There you have it:
"Together, these dynamics suppress replication and cumulative verification, distort the visible scientific record, and misdirect expert attention away from epistemically stabilizing review."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41073-026-00193-3
"While economists pride themselves on the robustness of their seminars, what actually matters is publication in just five journals. The editors have immense power. Peer review is closed and anonymous. Virtually nothing is ever retracted. Post-publication peer review is minimal. Instead, my experience suggests that there is a culture of not publicly criticizing anything that has been published. If you do, you are viewed as too aggressive, possibly due to some kind of personality defect. Meanwhile, the original authors can use their right to reply for deflection and ad hominem attacks. The fear of upsetting one’s superiors is palpable.
The machines will perhaps bring about some changes. They are massively useful for replication. Without asking a robot to explain it to me repeatedly as if I were a five-year-old, I never would have understood the SCM or Borusyak et al.’s critique of Autor et al.; I never would have done all the coding my replications required; I never would have been able to search for errors in German-language source materials. The cost of doing replication studies has dropped dramatically, even if the institutions and the culture of economics are still hostile to them. Perhaps the system will catch up.
Ultimately, however, human experts are still needed to determine the truth. "
https://thepoorrichworld.substack.com/p/reflections-on-my-adventures-in-replication
#Economics #SocialSciences #Replication #PeerReview #AcademicPublishing
🧵 n/n 👀 see thread, above
Mistral small 3, via duck.ai / #duckduckgo seems to produce similarly useful results.
ZFS compression seems to be a localhost kinda matter, regardless of the role of localhost in the network - zfs set compression on ALL the localhosts, i guess! 😉
🧵 2/n this is actually rather undesirable, because tank on elitedesk is a spinning HDD mirror, which would greatly benefit from writing compressed data!
Oof, re-writing 900+GB will take a while, but i think it'll be worth it, @allanjude.
I think i'll have to create the backup DS, then SET compression (perhaps on its parent?), and THEN replicate.
EDIT: would -w/-W RAW help? It's not encrypted, but would it help?
🔄 Tiny, 45 base long RNA can make copies of itself
Beyond the p Value: Reform Spreads Across the World and Across Disciplines
...as evidenced by this article from Brazil, which I'm delighted to see:
The article's header
I salute Karen Grimmer, JECP co-editor, for publishing it,
#statstab #498 FReD Annotator:
Thoughts: "Check among citations whether one of the cited studies has been replicated" cool tool.
#OpenScience #replication #integrity #metascience #reproducibility #tool
RE: https://fediscience.org/@ElenLeFoll/116125026386496584
TODAY at 10 am CET! ⬇️ DM or e-mail me if you'd like the link last-minute 😉
#OpenScience #reproducibility #replication #reproducibiliTea
My first solo-authored publication just appeared in *Linguistic Typology*: "The over-representation of phonological features in basic vocabulary doesn’t replicate when controlling for spatial and phylogenetic effects"
Running a #Bayesian model with #Lexibank data, I show that most previously observed effects that have been claimed to be sound symbolism do **not** replicate. A handful of effects emerges as highly stable though, mostly related to body-parts and the pronominal system.
The statistical over-representation of certain phonological features in the basic vocabulary of languages is often interpreted as reflecting potentially universal sound symbolic patterns. However, most of these cases have not been tested explicitly for reproducibility and might be prone to biases in the study samples or models. Many studies on the topic do not adequately control for genealogical and areal dependencies between sampled languages, casting doubts on the robustness of the results. In this study, I test the robustness of a recent study on sound symbolism in basic vocabulary concepts which analyzed 245 languages. This paper adds a new sample of 2,864 languages from Lexibank. I modify the original model by adding statistical controls for spatial and phylogenetic dependencies between languages. The new results show that most of the previously observed patterns are not robust, and in fact many patterns disappear completely when adding the genealogical and areal controls. A small number of patterns, however, emerges as highly stable even with the new sample. Through the new analysis, it is possible to assess the distribution of sound symbolism on a larger scale than previously. The study further highlights the need for testing all universal claims on language for robustness on various levels.
CRDTs replicate data so edits merge cleanly without conflicts.
Björn Brembs
Miguel Afonso Caetano
Multi Purr Puss 
Paul Houle
TheNewStats
Dr Mircea Zloteanu 🌺🌞🍃
Elen Le Foll 🇫🇷 🇬🇧 🇩🇪
Frederic Blum
Stephen Blum