982
edits
Konrad Hinsen: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Participant | {{Participant | ||
|Timezone=CET (GMT+01:00/GMT+02:00) | |Timezone=CET (GMT+01:00/GMT+02:00) | ||
|Homepage=http://khinsen.net/, https://science-in-the-digital-era.khinsen.net/ | |||
|Affiliation=CNRS | |Affiliation=CNRS | ||
|Projects=Leibniz | |Projects=Leibniz | ||
|Table Assignment=Table 1 | |Table Assignment=Table 1 | ||
}} | |ORCID=0000-0003-0330-9428 | ||
|Twitter=khinsen | |||
|Fediverse=https://scholar.social/@khinsen | |||
|Github=khinsen | |||
}} | |||
{{Workshop Submission | {{Workshop Submission | ||
|Interest=Ever since I started doing computational biophysics research 25 years ago, I have been unhappy with the state of the art in dealing with complex computational models. Then and still now, they are represented in two unconnected forms: a narrative providing the scientific background and a summary, and an optimized (and hence unreadable) piece of simulation software the embeds the model. The narrative is usually subject to peer review, but review has to remain superficial in the absence of the complete model. The software source code usually undergoes no independent evaluation because that's far too much effort to ask from a reviewer. For the potential user of the model, there is a version they can run but not understand, and a summary that they can understand but not compare to what they are running. Given the increasing importance of computational models in many fields of science, that's a problem. Scientific models ought to take center stage in scientific debate, but this is currently not possible. | |Interest=Ever since I started doing computational biophysics research 25 years ago, I have been unhappy with the state of the art in dealing with complex computational models. Then and still now, they are represented in two unconnected forms: a narrative providing the scientific background and a summary, and an optimized (and hence unreadable) piece of simulation software the embeds the model. The narrative is usually subject to peer review, but review has to remain superficial in the absence of the complete model. The software source code usually undergoes no independent evaluation because that's far too much effort to ask from a reviewer. For the potential user of the model, there is a version they can run but not understand, and a summary that they can understand but not compare to what they are running. Given the increasing importance of computational models in many fields of science, that's a problem. Scientific models ought to take center stage in scientific debate, but this is currently not possible. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 18: | ||
Although my current prototype is a single-user environment, the long-term objective is a collaborative computational medium for scientific models. My main inspiration for this aspect is the consensus-enabling structure of Federated Wiki, but I really hope to learn more about this problem space from other participants of the workshop. | Although my current prototype is a single-user environment, the long-term objective is a collaborative computational medium for scientific models. My main inspiration for this aspect is the consensus-enabling structure of Federated Wiki, but I really hope to learn more about this problem space from other participants of the workshop. | ||
|Frame=Practitioner, Tool-builder | |||
|Materials="Computational science: shifting the focus from tools to models" https://f1000research.com/articles/3-101/v2 | |Materials="Computational science: shifting the focus from tools to models" https://f1000research.com/articles/3-101/v2 | ||
An in-detail explanation of the problem, with an outline of a solution, written in 2014 before I actually started working on my prototypes. | An in-detail explanation of the problem, with an outline of a solution, written in 2014 before I actually started working on my prototypes. | ||
| Line 29: | Line 35: | ||
And, of course, the code: https://github.com/khinsen/leibniz-pharo | And, of course, the code: https://github.com/khinsen/leibniz-pharo | ||
|Organizer Topics=Research Data, Reproducibility, Federation | |Organizer Topics=Research Data, Reproducibility, Federation, Gradual Enrichment, Documents, Wikis, Knowledge Graphs, Transdisciplinarity, Scientific Publishing | ||
}} | }} | ||