for - key insight - multicellularity - memory wiping

• key insight
  • individuals have information in their memories about survival
  • when they merge and join, they pool their information and you can't tell whose memories came from whom initially
  • this memory wiping is a key aspect of multcellularity

investigate - salience of memory wiping for multicellularity - This is a very important biological behavior. - Perform a literature review to understand examples of this

question - biological memory wiping - can it be extrapolated to social superorganism?

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1601640985858957312.html

Example of a literature review/research workflow using online repositories (like Google Scholar, Scopus, Clarivate, etc.), Zotero, Research Rabbit, and Obsidian.

https://www.explainpaper.com/

Another in a growing line of research tools for processing and making sense of research literature including Research Rabbit, Connected Papers, Semantic Scholar, etc.

Functionality includes the ability to highlight sections of research papers with natural language processing to explain what those sections mean. There's also a "chat" that allows you to ask questions about the paper which will attempt to return reasonable answers, which is an artificial intelligence sort of means of having an artificial "conversation with the text".

cc: @dwhly @remikalir @jeremydean

https://www.researchrabbit.ai/

Research on social annotation

https://www.rayyan.ai/

Agarwal, Pooja K., Ludmila D. Nunes, and Janell R. Blunt. “Retrieval Practice Consistently Benefits Student Learning: A Systematic Review of Applied Research in Schools and Classrooms.” Educational Psychology Review 33, no. 4 (December 1, 2021): 1409–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09595-9

Yolanda Gibb: How a mindset of Ambidextrous Creativity can get you generating AND exploiting your ideas?

https://lu.ma/poo355tg

Ambidextrous creativity is having a balance between exploration and subsequent exploitation of those explorations.

Small companies and individuals are good at exploration, but often less good at exploitation.

Triple loop learning<br /> this would visually form a spiral (versus overlap)<br /> - Single loop learning: doing things right (correcting mistakes)<br /> - double loop learning: doing the right things (causality)<br /> - triple loop learning: why these systems and processes (learning to learn)

Assets<br /> Relational capital * Structural capital - pkm is part of this<br /> there's value in a well structured PKM for a particualr thing as it's been used and tested over time; this is one of the issues with LYT or Second Brain (PARA, et al.) how well-tested are these? How well designed?<br /> * Structural capital is the part that stays at the office when all the people have gone home * Human Capital

Eleanor Konik

4 Es of cognition<br /> * embodied * embedded * enacted * extended<br /> by way of extra-cranial processes

see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7250653/

Yolanda Gibb's book<br /> Entrepreneurship, Neurodiversity & Gender: Exploring Opportunities for Enterprise and Self-employment As Pathways to Fulfilling Lives https://www.amazon.com/Entrepreneurship-Neurodiversity-Gender-Opportunities-Self-employment/dp/1800430582

Tools: - Ryyan - for literature searches - NVIVO - Obsidian - many others including getting out into one's environment

NVIVO<br /> https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home

a software program used for qualitative and mixed-methods research. Specifically, it is used for the analysis of unstructured text, audio, video, and image data, including (but not limited to) interviews, focus groups, surveys, social media, and journal articles.

Ryyan<br /> https://www.rayyan.ai/<br /> for organizing, managing, and accelerating collaborative literature reviews

https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/1348/phd-student-reporting-what-its-like-to-use-a-zettelkasten-for-the-first-time-with-my-classes/#Comment_16315

https://www.becktench.com/blog/2018/11/12/using-zettelkasten-and-tinderbox-to-document-a-literature-review

I was reminded of this via Dan Allosso's mention of it in https://vimeo.com/729407073. Tench's mention of it in the Tinderbox space was what brought him to the idea of zettelkasten in his own work.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02346-4

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02346-4

Oddly this article doesn't cover academia.edu but includes ResearchGate which has a content-sharing partnership with the publisher SpringerNature.

Matthews, D. (2021). Drowning in the literature? These smart software tools can help. Nature, 597(7874), 141–142. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02346-4

Research Rabbit is a search engine for academic research that was launched in August of 2021 and bills itself as "Spotify for papers." It uses artificial intelligence to recommend related papers to researchers and updates those recommendations based on the contents of one's growing corpus of interest.

Semantic Scholar is a digital tool created by the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence in Seattle, Washington in 2015. It's corpus is publicly available for search and is used by other tools including Connected Papers.

Open Knowledge Maps uses the open-source Bielefeld Academic Search Engine and in 2021 indicated that it covers 270 million documents including preprints. Open Knowledge Maps also curates its index to remove spam.

How much spam is included in the journal article space? I've heard of incredibly low quality and poorly edited journals, so filtering those out may be fairly easy to do, but are there smaller levels of individual spam below that?

Google Scholar was estimated to cover 400 million articles in 2019. It's acknowledged to be the largest research corpus, but the company doesn't publicly publish the size of its database.

Scopus primarily covers regularly published journals with ISSN numbers and began including preprints in 2021, while Google Scholar has a broader net that also includes theses, dissertations, preprints, and books.

Anecdotal evidence indicates that manual human curation as evinced by Twitter front runs Google Scholar by a few days.

https://openknowledgemaps.org/

Open Knowledge maps is a visual literature search tool that is based on keywords rather than on a paper's title, author, or DOI. The service was founded in 2015 by Peter Kraker, a former scholarly communication researcher at Graz University of Technology.

Mullins, M. (2021, November 1). Opinion: The Problem with Preprints. The Scientist Magazine®. https://www.the-scientist.com/critic-at-large/opinion-the-problem-with-preprints-69309

https://kimberlyhirsh.com/2018/06/29/a-starttofinish-literature.html

Great overview of a literature review with some useful looking links to more specifics on note taking methods.

Most of the newer note taking tools like Roam Research, Obsidian, etc. were not available or out when she wrote this. I'm curious how these may have changed or modified her perspective versus some of the other catch-as-catch-can methods with pen/paper/index cards/digital apps?

Calibre isn't a bad tool/application for doing this for a variety of document types and managing meta data

https://kimberlyhirsh.com/2019/04/01/dissertating-in-the.html

A description of some of Kimiberly Hirsh's workflow in keeping a public research notebook (or commonplace book).

I'd be curious to know what type of readership and response she's gotten from this work in the past. For some it'll bet it's possibly too niche for a lot of direct feedback, but some pieces may be more interesting than others.

Did it help her organize her thoughts and reuse the material later on?

Evans, T. R., Branney, P., Clements, A., & Hatton, E. (2021). Preregistration of Applied Research for Evidence-Based Practice [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/snj2d

Table 1 - Literature Review looks at empirical, conceptual, and total number of articles

This is a pretty solid overview of a literature review workflow. He doesn't use the words, but this is not a half bad way to build a digital commonplace book or digital garden/personal wiki for research use.

I hadn't thought about using Grav as the method for storing and displaying all of it, but perhaps it's worth looking into?

COVID research updates: Coronavirus antibodies last for months — if you have them. (2021). Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00502-w

Kozlowski, Diego, Jennifer Dusdal, Jun Pang, and Andreas Zilian. ‘Semantic and Relational Spaces in Science of Science: Deep Learning Models for Article Vectorisation’. ArXiv:2011.02887 [Physics], 5 November 2020. http://arxiv.org/abs/2011.02887.

Landoni, M., & Chiara, I. (2020). IPV and COVID-19: A systematic review of the literature. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/nqgbx

I learnt a lot from this article's structure for introduction. The author started with the difference between stressed and unstressed vowel, and transitioned to the explanation of schwa's articulatory features, and to the phonological environments schwas occur.

Soderberg, C. K., Errington, T., Schiavone, S. R., Bottesini, J. G., Thorn, F. S., Vazire, S., Esterling, K. M., & Nosek, B. A. (2020). Research Quality of Registered Reports Compared to the Traditional Publishing Model. MetaArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/7x9vy

lit review

A Literature Review of the Economics of COVID-19. COVID-19 and the Labor Market. (n.d.). IZA – Institute of Labor Economics. Retrieved July 31, 2020, from https://covid-19.iza.org/publications/dp13411/

Rahvy, A., & Ridlo, I. A. (2020). A Timeline Response: How Does Islamic Organizations Respond to COVID-19 in Indonesia? https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/kzhy9

Oxford COVID-19 study: Face masks and coverings work – act now | University of Oxford. (n.d.). Retrieved 27 July 2020, from https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-08-oxford-covid-19-study-face-masks-and-coverings-work-act-now

This article seeks to synthesize an undefined number of scholarly articles related to the integration of technology in higher educational settings in order to present gaps that need additional research. The recommendations are for instructors to move beyond a course that focuses on content and to create a balanced approach that also includes consideration of technology and pedagogical theories. Although the article lists an extremely generic opportunity for continued research, it lacks any specific recommendations for what they found lacking in their literature review and does not adequately move the conversation forward. Ranking: 3/10

This reading is to help you better understand the role and importance of literature review. Literature review connects us to a bigger community of scientists who study the same research topic, and helps us build up, illustrate, and develop our theory (what is happening between the IV and the DV?) and research design (how one plans to answer the RQ).

Introduction is a bit longer summary of the entire paper. This is where researchers describe and justify their research questions and briefly discuss what is to come. Typically, introduction is about 500 -- 1000 words.

Please identify and highlight a research question(s).

May 31: Lecture 6 / Screencast Video Link

Literature Review

I have reviewed many papers and I summarized those papers in my paper in the form of a table which is already an existing theory . So how can I defend that my paper is different from other papers?

Seems like this would be helpful for any grad student?

This is relevant.