diff --git a/_index.db b/_index.db index ac06bd930..639ea03d7 100644 Binary files a/_index.db and b/_index.db differ diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicate_(biology)-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicate_(biology)-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..fd1c06352 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicate_(biology)-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +--- +title: "Replicate (biology)" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicate_(biology)" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:02.062475+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +In the biological sciences, replicates are an experimental units that are treated identically. Replicates are an essential component of experimental design because they provide an estimate of between sample error. Without replicates, scientists are unable to assess whether observed treatment effects are due to the experimental manipulation or due to random error. There are also analytical replicates which is when an exact copy of a sample is analyzed, such as a cell, organism or molecule, using exactly the same procedure. This is done in order to check for analytical error. In the absence of this type of error replicates should yield the same result. However, analytical replicates are not independent and cannot be used in tests of the hypothesis because they are still the same sample. + + +== See also == +Self-replication +Fold change + + +== References == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-0.md index 49a0f7c76..da3d62ef7 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-0.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-0.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/15 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:14:49.088981+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:03.520061+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-1.md index b7b736144..098766215 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-1.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-1.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/15 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:14:49.088981+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:03.520061+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-10.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-10.md index d3a9b4a20..a69450f4e 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-10.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-10.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 11/15 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:14:49.088981+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:03.520061+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-11.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-11.md index 91dd6a24f..8bfde4dac 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-11.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-11.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 12/15 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:14:49.088981+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:03.520061+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-12.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-12.md index 2982ca8ba..5c70ec99b 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-12.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-12.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 13/15 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:14:49.088981+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:03.520061+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-13.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-13.md index f1d17d13b..18da53e19 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-13.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-13.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 14/15 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:14:49.088981+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:03.520061+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-14.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-14.md index e0cd1d765..efb90ca95 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-14.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-14.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 15/15 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:14:49.088981+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:03.520061+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-2.md index c879ca979..a5e320562 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-2.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-2.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 3/15 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:14:49.088981+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:03.520061+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-3.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-3.md index 8879f0a7a..77dc7daf8 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-3.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-3.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 4/15 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:14:49.088981+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:03.520061+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-4.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-4.md index ecb94523a..ab6034b67 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-4.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-4.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 5/15 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:14:49.088981+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:03.520061+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-5.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-5.md index 70695cd79..7018bbe0e 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-5.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-5.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 6/15 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:14:49.088981+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:03.520061+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-6.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-6.md index 6bf3aca4d..b04dc45f3 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-6.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-6.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 7/15 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:14:49.088981+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:03.520061+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-7.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-7.md index 552dfe1b2..4a08351c5 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-7.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-7.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 8/15 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:14:49.088981+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:03.520061+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-8.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-8.md index 9f0798d0e..ec98b96dd 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-8.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-8.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 9/15 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:14:49.088981+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:03.520061+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-9.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-9.md index 498ad410f..a2f55e9d8 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-9.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-9.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 10/15 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:14:49.088981+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:03.520061+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility-0.md index a3f4acdcc..2945ef001 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility-0.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility-0.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/3 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:14:50.387353+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:04.813631+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility-1.md index 15c2ca25a..1c0233c93 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility-1.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility-1.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/3 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:14:50.387353+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:04.813631+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility-2.md index e9bba941c..957dc65ed 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility-2.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility-2.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 3/3 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:14:50.387353+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:04.813631+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project-0.md index 622a24b6c..cc8f781df 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project-0.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project-0.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:14:54.886771+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:06.077028+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..951834520 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +--- +title: "Research" +chunk: 1/6 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:07.385102+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Research is creative and systematic work undertaken to increase the stock of knowledge. It involves the collection, organization, and analysis of evidence to increase understanding of a topic, characterized by a particular attentiveness to controlling sources of bias and error. These activities are characterized by accounting and controlling for biases. A research project may be an expansion of past work in the field. To test the validity of instruments, procedures, or experiments, research may replicate elements of prior projects or the project as a whole. +The primary purposes of basic research (as opposed to applied research) are documentation, discovery, interpretation, and the research and development (R&D) of methods and systems for the advancement of human knowledge. Approaches to research depend on epistemologies, which vary considerably both within and between humanities and sciences. There are several forms of research: scientific, humanities, artistic, economic, social, business, marketing, practitioner research, life, technological, etc. The scientific study of research practices is known as meta-research. +A researcher is a person who conducts research. + +== Etymology == + +The word research is derived from the Middle French "recherche", which means "to go about seeking", the term itself being derived from the Old French term "recerchier", a compound word from "re-" + "cerchier", or "sercher", meaning 'search'. The earliest recorded use of the term was in 1577. + +== Definitions == +Research, in its simplest terms, is a intentional search for knowledge. +John W. Creswell states that "research is a process of steps used to collect and analyze information to increase our understanding of a topic or issue". +The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines research to also include studying already existing knowledge: "studious inquiry or examination; especially: investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws". + +== Forms of research == + +=== Original research === + +Original research, also called primary research, is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review, or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. This material is of a primary-source character. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge rather than present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified). Original research can take various forms, depending on the discipline it pertains to. In experimental work, it typically involves direct or indirect observation of the researched subject(s), e.g., in the laboratory or in the field, documents the methodology, results, and conclusions of an experiment or set of experiments, or offers a novel interpretation of previous results. In analytical work, there are typically some new (for example) mathematical results produced or a new way of approaching an existing problem. In some subjects which do not typically carry out experimentation or analysis of this kind, the originality is in the particular way existing understanding is changed or re-interpreted based on the outcome of the work of the researcher. +The degree of originality of the research is among the major criteria for articles to be published in academic journals and usually established by means of peer review. Graduate students are commonly required to perform original research as part of a dissertation. + +=== Scientific research === + +Scientific research is a systematic way of gathering data and harnessing curiosity. This research provides scientific information and theories for the explanation of the nature and the properties of the world. It makes practical applications possible. Scientific research may be funded by public authorities, charitable organizations, and private organizations. Scientific research can be subdivided by discipline. +Generally, research is understood to follow a certain structural process. Though the order may vary depending on the subject matter and researcher, the following steps are usually part of most formal research, both basic and applied: + +Observations and formation of the topic: Consists of the subject area of one's interest and following that subject area to conduct subject-related research. The subject area should not be randomly chosen since it requires reading a vast amount of literature on the topic to determine the gap in the literature the researcher intends to narrow. A keen interest in the chosen subject area is advisable. The research will have to be justified by linking its importance to already existing knowledge about the topic. +Hypothesis: A testable prediction which designates the relationship between two or more variables. +Conceptual definition: Description of a concept by relating it to other concepts. +Operational definition: Details in regards to defining the variables and how they will be measured/assessed in the study. +Gathering of data: Consists of identifying a population and selecting samples, gathering information from or about these samples by using specific research instruments. The instruments used for data collection must be valid and reliable. +Analysis of data: Involves breaking down the individual pieces of data to draw conclusions about it. +Data Interpretation: This can be represented through tables, figures, and pictures, and then described in words. +Test, revising of hypothesis +Conclusion, reiteration if necessary + +=== Research in the humanities === +Research in the humanities involves different methods such as for example hermeneutics and semiotics. Humanities scholars usually do not search for the ultimate correct answer to a question, but instead, explore the issues and details that surround it. Context is always important, and context can be social, historical, political, cultural, or ethnic. An example of research in the humanities is historical research, which is embodied in historical method. Historians use primary sources and other evidence to systematically investigate a topic, and then to write histories in the form of accounts of the past. Other studies aim to merely examine the occurrence of behaviours in societies and communities, without particularly looking for reasons or motivations to explain these. These studies may be qualitative or quantitative, and can use a variety of approaches, such as queer theory or feminist theory. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-1.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d495ef514 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +--- +title: "Research" +chunk: 2/6 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:07.385102+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Artistic research === +Artistic research, also seen as 'practice-based research', can take form when creative works are considered both the research and the object of research itself. It is the debatable body of thought which offers an alternative to purely scientific methods in research in its search for knowledge and truth. +The controversial trend of artistic teaching becoming more academics-oriented is leading to artistic research being accepted as the primary mode of enquiry in art as in the case of other disciplines. One of the characteristics of artistic research is that it must accept subjectivity as opposed to the classical scientific methods. As such, it is similar to the social sciences in using qualitative research and intersubjectivity as tools to apply measurement and critical analysis. +Artistic research has been defined by the School of Dance and Circus (Dans och Cirkushögskolan, DOCH), Stockholm in the following manner – "Artistic research is to investigate and test with the purpose of gaining knowledge within and for our artistic disciplines. It is based on artistic practices, methods, and criticality. Through presented documentation, the insights gained shall be placed in a context." Artistic research aims to enhance knowledge and understanding with presentation of the arts. A simpler understanding by Julian Klein defines artistic research as any kind of research employing the artistic mode of perception. For a survey of the central problematics of today's artistic research, see Giaco Schiesser. +According to artist Hakan Topal, in artistic research, "perhaps more so than other disciplines, intuition is utilized as a method to identify a wide range of new and unexpected productive modalities". Most writers, whether of fiction or non-fiction books, also have to do research to support their creative work. This may be factual, historical, or background research. Background research could include, for example, geographical or procedural research. +The Society for Artistic Research (SAR) publishes the triannual Journal for Artistic Research (JAR), an international, online, open access, and peer-reviewed journal for the identification, publication, and dissemination of artistic research and its methodologies, from all arts disciplines and it runs the Research Catalogue (RC), a searchable, documentary database of artistic research, to which anyone can contribute. +Patricia Leavy addresses eight arts-based research (ABR) genres: narrative inquiry, fiction-based research, poetry, music, dance, theatre, film, and visual art. +In 2016, the European League of Institutes of the Arts launched The Florence Principles' on the Doctorate in the Arts. The Florence Principles relating to the Salzburg Principles and the Salzburg Recommendations of the European University Association name seven points of attention to specify the Doctorate / PhD in the Arts compared to a scientific doctorate / PhD. The Florence Principles have been endorsed and are supported also by AEC, CILECT, CUMULUS and SAR. + +=== Historical research === + +The historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use historical sources and other evidence to research and then to write history. There are various history guidelines that are commonly used by historians in their work, under the headings of external criticism, internal criticism, and synthesis. This includes lower criticism and sensual criticism. Though items may vary depending on the subject matter and researcher, the following concepts are part of most formal historical research: + +Identification of origin date +Evidence of localization +Recognition of authorship +Analysis of data +Identification of integrity +Attribution of credibility + +=== Documentary research === + +== Steps in conducting research == + +Research is often conducted using the hourglass model structure of research. The hourglass model starts with a broad spectrum for research, focusing in on the required information through the method of the project (like the neck of the hourglass), then expands the research in the form of discussion and results. The major steps in conducting research are: \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-2.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..36eccbefd --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-2.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +--- +title: "Research" +chunk: 3/6 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:07.385102+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Identification of research problem +Literature review +Specifying the purpose of research +Determining specific research questions +Specification of a conceptual framework, sometimes including a set of hypotheses +Choice of a methodology (for data collection) +Data collection +Verifying data +Analyzing and interpreting the data +Reporting and evaluating research +Communicating the research findings and, possibly, recommendations +The steps generally represent the overall process; however, they should be viewed as an ever-changing iterative process rather than a fixed set of steps. Most research begins with a general statement of the problem, or rather, the purpose for engaging in the study. The literature review identifies flaws or holes in previous research which provides justification for the study. Often, a literature review is conducted in a given subject area before a research question is identified. A gap in the current literature, as identified by a researcher, then engenders a research question. The research question may be parallel to the hypothesis. The hypothesis is the supposition to be tested. The researcher(s) collects data to test the hypothesis. The researcher(s) then analyzes and interprets the data via a variety of statistical methods, engaging in what is known as empirical research. The results of the data analysis in rejecting or failing to reject the null hypothesis are then reported and evaluated. At the end, the researcher may discuss avenues for further research. However, some researchers advocate for the reverse approach: starting with articulating findings and discussion of them, moving "up" to identification of a research problem that emerges in the findings and literature review. The reverse approach is justified by the transactional nature of the research endeavor where research inquiry, research questions, research method, relevant research literature, and so on are not fully known until the findings have fully emerged and been interpreted. +Rudolph Rummel says, "... no researcher should accept any one or two tests as definitive. It is only when a range of tests are consistent over many kinds of data, researchers, and methods can one have confidence in the results." +Plato in Meno talks about an inherent difficulty, if not a paradox, of doing research that can be paraphrased in the following way, "If you know what you're searching for, why do you search for it?! [i.e., you have already found it] If you don't know what you're searching for, what are you searching for?!" + +== Research methods == + +The goal of the research process is to produce new knowledge or deepen understanding of a topic or issue. This process takes three main forms (although, as previously discussed, the boundaries between them may be obscure): \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-3.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-3.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e41eee228 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-3.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +--- +title: "Research" +chunk: 4/6 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:07.385102+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Exploratory research, which helps to identify and define a problem or question. +Constructive research, which tests theories and proposes solutions to a problem or question. +Empirical research, which tests the feasibility of a solution using empirical evidence. +There are two major types of empirical research design: qualitative research and quantitative research. Researchers choose qualitative or quantitative methods according to the nature of the research topic they want to investigate and the research questions they aim to answer: +Qualitative research +Qualitative research refers to much more subjective non-quantitative, use different methods of collecting data, analyzing data, interpreting data for meanings, definitions, characteristics, symbols metaphors of things. Qualitative research further classified into the following types: Ethnography: This research mainly focus on culture of group of people which includes share attributes, language, practices, structure, value, norms and material things, evaluate human lifestyle. Ethno: people, Grapho: to write, this disciple may include ethnic groups, ethno genesis, composition, resettlement and social welfare characteristics. Phenomenology: It is very powerful strategy for demonstrating methodology to health professions education as well as best suited for exploring challenging problems in health professions educations. In addition, PMP researcher Mandy Sha argued that a project management approach is necessary to control the scope, schedule, and cost related to qualitative research design, participant recruitment, data collection, reporting, as well as stakeholder engagement. +Quantitative research +Quantitative research involves systematic empirical investigation of quantitative properties and phenomena and their relationships, by asking a narrow question and collecting numerical data to analyze it utilizing statistical methods. The quantitative research designs are experimental, correlational, and survey (or descriptive). Statistics derived from quantitative research can be used to establish the existence of associative or causal relationships between variables. Quantitative research is linked with the philosophical and theoretical stance of positivism. +The quantitative data collection methods rely on random sampling and structured data collection instruments that fit diverse experiences into predetermined response categories. These methods produce results that can be summarized, compared, and generalized to larger populations if the data are collected using proper sampling and data collection strategies. Quantitative research is concerned with testing hypotheses derived from theory or being able to estimate the size of a phenomenon of interest. +If the research question is about people, participants may be randomly assigned to different treatments (this is the only way that a quantitative study can be considered a true experiment). If this is not feasible, the researcher may collect data on participant and situational characteristics to statistically control for their influence on the dependent, or outcome, variable. If the intent is to generalize from the research participants to a larger population, the researcher will employ probability sampling to select participants. +In either qualitative or quantitative research, the researcher(s) may collect primary or secondary data. Primary data is data collected specifically for the research, such as through interviews or questionnaires. Secondary data is data that already exists, such as census data, which can be re-used for the research. It is good ethical research practice to use secondary data wherever possible. +Mixed-method research, i.e. research that includes qualitative and quantitative elements, using both primary and secondary data, is becoming more common. This method has benefits that using one method alone cannot offer. For example, a researcher may choose to conduct a qualitative study and follow it up with a quantitative study to gain additional insights. +Big data has brought big impacts on research methods so that now many researchers do not put much effort into data collection; furthermore, methods