I love the whole series. It gave me very often something to laugh, something to relate to or the feeling of not being alone during my PhD time. We printed some of the most witty comics, cut them out and pinned them to our office door. They always made us feel better.
a FYI: a paper with data set, on where most of the distortion occurs, and what: D Wright, J Pei, D Jurgens, I Augenstein. Modeling Information Change in Science Communication with Semantically Matched Paraphrases. EMNLP’22 http://www.copenlu.com/publication/2022_emnlp_wright/. More in popsci article->tweet. The type of distortion: “Journalists tend to downplay the certainty and strength of findings from abstracts” and “limitations are more likely to be exaggerated and overstated”.
Bovista
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •BmanNYC
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Future Sprog
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Close enough! Publish it!
Statistically Human
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •fmc01
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •KatLS
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Princess Kitty 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •David Martinez
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Michael Hill
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Susa
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Thomas
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Carl
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Alexander MacInnis
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Unfortunately, even some scientists conflate correlation with causation.
Maria Keet
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Modeling Information Change in Science Communication with Semantically Matched Paraphrases | CopeNLU
CopeNLULittles 😈 Verified by the Boss
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •