ideas.

      Using Hypothes.is helps me get material into the system pretty quickly without a lot of transcription (which doesn't help my memory or retention). And the end of the day or end of week review helps reinforce things as well as help to surface other connections.

      I'm hoping that as more people use Hypothesis for social annotation, the cross conversations will also be a source of more helpful cross-linking of ideas and thought.

      I prefer to keep my notes as atomic as I can.

      For some smaller self-contained things like lectures, I may keep a handful of notes together rather than splitting them apart, but they may be linked to larger structures like longer courses or topics of study.

      If an article only has one or two annotations I'll keep them together in the same note, but books more often have dozens or hundreds of notes which I keep in separate files.

      For those who don't have a clear idea of what or why they're doing this, I highly recommend reading [[Sönke Ahrens]]' book Smart Notes.

      I do have a handful of templates for books, articles, and zettels to help in prompting me to fill in appropriate meta data for various notes more quickly. For this I'm using the built-in Templates plug-in and then ctrl-shift-T to choose a specific template as necessary.

      Often I'll use Hypothes.is and tag things as #WantToRead to quickly bookmark things into my vault for later thought, reading, or processing.

      For online videos and lectures, I'll often dump YouTube URLs into https://docdrop.org/, which then gives a side by side transcript for more easily jumping around as well as annotating directly from the transcript if I choose.

      I prefer to use [[links]] over #tags for connecting information. Most of the tags I use tend to be for organizational or more personal purposes like #WantToRead which I later delete when done.

      When I run across interesting questions or topics that would make good papers or areas of future research I'll use a tag like #OpenQuestion, so when I'm bored I can look at a list of what I might like to work on next.

      Syndicated copies: https://forum.obsidian.md/t/research-phd-academics/1446/64?u=chrisaldrich