to analyze easily available huge amounts of data have also been developed. +Non-empirical research +Non-empirical (theoretical) research is an approach that involves the development of theory as opposed to using observation and experimentation. As such, non-empirical research seeks solutions to problems using existing knowledge as its source. This, however, does not mean that new ideas and innovations cannot be found within the pool of existing and established knowledge. Non-empirical research is not an absolute alternative to empirical research because they may be used together to strengthen a research approach. Neither one is less effective than the other since they have their particular purpose in science. Typically empirical research produces observations that need to be explained; then theoretical research tries to explain them, and in so doing generates empirically testable hypotheses; these hypotheses are then tested empirically, giving more observations that may need further explanation; and so on. See Scientific method. +A simple example of a non-empirical task is the prototyping of a new drug using a differentiated application of existing knowledge; another is the development of a business process in the form of a flow chart and texts where all the ingredients are from established knowledge. Much of cosmological research is theoretical in nature. Mathematics research does not rely on externally available data; rather, it seeks to prove theorems about mathematical objects. + +== Research ethics == + +== Problems in research == + +=== Metascience === +Metascience is the study of research through the use of research methods. Also known as "research on research", it aims to reduce waste and increase the quality of research in all fields. Meta-research concerns itself with the detection of bias, methodological flaws, and other errors and inefficiencies. Among the finding of meta-research is a low rates of reproducibility across a large number of fields. + +=== Replication crisis === + +=== Academic bias === + +=== Funding bias === + +=== Publication bias === + +=== Non-western methods === \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-4.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-4.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..05c2e2efa --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-4.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +--- +title: "Research" +chunk: 5/6 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:07.385102+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +In many disciplines, Western methods of conducting research are predominant. Researchers are overwhelmingly taught Western methods of data collection and study. The increasing participation of indigenous peoples as researchers has brought increased attention to the scientific lacuna in culturally sensitive methods of data collection. Western methods of data collection may not be the most accurate or relevant for research on non-Western societies. For example, "Hua Oranga" was created as a criterion for psychological evaluation in Māori populations, and is based on dimensions of mental health important to the Māori people – "taha wairua (the spiritual dimension), taha hinengaro (the mental dimension), taha tinana (the physical dimension), and taha whanau (the family dimension)". +Even though Western dominance seems to be prominent in research, some scholars, such as Simon Marginson, argue for "the need [for] a plural university world". Marginson argues that the East Asian Confucian model could take over the Western model. +This could be due to changes in funding for research both in the East and the West. Focused on emphasizing educational achievement, East Asian cultures, mainly in China and South Korea, have encouraged the increase of funding for research expansion. In contrast, in the Western academic world, notably in the United Kingdom as well as in some state governments in the United States, funding cuts for university research have occurred, which some say may lead to the future decline of Western dominance in research. + +=== Language === +Research is often biased in the languages that are preferred (linguicism) and the geographic locations where research occurs. +Periphery scholars face the challenges of exclusion and linguicism in research and academic publication. As the great majority of mainstream academic journals are written in English, multilingual periphery scholars often must translate their work to be accepted to elite Western-dominated journals. Multilingual scholars' influences from their native communicative styles can be assumed to be incompetence instead of difference. Patterns of geographic bias also show a relationship with linguicism: countries whose official languages are French or Arabic are far less likely to be the focus of single-country studies than countries with different official languages. Within Africa, English-speaking countries are more represented than other countries. + +=== Generalizability === + +Generalization is the process of more broadly applying the valid results of one study. Studies with a narrow scope can result in a lack of generalizability, meaning that the results may not be applicable to other populations or regions. In comparative politics, this can result from using a single-country study, rather than a study design that uses data from multiple countries. Despite the issue of generalizability, single-country studies have risen in prevalence since the late 2000s. +For comparative politics, Western countries are over-represented in single-country studies, with heavy emphasis on Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Since 2000, Latin American countries have become more popular in single-country studies. In contrast, countries in Oceania and the Caribbean are the focus of very few studies. + +=== Publication peer review === + +Peer review is a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. Usually, the peer review process involves experts in the same field who are consulted by editors to give a review of the scholarly works produced by a colleague of theirs from an unbiased and impartial point of view, and this is usually done free of charge. The tradition of peer reviews being done for free has however brought many pitfalls which are also indicative of why most peer reviewers decline many invitations to review. It was observed that publications from periphery countries rarely rise to the same elite status as those of North America and Europe. + +=== Open research === +The open research, open science and open access movements assume that all information generally deemed useful should be free and belongs to a "public domain", that of "humanity". This idea gained prevalence as a result of Western colonial history and ignores alternative conceptions of knowledge circulation. For instance, most indigenous communities consider that access to certain information proper to the group should be determined by relationships. There is alleged to be a double standard in the Western knowledge system. On the one hand, "digital right management" used to restrict access to personal information on social networking platforms is celebrated as a protection of privacy, while simultaneously when similar functions are used by cultural groups (i.e. indigenous communities) this is denounced as "access control" and reprehended as censorship. + +== Professionalisation == + +In several national and private academic systems, the professionalisation of research has resulted in formal job titles. + +=== In Russia === +In present-day Russia, and some other countries of the former Soviet Union, the term researcher (Russian: Научный сотрудник, nauchny sotrudnik) has been used both as a generic term for a person who has been carrying out scientific research, and as a job position within the frameworks of the Academy of Sciences, universities, and in other research-oriented establishments. +The following ranks are known: + +Junior Researcher (Junior Research Associate) +Researcher (Research Associate) +Senior Researcher (Senior Research Associate) +Leading Researcher (Leading Research Associate) +Chief Researcher (Chief Research Associate) + +== Publishing == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-5.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-5.