Open notebook science is a gathering movement across a number of fields to make the entire research process transparent by sharing materials online as they are generated.
The idea of transparency aligns with my goal of including a digital dataset without over-claiming, adding onto a previous annotation I made, I believe I should continue with the idea of creating a secondary journal to log my processes and potential failures.
Merely making material available online - however well intentioned - is not sufficient to democratize learning or to give actual access.
Adding onto this quote and relating it to my project if I share my results on a small webpage, accessibility matters (headings) so those who do not specialize in my specific topic can understand my evidence about incubation, substances and cures.
Excel is a black box. When we use it, we have to take on faith that its statistics do what they say they are doing
If I do my dataset only in a spreadsheet, it doesn't show or record the steps I made to create my "incubation + Inscription + cure" accounts. I think it's necessary to keep a secondary journal to log the processes I took.
These may be characterised as 'cognitive artefacts': human-made physical objects that we employ as a means of assisting us in performing a cognitive task, and which are able to represent, store, retrieve, and manipulate information
The dataset i'm created is itself a "cognitive artefact". It represents the Iamata in a particular way, that means that I must show how I moved from inscription text to tags, so that readers can evaluate my choices, meaning that I should add a little "from text to tag" example for one inscription to demonstrate my tagging logic.
Such cognitive artefacts may operate in different ways and using different functions such that they complement human cognition – in effect they extend what the human mind can do, rather than replicate it.
Scripts can quickly promote patterns like in my case "sleep-vision + wine/ointment," but historical judgement still decides if a line really describes a medicinal step made or just a metaphor.
Similarly, the pages of the annual Computer Applications in Archaeology conference proceedings are filled with accounts of applications and case studies of their use, but examples of failure are rare, not least because the incentives for authors and publishers to report successes are naturally greater.
Publishing only wins hides where tagging or counts break, this quote signals to me that I also have to show cases that failed to build trust to the conclusions I make. I will have to add a tiny "case failure" box/paragraph if for example, inscriptions where incubation is present but no drug is.)
Of course, while the process of measurement may be objective, its value and effectiveness relies on appropriate use and application which often remains dependent on the human component.
A perfect frequency count of "poppy + wine" can still mislead if my definitions are off or translations vary, meaning that in regards to the quote interpretation still remains human. This means for my assignment I'll have to include a "limitations" paragraph that pulls together translations choices or overlapping rituals vs medicinal language.
As survey instrumentation becomes digital and increasingly automated, so the level of human engagement changes: the cognitive load is transferred to the digital device while the survey strategy and (for now) the physical assembly and setup of the instrumentation remains on the human side of the relationship.
Sometimes point and click spreadsheets can feel effortless, but they sometimes hide certain steps. This means for the dataset for my project I need to keep it relatively short and keep readable notes so that it's easy to follow how the linkages work between Incubation, substances, and cures at the Sanctuary of Asklepius at Epidaurus