such as HTML, to produce multiple outputs like web content, PDFs, EPUBs,and XML. For an in-depth discussion, see my blog post (2023: https://www.robotscooking.com/single-source-publishing/
please talk to any HCI researcher or survey even 1% of the state of document rendering technology to understand why HTML-first is not a viable option and hasn't been since its initial development! You give a shoutout to curvenote! the information is right there!
Ironically
ChatGPT unironically does not understand what irony means
This narrative might find traction amongpolicymakers, institutions, and the public, framing preprints as problematic rather thanas a valuable part of the scholarly communication landscape
why is this paragraph framed as a hypothetical? this is in fact exactly what they are doing, and their marketing copy is abundant and easily available with a simple web search
eliberately maintaining a utilitarian aesthetic that avoids challenging thepolished appearance of journals
citation needed my dog! please talk to anyone that develops or maintains web tech, or anyone who has seen a CS professor's website!
This proximity facilitates thedirect sharing of original DOCX files, making it easier to convert preprints intointeractive and feature-rich presentations.
another ChatGPT gem: "because overlay journals are often run by peers of the researchers that would submit, they are uniquely able to share original DOCX files (???), which are then converted into interactive (???) and feature rich presentations (???)"
it's a thinker of an argument alright
whether PRC platforms could evolve to accept directsubmissions or deposits, thereby enhancing their independence from preprint servers?
simply not the problem. being an overlay platform is a choice that has literally nothing to do with whether or not it's possible to design a submission form and host static files
For instance, ChemRxiv publishes author-submitted PDFs directly, keeping costs low, while bioRxiv invests in convertingsubmissions into XML and HTML formats, incurring substantial expenses.
dying to know what this means. what are the costs you're talking about? developer time? maintenance costs? what are these substantial expenses in running a document rendering pipeline?
In this model, preprint servers act as thefoundation, with journals and other initiatives feeding from the same well (preprintservers) rather than competing against them
completely missing the history of eBiomed and PubMedCentral by asserting that this is Sever's idea
bioRxiv integrates tools like Hypothesis
Yet again, the lack of even basic work here is astonishing - try going to any bioRxiv page and find the hypothes.is integration. surprise! not there! More ChatGPT garbage - there are a ton of blog posts, grants, and etc. that assert that bioRxiv has hypothes.is because it was going to! but that effort was derailed through a process that wouldn't be in the primary text corpuses and actually requires doing research to dig up the history!
This "aesthetics of utility" approach parallels another well-known "cathedral versusbazaar" project: Wikipedia. Wikipedia also prioritized utility over the aesthetics ofauthority, dismantling the dominant cathedral of its time—Encyclopedia Britannica(amongest other
Again, this is a huge flag that no homework was done here. If you were to actually search for any of the absolutely enormous quantity of extremely well documented work that went into the design of the vector skin over it's 20 years you'd know how wrong this argument is. That's legwork in primary sources that should go into this argument (but wasn't done because ChatGPT is the magic oracle that allows someone to say whatever the heck sounds plausible), but it's also clear that no work was done to engage with any of the enormous volume of scholarly literature on wikipedia that problematizes the bottom-up narrative of its maintenance
Interestingly, some preprint servers, like those that convert PDFs intoXML for enriched presentation, could easily generate more polished and professional-looking PDFs,and they can all surely afford good web designers. However, theydeliberately choose to maintain a simpler presentation.
big flashing "citation needed" here - which preprint servers? surely not the open source ones, where the suggestion "surely they can afford good web designers" is strictly a joke. "Choosing to maintain a simpler presentation" to signal that FOSS infrastructure is utilitarian is pretty hilarious argument that is totally unrecognizable to any FOSS developer.
The aesthetics of arXiv further reinforce this strategy.
this argument about the aesthetics of publishing positioned at the beginning of the discussion of preprinting is surely a ChatGPT-inspired choice, because no human would start here. arXiv's aesthetics aren't some deep strategy, but reflect the longer tail of the history of web design, its origins in math/physics/CS and the aesthetic cultures of those disciplines, and the simple fact that arXiv doesn't have a web designer on staff.
Android
this is a pretty funny example to pick re: "the Bazaar has outperformed the Cathedral" if you know literally anything about FOSS culture or the history of Android lmao.
The Hero
the section with the grandparents across the street, fate of the gunman, directly into the [climax] is one of the funniest things i have seen
(3) effect a purpose expressly permitted under subsection (b).
affirmative protections rather than consent-based: you can only do what the obvious purpose of the product is or one of these 14 other purposes and nothing else.
(A) concise, clear, and conspicuous
wonder how this is enforced?
no more than 500 words in length
this is dope as hell. need to check on the enforcement mechanisms tho
can understand and download from the internet
this seems like a nice improvement on gdpr format requirements
notify any third party, or service provider to which the covered entity transferred such covered data of the individual’s deletion request
Deletion requests propagate?
anchors
like this one
Tycho Brahe was also very well known for his ‘golden nose’. During a duel over a mathematical formula in the dark with Manderup Parsberg, he lost parts of his nose,and rumors spread that he had used a prosthesis made of gold
cool af ngl
Publicly funded science is relatively unique as a labor system that does not strictly depend on profit.
I think this is the third or fourth time i say this, i think maybe once in introduction and then expand on this here, as this section is a little light
community collaborates across local clusters through a mix between regular virtual seminars and in-person meetings around the world.
wait so this is an MLM right
Futurepedia
HOLY SHIT THAT IS THE BACK TO THE FUTURE WIKI https://backtothefuture.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page
exponential science and technologies.
teleport me to next gen
The world is waking up to its exponential promise
i am losing my mind
Can you provide examples of people complaining that they can't find things on Wiki? Me.
user centric design
You just did it. You interrupted his point with a rebuttal in the middle of the page.
lmaoing thru the ages
I’ve been overruled.
i just love this
highlighted like this,
Hello! this is an annotation! i promise!
Here's a new page note!
ocietal impacts
I'm picking two types of impact: technological and social. we can make new, better tools and that will improve people's lives.
Speech is fundamental to human
This is sorta dumb, but you need to situate your experiments in their broader societal relevance. In this case it's just so obvious that speech is important that saying so is sorta awkward.
Computation in the brain is inherently dynamic, but models of dynamic computation are in their infancy
And intellectual merits can be speculative -- this isn't a direct impact of this work, but is facilitated by it.
Infant
I think it's a good idea for your intellectual merit section to address impact for your field and other fields as I do in (3) and (4) here.
I have successfully demonstrated that mice are capable of learning and generalizing consonant identityacross vowel contexts, speakers, and genders
One reason I highly recommend doing the GRF in your second year is because you then have the strong advantage of pilot data. Even though your proposal is competing against a more established set of applications, I think (without data) having some proof of feasibility goes a long way towards demonstrating that you can actually get this shit done. You need to balance the perception that you've already 'done the project' with just letting them know you're capable of it by suggesting some next step that you need to do with the project.
Two competing neurolinguistic theories
There are, of course, more ways of conceptualizing this problem, but by setting up this dichotomy I give a framework for what I will be evaluating with my experiments. It's not dishonest to limit the space of discussion to answer a specific question. Notice how much space this takes -- only spend this much space on ideas that are the absolute core of your proposal. I repeatedly return to these ideas throughout the aims and final sections. Another thing this framing does is make it so my experiments will yield interpretable results no matter the outcome - there is no 'failure' to these experiments.
Future Directions
An additional, more general 'future directions' lets you touch briefly what could have been a third aim: you don't need the complexity of an additional aim, instead you just need to show you have options and other directions to take your project.
Electrophysiologyand viral tracing are routine techniques in our lab.
you have to justify your ability to actually do any methods you introduce - if your lab has their own 2p, put that in here, etc.
Awake imaging during behavior gives two additionalexperimental tools
In the last Aim I elaborated on some future directions, in this one I'm demonstrating that I know how to get the most out of my experiments, think flexibly about the use of different data that I get from it, etc.
trials
Make sure to leave AT LEAST 3/4 page for your intellectual merit/broader impacts section. giving the perception that you're shortchanging these sections or phoning them makes your proposal DOA.
I will collaborate with Dr. Yashar Ahmadia
This collaboration hasn't worked out (yet!), but they are on my committee and do advise me on the project. You don't need to hew to every detail in your proposal - grad school is long and science takes a winding path.
standard meth
"standard methods" - I don't really like this, and these techniques are very very very far from the only ways to model this data, but I make a compromise for the reviewer between depth of detail that demonstrates expertise (see my comments below the pdf, I don't think this is a good strategy) and sparseness of detail that may raise questions by leaning on collaborators in the next sentence.
The discriminative model predictsinvariant patternsof temporalactivitywithin a region
I can make this claim shorthand here because of the time i spent preparing the conceptual/analytical framework in the introduction.
Because the two models make different predictions about the activity in a phoneme processing region, testing model predictions and identifying candidate regions will be a joint process.
Here I need to describe what are, in reality, pretty technical analytical methods. There's a lot of detail that I could present to make my analysis more specific, but you just don't have space for that. Note my very qualitative description of the two competing theories, and how I am reusing & extending the framework I set up in the introduction.
Dr. Kaori Idemaru, a phoneticianwho will aid in this process
Mention collaborators whenever possible, especially if you're going a multidisciplinary project. Saying that you're working with experts in different fields really adds to the perception of feasibility - the reviewer can have faith that you're in good hands, and are good with reaching out for help.
I will continue to validate the model by investigating the acoustic featuresmice use to discriminatephonemes, and compare these features to those used by humans
I think it's smart to keep your aims short and specific, and include any further experiments as brief 'future directions' at the bottom of the aim. Of course, the whole experiment includes these two 'future directions' but by doing this you can give your reviewer a sense of how you're thinking about the problem without spending the space actually describing all your experiments.
To our knowledge, this is the first time mice have been shown to be capable of learning phonetic categories, and,indeed,categoriesofnon-species-specific natural sounds in gen
Be explicit (but humble) about what makes your experiment dope. Would yours be the first experiment to measure something? say that.
nly a slightloss in accuracy
If you are describing results, you do not need to actually present numbers. This isn't a paper for peer review, you just need to have your reviewers understand what it is that you're doing. Notice how I don't describe the experiment at all (what kind of task? how were they trained?)
to “fill i
Specifically colloquial "scare quotes" phrases can save a lot of space/confusion by replacing some jargon term with something understandable to a nonscientist/nonspecialist
Aim1
By giving the short description of the aims in the line above, I don't need to repeat them here.
im 1:Establish mice as amodelfor speech perception. Aim 2:Identifycandidate cortical regions and processing mechanisms with widefieldcalcium imaging.
This is a little cramped, so if you had an extra line I would split these out
Thesemodels however, like all neurocomputational models of speech perception, are unconstrainedby neurobiological data
Make a specific statement of empirical need: what is it exactly that we don't know about the question that you introduced at the top of the paragraph. the following sentence should tell the reviewer how you plan to answer that: ie. the one-sentence summary of your proposal.
Coarticulation
pick 1-2 jargon words (at the absolute max 3) if they are necessary for your proposal. explain them early, and use them consistently (ie. don't use both the expanded form of an abbreviation and the abbreviation).
For example
Examples are worth a thousand words. Taking the extra time here to give the reviewer something concrete to return to is very worth preventing the question from becoming muddled.
We hear spoken words as a series of discrete sounds, or phonemes.Yet speech is continuous, andthe articulatory maneuvers required to produceone phonemepowerfully influence those needed to produce the next –they are “coarticulated.”
You want to start by clearly presenting an open scientific question. Your reader should leave the first few sentences knowing exactly what it is that you propose to study. one common way is to present a dilemma/contradiction that motivates your project.
1. Kluender KR, et al.Vowel Inherent Spectral Change (2013), pp.117-151.
You shouldn't use more than ~4-5 sources. I know it's the habit to be cited to the bone, but this isn't the venue for that. I recommend reducing the font size to 10, using numbered citations in the document, and then use this abbreviated citation style: "Last, first, et al. <bold>journal abbreviation</bold>. (year) volume(issue):pages
Project Descriptio
Don't waste space on whitespace, but keep your proposal readable. Double check on the formatting slack they they give you, but head your sections with bold, indented text but don't break the line afterwards. Give a few spaces or a colon and head into the paragraph
1)
Don't be shy about numbering arguments in-paragraph, especially in the intellectual merit section. Listing several ideas in sequence makes your writing feel 'blippy' - moving too abruptly. By explicitly offsetting with numbers you implicitly prepare your reader for rapid topic switches. They also take up less space than "this, next, then, last, etc."
I propose to developphonetic discrimination in mice as a model for speech perception. I will thendirectly testthe predictions made by competing neurolinguisticmodels
End your introduction with a one-sentence description of your project. Use italics to make in-paragraph text easy for your reviewer to pick out.
Introduction
Space allocation - 1/3 page intro: you aren't writing an introduction that gets your reader knee-deep in the depth of your project. You want to give them just enough information to motivate your experiment without getting them bogged down in the details. This is easy to overdo - in general if you need more room than this than you aren't writing generally enough.