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..95fdec2f2 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-5.md @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ +--- +title: "Research" +chunk: 6/6 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:07.385102+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Academic publishing is a system that is necessary for academic scholars to peer review the work and make it available for a wider audience. The system varies widely by field and is also always changing, if often slowly. Most academic work is published in journal article or book form. There is also a large body of research that exists in either a thesis or dissertation form. These forms of research can be found in databases explicitly for theses and dissertations. In publishing, STM publishing is an abbreviation for academic publications in science, technology, and medicine. +Most established academic fields have their own scientific journals and other outlets for publication, though many academic journals are somewhat interdisciplinary, and publish work from several distinct fields or subfields. The kinds of publications that are accepted as contributions of knowledge or research vary greatly between fields, from the print to the electronic format. A study suggests that researchers should not give great consideration to findings that are not replicated frequently. It has also been suggested that all published studies should be subjected to some measure for assessing the validity or reliability of its procedures to prevent the publication of unproven findings. Business models are different in the electronic environment. Since about the early 1990s, licensing of electronic resources, particularly journals, has been very common. Presently, a major trend, particularly with respect to scholarly journals, is open access. There are two main forms of open access: open access publishing, in which the articles or the whole journal is freely available from the time of publication, and self-archiving, where the author makes a copy of their own work freely available on the web. + +== Research statistics and funding == + +Most funding for scientific research comes from three major sources: corporate research and development departments; private foundations; and government research councils such as the National Institutes of Health in the US and the Medical Research Council in the UK. These are managed primarily through universities and in some cases through military contractors. Many senior researchers (such as group leaders) spend a significant amount of their time applying for grants for research funds. These grants are necessary not only for researchers to carry out their research but also as a source of merit. The Social Psychology Network provides a comprehensive list of U.S. Government and private foundation funding sources. +The total number of researchers (full-time equivalents) per million inhabitants for individual countries is shown in the following table. + +Research expenditure by type of research as a share of GDP for individual countries is shown in the following table. + +== See also == + +== Notes == + +== References == + +== Sources == +Creswell, John W. (2008). Educational Research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. ISBN 978-0-13-613550-0. +Kara, Helen (2012). Research and Evaluation for Busy Practitioners: A Time-Saving Guide. Bristol: The Policy Press. ISBN 978-1-44730-115-8. + +== Further reading == +Groh, Arnold (2018). Research Methods in Indigenous Contexts. New York: Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-72774-5. +Cohen, N.; Arieli, T. (2011). "Field research in conflict environments: Methodological challenges and snowball sampling". Journal of Peace Research. 48 (4): 423–436. doi:10.1177/0022343311405698. S2CID 145328311. +Soeters, Joseph; Shields, Patricia and Rietjens, Sebastiaan. 2014. Handbook of Research Methods in Military Studies New York: Routledge. +Talja, Sanna and Pamela J. Mckenzie (2007). Editor's Introduction: Special Issue on Discursive Approaches to Information Seeking in Context, The University of Chicago Press. + +== External links == + + The dictionary definition of research at Wiktionary + Quotations related to Research at Wikiquote + Media related to Research at Wikimedia Commons \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_ethics-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_ethics-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d89146d94 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_ethics-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,110 @@ +--- +title: "Research ethics" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_ethics" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:08.544347+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Research ethics is a discipline within the study of applied ethics. Its scope ranges from general scientific integrity and misconduct to the treatment of human and animal subjects. The social responsibilities of scientists and researchers are not traditionally included and are less well defined. +The discipline is most developed in medical research. Beyond the issues of falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism that arise in every scientific field, research design in human subject research and animal testing are the areas that raise ethical questions most often. +The list of historic cases includes many large-scale violations and crimes against humanity such as Nazi human experimentation and the Tuskegee syphilis experiment which led to international codes of research ethics. No approach has been universally accepted, but typically cited codes are the 1947 Nuremberg Code, the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, and the 1978 Belmont Report. +Today, research ethics committees, such as those of the US, UK, and EU, govern and oversee the responsible conduct of research. One major goal being to reduce questionable research practices. +Research in other fields such as social sciences, information technology, biotechnology, or engineering may generate ethical concerns. + + +== History == + +The list of historic cases includes many large scale violations and crimes against humanity such as Nazi human experimentation and the Tuskegee syphilis experiment which led to international codes of research ethics. Medical ethics developed out of centuries of general malpractice and science motivated only by results. Medical ethics in turn led to today's more broad understanding in bioethics. + + +== Scientific conduct == + + +=== Scientific integrity === + + +=== Scientific misconduct === + + +== Discipline specific ethics == + +Research ethics for Human subject research and Animal testing derives, historically, from Medical ethics and, in modern times, from the much more broad field of Bioethics. + + +=== Medical ethics === + + +=== Bioethics === + + +=== Clinical research ethics === + + +==== Study participant rights ==== +Participants in a clinical trial in clinical research have rights which they expect to be honored, including: + +informed consent +shared decision-making +privacy for research participants +return of results +to withdraw + + +==== Vulnerable populations ==== +Study participants are entitled to some degree of autonomy in deciding their participation. One measure for safeguarding this right is the use of informed consent for clinical research. Researchers refer to populations with limited autonomy as "vulnerable populations"; these are subjects who may not be able to fairly decide for themselves whether to participate. Examples of vulnerable populations include incarcerated persons, children, prisoners, soldiers, people under detention, migrants, persons exhibiting insanity or any other condition that precludes their autonomy, and to a lesser extent, any population for which there is reason to believe that the research study could seem particularly or unfairly persuasive or misleading. Ethical problems particularly encumber using children in clinical trials. + + +== Society == + +Consequences for the environment, for society and for future generations must be considered. + + +== Governance == + +In the United Kingdom, the National Research Ethics Service is the responsible quango that forms Research Ethic Committees. +In the United States, the Institutional review board is the relevant ethics committee. +In Canada, there are different committees for different agencies. The committees are the Research Ethics Board (REB) as well as two others that split their committee duties between conduct (PRCR) and ethics committee (PRE). +The European Union only sets the guidelines for its member's ethics committees. +Large international organizations like the WHO have their own ethics committees. +In Canada, mandatory research ethics training is required for students, professors and others who work in research. The US first legislated institutional review boards procedures in the 1974 National Research Act. + + +== Criticism == +Published in Social Sciences & Medicine (2009) several authors suggested that research ethics in a medical context is dominated by principlism. + + +== See also == +List of medical ethics cases +Children in clinical research +Unethical human experimentation +Self-experimentation in medicine +Clinical trial +Academic freedom +Scientific literature § Ethics +Psychology § Ethics +Information ethics +Regulation of genetic engineering +Engineering ethics +Ethics of technology +Research Integrity Risk Index +Philosophy of engineering +Philosophy of science + + +== References == + + +== Sources == +Laine, Heidi (31 December 2018). "Open science and codes of conduct on research integrity". Informaatiotutkimus. 37 (4). doi:10.23978/inf.77414. hdl:10138/293054. ISSN 1797-9129. + + +== Further reading == +Speid, Lorna (2010). Clinical trials: what patients and healthy volunteers need to know. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-973416-0. +The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics, Ezekiel Emanuel, Christine Grady, Robert Crouch, Reidar Lie, Franklin Miller, David Wendler, Oxford University Press, 2008 + + +== External links == +list of research participant rights from Harvard School of Public Health \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d0ef0401d --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +--- +title: "Research transparency" +chunk: 1/6 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:09.728209+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Research transparency is a major aspect of scientific research. It covers a variety of scientific principles and practices: reproducibility, data and code sharing, citation standards or verifiability. +The definitions and norms of research transparency significantly differ depending on the disciplines and fields of research. Due to the lack of consistent terminology, research transparency has frequently been defined negatively by addressing non-transparent usages (which are part of questionable research practices). +After 2010, recurrent issues of research methodology have been increasingly acknowledged as structural crisis, that involve deep changes at all stages of the research process. Transparency has become a key value of the open science movement, which evolved from an initial focus on publishing to encompass a large diversity of research outputs. New common standards for research transparency, like the TOP Guidelines, aims to build and strengthen open research culture across disciplines and epistemic cultures. + +== Definitions == + +=== Confused terminologies === +There is no widespread consensus on the definition of research transparency. +Differences between disciplines and epistemic cultures has largely contributed to different acceptions. The reproduction of past research has been a leading source of dissent. In an experimental setting, reproduction relies on the same set-up and apparatus, while replication only requires the use of the same methodology. Conversely, computational disciplines use reversed definitions of the term replicability and reproducibility. Alternative taxonomies have proposed to make do entirely with the ambiguity of reproducibility/replicability/repeatability. Goodman, Fanelli and Ioannidis recommended instead a distinction between method reproducibility (same experimental/computational setup) and result reproducibility (different setup but same overall principles). +Core institutional actors continue to disagree on the meaning and usage of key concepts. In 2019, the National Academies of Science of the United States retained the experimental definition of replication and reproduction, which remains "at odds with the more flexible way they are used by [other] major organizations". The Association for Computing Machinery opted in 2016, for the computational definition and added also an intermediary notion of repeatability, where a different team of research use exactly the same measurement system and procedure. +Debate over research transparency has also created new convergences between different disciplines and academic circles. In the Problem of science (2021), Rufus Barker Bausell argues that all disciplines, including the social sciences, currently face similar issues to medicine and physical sciences: "The problem, which has come to be known as the reproducibility crisis, affects almost all of science, not one or two individual disciplines." + +=== Negative definitions === +Due to lack of consistent terminology over research transparency, scientists, policy-makers and other major stake-holders have increasingly rely on negative definitions: what are the practices and forms that harm or disrupt any common ideal of research transparency. +The taxonomy of scientific misconducts has been gradually expanded since the 1980s. The concept of questionable research practices (or QRP) was first incepted in a 1992 report of the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy as a way to address potentially non-intentional research failures (such as inadequacies in the research data management process). Questionable research practices uncover a large grey area of problematic practices, which are frequently associated to deficiencies in research transparency. In 2016, a study identified as much as 34 questionable research practices or "degree of freedom", that can occur at all the steps of the project (the initial hypothesis, the design of the study, collection of the data, the analysis and the reporting). +Surveys of disciplinary practices have shown large differences in the admissibility and spread of questionable research practices. While data fabrication and, to a lesser extent, rounding of statistical indicators like the p value are largely rejected, the non-publication of negative results or the adjonctions of supplementary data are not identified as major issues. +In 2009, a meta-analysis of 18 surveys estimated that less than 2% of scientists "admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once". Real prevalence may be under-estimated due to self-reporting: regarding "the behaviour of colleagues admission rates were 14.12%". Questionable research practices are more widespread as more than one third of the respondents admit to have done it once. A large 2021 survey of 6,813 respondents in the Netherlands found significantly higher estimate, with 4% of the respondents engaging in data fabrication and more than half of the respondents engaging in questionable research practices. Higher rates can be either attributed to a deterioration of ethic norms or to "the increased awareness of research integrity in recent years". \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-1.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..0fb775980 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +--- +title: "Research transparency" +chunk: 2/6 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:09.728209+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== A new dimension of open science? === +Transparency has been increasingly acknowledged as an important component of open science. Until the 2010s, definitions of open science have been mostly focused on technical access and enhanced participation and collaboration between academics and non-academics. In 2016, Liz Lyon identified transparency as a "third dimension" of open science, due to the fact that "the concept of transparency and the associated term 'reproducibility', have become increasingly important in the current interdisciplinary research environment." According to Kevin Elliott, the open science movement "encompasses a number of different initiatives aimed at somewhat different forms of transparency." +First drafted in 2014, the TOP guidelines have significantly contributed to bring transparency on the agenda of the open science movements. They aim to promote an "open research culture" and implement "strong incentives to be more transparent". They rely on eight standards, with different levels of compliance. While the standards are modular, they also aim to articulate a consistent ethos of science as "they also complement each other, in that commitment to one standard may facilitate adoption of others.". +This open science framework of transparency has been in turn coopted by leading contributors and institutions on the topic of research transparency. After 2015, contributions from science historians underlined that there have been no significant deterioration of research quality, as past experiments and research design were not significantly better conceived and the rate of false or partially false has likely remained approximately constant for the last decades. Consequently, proponents of research transparency have come to embrace more explicitly the discourse of open science: the culture of scientific transparency becomes a new ideal to achieve rather than a fundamental principle to re-establish. +The concept of transparency has contributed to create convergences between open science and other open movements in different areas such as open data or open government. In 2015, the OECD describe transparency as a common "rationale for open science and open data". + +== History == + +=== Discourse and practices of research transparency (before 1945) === +Transparency has been a fundamental criterion of experimental research for centuries. Successful replications have become an integral part of the institutional discourse of natural sciences (then called natural philosophy) in the 17th century. An early scientific society of Florence the Accademia del Cimento adopted in 1657 the motto provando e riprovando as a call for "repeated (public) performances of experimental trials" A key member of the Accademia, the naturalist Francesco Redi described extensively of the forms and benefits of procedural experimentation, that made it possible to check for random effects, the soundness of the experiment design, or causal relationships through repeated trials Replication and the open documentation of scientific experiments has become a key component of the diffusion of scientific knowledge in society: once they attained a satisfying rate of success, experiments could be performed in a variety of social spaces such as courts, marketplaces or learned salon. +Although transparency has been early on acknowledged as a key component of science, it was not defined consistently. Most concept associated today with research transparency have arisen as terms of the art with no clear and widespread definitions. The concept of reproducibility appeared in an article on the "Methods of illuminations" first published in 1902: one of the methods examined was deemed limited regarding "reproducibility and constancy" In 2019, the National Academies underlined that the distinction between reproduction, repetition and replication has remained largely unclear and unharmonized across disciplines: "What one group means by one word, the other group means by the other word. These terms — and others, such as repeatability — have long been used in relation to the general concept of one experiment or study confirming the results of another." +Beyond this lack of formalization, there was a significant drift between the institutional and disciplinary discourse on research transparency and the reality of research work, that has persisted till the 21st century. Due to the high cost of the apparatus and the lack of incentives, most experiences were not reproduced by contemporary researchers: even a committed proponent of experimentalism like Robert Doyle had to devolve to a form of virtual experimentalism, by describing in detail a research design that has only been run once For Friedrich Steinle, the gap between the postulated virtue of transparency and the material conditions of science has never been solved: "The rare cases in which replication actually is attempted are those that either are central for theory development (e.g., by being incompatible with existing theory) or promise broad attention due to major economical perspectives. Despite the formal ideal of replicability, we do not live in a culture of replication." \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-2.