Interdisciplinary Models: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Interdisciplinary Models (view source)

Revision as of 16:25, 13 November 2022

5,039 bytes added , 16:25, 13 November 2022

no edit summary

Ml-evs

23

edits

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 Disciplines have different reductionist traditions, what is the well-defined focus of study. Is this the substrate that enables cross disciplinary data engagement?
-Where do people gather to have these conversations? What are the communities of practice, publication venues to share knowledge about working across the disciplines? Where do these happen within disciplines and where is the meta-science narrative developing?
+Where do people gather to have these conversations? What are the communities of practice, publication venues to share knowledge about working across the disciplines? Where do these happen within disciplines and where is the meta-science narrative developing? Historically in e-science-like funding; especially international laboratories
-Open notebook science -- show the world as you are doing it, make connections on the day of publication. Very well defined strategy with templates. http://opensourcemalaria.org/
+Open notebook science  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-notebook_science<nowiki/>-- show the world as you are doing it, make connections on the day of publication. Very well defined strategy with templates. http://opensourcemalaria.org/
 Bold vision of what is possible, e.g. automated recombination & discovery:  https://materialsproject.org, https://materialsproject.github.io/fireworks/ - would also like to plug OPTIMADE here, which is then unifying datasets between several endeavors in this field
@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 Analogy between web frameworks/OSS: emerging from many hands working towards similar problems
-Gift economy of software applied to data? Frictionless data as an example
+Gift economy of software applied to data? Frictionless data as an example https://frictionlessdata.io/
 Collectivization as a model -- being able to push upstream to graphs at different scales
 Incentivizing collectivization
+'''Ellie + Leo thoughts during break -'''
+Seems like there is a three fold problem,
+- easy to share data/info
+- easy to use data/info
+- easy to cite data/info
+Right now - none of this is free. It takes so much time to actually find all the weight of evidence, and to connect all the data. And also,.. the finantialization model which attempts to make this 'incentivized' at a greater scale seems relatively meh? Unless the returns are pretty big, I feel like I am much more likely to be lazy than to care about a few extra ETH. In addition, just thinking about reputation networks feels like it should/would ened to be more connected to your actual community in which you had established systems of practice.
+Infrastructure -> Make an overleaf that automatically brings in citations? How do we sync GPT into this?
+What is an equivalent of GPT for data? Where you want to look for specific DATA - you aren't concerned initially with the original questions asked to the pieces of data.
+SUPER cool project we should talk about -> DeSci Labs.
 '''Identifying key questions:'''
@@ Line 75: / Line 95: @@
 - What are the differences between (ontological, socio-political, economical) domains that lend themselves to different solutions?
-- Extending the concept of "discipline" to e.g., cataloguing human infrastructure (cities, roads etc), "Discipline as a search across a reasonably well defined search space"
+- Extending the concept of "discipline" to e.g., cataloguing human infrastructure (cities, roads etc), "Discipline as a search across a reasonably well defined search space". Possible with a small number of disciplines (e.g. medicinal plant chemistry needs three domains - all with good ontologies)
 - Alignment of primitives --- example of plants in expressed different locales and the effect on local climate
 - 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 100: / Line 123: @@
 - Lowering initial costs
-- Designing work such that it can contribute upstream
+- Designing work such that it can contribute upstream to a "practice"
 - Differences in solutions by scientific disciplines, mechanisms of production, budgets, motivations and governance
@@ Line 107: / Line 130: @@
 - Synergies with other groups: interfaces, graphs, social systems
+- 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.