Interdisciplinary Models: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Interdisciplinary Models (view source)

Revision as of 16:25, 13 November 2022

3,636 bytes added , 16:25, 13 November 2022

no edit summary

Ml-evs

23

edits

@@ Line 100: / Line 100: @@
 - Aligning communities of practice with a wider goal?
+- Innovation in seeing interdisciplinarity "downstack" (ie not in the front-line science/research, but in the tools that groups use).  See that collaboration as also interdisciplinary.
@@ Line 129: / Line 132: @@
 - Didn't really mention papers once!
+>>> DAY #2 RUNNING
+.) STRUCTURE & USE
+IPCC -> claims in obsidian
+beyond info architecture
+holy scripture available for the masses
+find new connections
+index
+venues
+women for open climate
+NAS reports
+oil exploration & production
+well logs
+.) MOTIVATION
+indisciplinary doing primary science together
+infrastructure vs. primary science
+front line science vs. backstage
+FAIR, need joint infrastructure
+pushing upstream
+data accessibility
+desci / halogen
+community structure, customizable, constrained
+paper replication
+synthesis study <<< STILL CAN STUDY THIS
+karen baker not just PIs, get right level on team
+edge researchers do the actual work core business doesn't care about
+funding on topics PIS don't care about
+MIT look-it, psychology
+.) INFRASTRUCTURE
+research external to academica
+crowdsourced science, what happend to that?
+Infrastrucutre
+research librarian / career path / dev
+infrastructure -- machine shop, glassblowers, super computer centers
+Pooled resources
+The SW people
+eSci UK - roles $ sw sustainability institutes
+"when infrastructure becomes a research project itself vs. a resource for community often drifts off"
+The GRID - Physics
+Libraries - pandisciplinarity
+Not aware of "embedded librarian" as a thing.
+Domain scientist expertise =/= meta data
+Platform emergence - core & tipping
+Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2008). How companies become platform leaders. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(28).
+Too wide a view,
+Need one person in each department that understands and can translate that discipline, and something networking them together
+.) MOTIVATION - FUTURE SELVES
+Motivation for FLOSS, reduce the maintenance cost now for anticipated future work
+What is it for open science?
+Mark up our grant proposals, future reuse
+Semantic bibliography
+This was the first half of that project - https://abstract-poetry.fly.dev/bibliography it related various references to each other so you could see the global narrative. We never built out the ability to annotate each of the papers and how the related to the paper, or to add papers necessarily. (We have a more exploratory /searchy version of this at abstract-poetry.fly.dev/search which can more document a search process.
+Tremendous value vision, sustainable overhead?
+Finding the right structure
+Matthew's answers to our draft questions:
+- Research Data Alliance (RDA), Materials Research Data Alliance (MaRDA), workshops
+-Taking interdisciplinary in a very narrow sense, an example to bridge gaps between existing materials databases is OPTIMADE. We spent 5 years devising a common API format between 15 or so existing crystal structure databases, primarily of competitors, and with varying uptake. Should now be possible for anyone, to create a database and join the federation, e.g., a new project just tripeld the number of structures available. Each database has different slants even if the quanta of data shared is common. Unclear if this is socially sustainable. Hinged on developing a lightweight federation with "shoddy" infrastructure on top of a relatively API format.
+- Specific example: as this data is machine-actionable, new software projects can now query all known materials, potentially significantly accelerating materials discovery. New databases can trivially join the federation, and previously "dead" data can be brought back to life by adding an API on top of it. Automated labs can exchange information.