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..919c83b0a --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-2.md @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +--- +title: "Research transparency" +chunk: 3/6 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:09.728209+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Preconditions of the transparency crisis (1945–2000) === +The development of big science after the Second World War has created unprecedented challenges for research transparency. The generalization of statistical methods across a large number of fields, as well as the increasing breadth and complexity of research projects, entailed a series of concerns about the lack of proper documentation of the scientific process. +Due to the expansion of the published research output, new quantitative methods for literature surveys have been developed under the label of meta-analysis or meta-science. These rely on the assumption that quantitative results and the details of the experimental and observational framework are sound (such as the size or the composition of the sample). In 1966, Stanley Schor and Irving Karten published one of the first generic evaluation of statistical methods in 67 leading medical journals. While few outright problematic papers were found, "in almost 73% of the reports read (those needing revision and those which should have been rejected), conclusions were drawn when the justification for these conclusions was invalid" +In the 1970s and the 1980s, scientific misconducts gradually ceased to be presented as individual misconducts and became collective problems that need to be addressed by scientific institutions and communities. Between 1979 and 1981, several major cases of scientific frauds and plagiarism draw a larger focus to the issue from researchers and policy-makers in the United States In a well-publicized investigation, Betrayers of Science, two scientific journalists described scientific fraud as a structural problem: "As more cases of frauds broke into public view (…) we wondered if fraud wasn't a quite regular minor feature of the scientific landscape (…) Logic, replication, peer review — all had been successfully defied by scientific forgers, often for extended periods of time". The codification of research integrity has been the main institutional answer to this increased public scrutiny with "numerous codes of conduct field specific, national, and international alike." + +=== The reproducibility/transparency debate (2000–2015) === + +In the 2000s, long-standing issues on the standardization of research methodology have been increasingly presented as a structural crisis which "if not addressed the general public will inevitably lose its trust in science." The early 2010s is commonly considered to be a turning point: "it wasn't until sometime around 2011–2012 that the scientific community's consciousness was bombarded with irreproducibility warnings". +An early significant contribution to the debate has been the controversial and influential claim of John Ioannidis from 2005: "most published research findings are false. The main argument was based on the excessively lax experimental standards in place, with numerous weak result being presented as solid research: "the majority of modern biomedical research is operating in areas with very low pre- and post-study probability for true findings" +Due to being published in PLOS Medicine the study of Ioannidis had a considerable echo in psychology, medicine and biology. In the following decades, large range projects attempted to assess experimental reproducibility. In 2015, the Reproducibility Project: Psychology attempted to reproduced 100 studies from three top psychology journals (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, and Psychological Science): while nearly all paper had reproducible effects, it was found that only 36% of the replications were significant enough (p value above the common threshold of 0.05). In 2021, another Reproducibility Project, Cancer Biology, analyzed 53 top papers about cancer published between 2010 and 2012 and established that the effect sizes were 85% smaller on average than the original findings . +During the 2010s, the concept of reproducibility crisis has been expanded to a wider array of disciplines. The share of citations per year of the seminal paper of John Ioannidis, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False in the main fields of research according to the metadata recorded by the academic search engine Semantic Scholar (6,349 citations as of June 2022) shows how this framing has especially expanded to computing sciences. In Economics, a replication of 18 experimental studies in two major journals, found a failure rate comparable to psychology or medicine (39%). + +Several global surveys have reported a growing uneasiness of scientific communities over reproducibility and other issues of research transparency. In 2016, Nature highlighted that "more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments" The survey also found "no consensus on what reproducibility is or should be", in part due to disciplinary differences, which makes it harder to assess what could be the necessary steps to overcome the issue at plays. The Nature survey has also been criticized for its paradoxical lack of research transparency, since it was not based on a representative sample but an online survey: it has "relied on convenience samples and other methodological choices that limit the conclusions that can be made about attitudes among the larger scientific community" Despite mixed results, the Nature survey has been largely disseminated and ahs become a common entry data for any study of research transparency. +Reproducibility crisis and other issues of research transparency have become a public topic addressed in the general press: "Reproducibility conversations are also unique compared to other methodological conversations because they have received sustained attention in both the scientific literature and the popular press". \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-3.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-3.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..59c3a5ccd --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-3.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +--- +title: "Research transparency" +chunk: 4/6 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:09.728209+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Research transparency and open science (2015–) === +Since 2000, the open science movement has expanded beyond access to scientific outputs (publication, data or software) to encompass the entire process of scientific production. In 2018, Vicente-Saez and Martinez-Fuentes have attempted to map the common values shared by the standard definitions of open science in the English-speaking scientific literature indexed on Scopus and the Web of Science. Access is no longer the main dimension of open science, as it has been extended by more recent commitments toward transparency, collaborative work and social impact. Through this process, open science has been increasingly structured over a consisting set of ethical principles: "novel open science practices have developed in tandem with novel organising forms of conducting and sharing research through open repositories, open physical labs, and transdisciplinary research platforms. Together, these novel practices and organising forms are expanding the ethos of science at universities." +The global scale of the open science movement and its integration in a large variety of technical tools, standards and regulations makes it possible to overcome the "classic collective action problem" embodied by research transparency: there is a structural discrepancy between the stated objective of scientific institutions and the lack of incentives to implement them at an individual level. +The formalization of open science as a potential framework to ensure research transparency has been initially undertaken by institutional and communities initiatives. The TOP guidelines were elaborated in 2014 by a committee for Transparency and Openness Promotion that included "disciplinary leaders, journal editors, funding agency representatives, and disciplinary experts largely from the social and behavioral sciences". The guidelines rely on eight standards, with different levels of compliance. While the standards are modular, they also aim to articulate a consistent ethos of science as "they also complement each other, in that commitment to one standard may facilitate adoption of others." +After 2015, theses initiatives have partly influenced new regulations and code of ethics. