Профиль

Also bsky.app/profile/mari...

Thanks for the tag @ronentk.me. @rafmbatista.bsky.social would love to chat if you are here :)

This week I am @ic2s2.bsky.social in Burlington, Vermont. I will be presenting our work @ischool.uw.edu on detection of AI mediation in scientific software as a parallel talk, as well as our work on red-teaming AI models using speculative "silly" tasks as a poster. Come say /hi! #IC2S2 #CSS

What if paper reading and reviewing was interactive and visual? Tools today assume a very passive way of engaging with a paper: you open a PDF and read linearly, top to bottom. But most of us already break that assumption: results first, figures before text, abstract then conclusion. 🧵 #scisci

1/ Lots of thoughts about the new White House science and tech policy report, meanwhile just a few quick notes (I only skimmed it so far but plan to read through it)

Lol!!

Yayy!!! This is Super cool!

Some other interesting initiatives/tools I encountered recently around paper reading and sensemaking. 1. papiers.ai 2. www.connectedpapers.com 3. chromewebstore.google.com/detail/googl... 4. Graphical abstracts: www.elsevier.com/researcher/a...

Btw, the paper used as example here is our recent paper "Are Widely Known Findings Easier to Retract?" now published in @philscijournal.bsky.social Check it out here: www.cambridge.org/core/journal... bsky.app/profile/cail...

But it feels worth brainstorming what the scientific processes would look like if the ways of "doing of science" were not so deeply entrenched, and if we were actively building other useful experiences of doing things. "What ifs" are good mental exercises. Is there any/more work in this area?

I am not quite sure if this is the right way of thinking about it. Maybe the interactiveness/meta-visuals help. Maybe it just slows people down. Maybe its solving a problem that doesn't exist, or maybe the PDF/linear reading is just so deeply entrenched that nothing will move it.

Third is about reviewing. Is the claim sized right for the evidence? What else could explain this finding? Does the measure actually capture the construct? Connect the claims, interpretations with evidence based on strength. (minimal interaction)

You could look at the diversity of sources based on time, interdisciplinarity, popularity, and so on. What is paper built on. Does it have diverse/interdisciplinary grounding. Is it built on foundational work. Are the load bearing references peer reviewed/certified/popular/foundational.

Second is contextualizing. A citation garden. What if you could see the reference ecosystem spatially? Every reference as a plant: shape shows its function, size shows how load-bearing it is, root depth shows how old the work is. With quick glance at the abstract/summary of each cited paper.

First is related to comprehension. What if you could skim a paper like Semantic Reader already provides a way to, but more interactively like mark the stops as clear/unclear/ and so on. Follow Argument like a trail.

Some of the work around creating better tools for contextualizing papers is coming soon in collaboration w/ @tianmai.bsky.social .. so more on that later. But I've been playing(/vibe-coding) with some of these ideas as a creative (not research as of now) project.

Recently, I have been thinking about how we can build things/infrastructure for future of science, .. employ speculation in (meta)science. Been thinking of -other- ways to engage with papers and surrounding context, and how/if AI can mediate some of those new experiences. bsky.app/profile/shah...

Figures in the paper help understand the findings, but not the paper itself. What if we had meta-figures? And visual abstracts? Or interactive visualizations that help understand the paper itself a little bit differently, and a little bit more than what linear reading would provide.

We know how to make reading visual, spatial, interactive: games, exhibits, graphic novels all do it. But we haven't quite applied this concept to academic papers. Perhaps the assumption has been: serious content requires passive, linear reading. What if that assumption is wrong?

What if paper reading and reviewing was interactive and visual? Tools today assume a very passive way of engaging with a paper: you open a PDF and read linearly, top to bottom. But most of us already break that assumption: results first, figures before text, abstract then conclusion. 🧵 #scisci