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity from 2017 is strongly structured around open science and open data: it "pays data management almost an equal amount of attention as publishing and is also in this sense the most advanced of the four CoCs." First adopted in July 2020, the Hong Kong principles for assessing researchers acknowledge open science as one of the five pillars of scientific integrity: "It seems clear that the various modalities of open science need to be rewarded in the assessment of researchers because these behaviors strongly increase transparency, which is a core principle of research integrity." + +== Forms == +Research transparency has a large variety of forms depending on the disciplinary culture, the material condition of research and the interaction between scientists and other social circles (policy-makers, non-academic professionals, general audience). For Lyon, Jeng and Mattern, "the term 'transparency' has been applied in a range of contexts by diverse research stakeholders, who have articulated and framed the concept in a number of different ways." In 2020, Kevin Elliott introduced a taxonomy of eight dimensions of research transparency: purpose, audience, content, timeframe, actors, mechanism, venues and dangers. For Elliott not all forms of transparency are achievable and desirable, so that a proper terminology can help to make the more appropriate decisions: "While these are important objections, the taxonomy of transparency considered here suggests that the best response to them is typically not to abandon the goal of transparency entirely to consider what forms of transparency are best able to minimize them.". + +=== Reproducibility === + +==== Method reproducibility ==== +Goodman, Fanelli and Ioannidis define method reproducibility as "the provision of enough detail about study procedures and data so the same procedures could, in theory or in actuality, be exactly repeated." This acception is largely synonymous with replicability in a computational context or reproducibility in an experimental context. In the report of the National Academies of Science, that opted for an experimental terminology, the counterpart of method reproducibility was described as "obtaining consistent results using the same input data; computational steps, methods, and code; and conditions of analysis". +Method reproducibility is more attainable in computational sciences: as long as it behaves as expected, the same code should produce the same output. Open code, open data and more recently, research notebook are common recommendations to enhance method reproducibility. In principle, the wider availability of research output makes it possible to assess and audit the process of analysis. In practice, Roger Peng already underlined in 2011, that many projects require "computing power that may not be available to all researchers". This issue has worsened in some areas such as Artificial Intelligence or Computer vision, as the development of very large deep learning models makes it nearly impossible to recreate them (or at a prohibitive cost), even when the original code and data are open. Method reproducibility can also be affected by library dependency, as the open code can rely on external programs which may not always be available or compatible. Two studies in 2018 and 2019 have shown that a large share of research notebook hosted on GitHub are no longer usable, either due to the of required extensions no longer being available or issues in the code. +In experimental sciences, there is no commonly agreed criterium of method reproducibility: "in practice, the level of procedural detail needed to describe a study as "methodologically reproducible" does not have consensus." \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-4.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-4.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5865328b4 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-4.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +--- +title: "Research transparency" +chunk: 5/6 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:09.728209+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +==== Result reproducibility ==== +Goodman, Fanelli and Ioannidis define result reproducibility as "obtaining the same results from the conduct of an independent study whose procedures are as closely matched". Result reproducibility is comparable to replication in an experimental context and reproducibility in a computational context. The definition of replicability retained in the National Academies of Science, largely applies to it: "obtaining consistent results across studies aimed at answering the same scientific question, each of which has obtained its own data.". The reproducibility crisis met in experimental disciplines like psychology or medicine is mostly a crisis of "result reproducibility", since it concerns research that cannot been simply re-executed, but involve the independent recreation of the experimental design. As such it is arguably the most debated form of research transparency in the recent years. +Result reproducibility is harder to achieve than other forms of research transparency. It involve a variety of issues that may include computational reproducibility, accuracy of scientific measurement and diversity of methodological approaches. There are no universal standard to determine how close are the original procedures matched and criterium may vary depending on the disciplines or, even on the field of research. Consequently, meta-analysis of reproducibility have faced significant challenges. A 2015 study of 100 psychology papers conducted by Open Science Collaboration has been confronted with the "lack of a single accepted definition" which "opened the door to controversy about their methodological approach and conclusions" and made it necessary to fall back on "subjective assessments" of result reproducibility. + +==== Observation reproducibility and verifiability ==== +In 2018 Sabina Leonelli defines observation reproducibility as the "expectation being that any skilled researcher placed in the same time and place would pick out, if not the same data, at least similar patterns". This expectation recovers a large range scientific and scholarly practices in non-experimental disciplines: "A tremendous amount of research in the medical, historical and social sciences does not rest on experimentation, but rather on observational techniques such as surveys, descriptions and case reports documenting unique circumstances" +The development of open scientific infrastructure has radically transformed the status and the availability of scientific data and other primary sources. Access to theses resources has been thoroughly transformed by digitization and the attribution of unique identifiers. Permanent digital object identifiers (or DOI) have been first allocated to dataset since the early 2000s which solved a long-standing debate on the citability of scientific data. +Increased transparency of citations to primary sources or research materials has been framed by Andrew Moravcsik as a "revolution in qualitative research". Access to theses resources has been thoroughly transformed by digitization and the attribution of unique identifiers. Permanent digital object identifiers (or DOI) have been first allocated to dataset since the early 2000s which solved a long-standing debate on the citability of scientific data. + +=== Value transparency === +Transparency of research values has been a major focus of disciplines with strong involvements in policy-making such as environment studies or social sciences. In 2009, Heather Douglas underlined that the public discourse on science has been largely dominated by normative ideals of objective research: if the procedures have been correctly applied, science results should be "value-free". For Douglas, this ideal remains largely at loss with the effective process of research and scientific advising as pre-defined values may largely predate choices about the concepts, the protocols and the data used. Douglas argued instead in favor of a disclosure of the values held by researchers: "the values should be made as explicit as possible in this indirect role, whether in policy documents or in the research papers of scientists." +In the 2010s, several philosopher of sciences attempted to systematize value transparency in the context of open science. In 2017, Kevin Elliott emphasized three conditions for value transparency in research, the first one involved "being as transparent as possible about (…) data, methods, models and assumptions so that value influence can be scrutinized". + +=== Review and editorial transparency === +Until the 2010s, the editorial practices of scholarly publishing have remained largely unformal and little studied: "Despite 350 years of scholarly publishing (…) research on ItAs [Instruction to authors], and on their evolution and change, is scarce." +Editorial transparency has been recently acknowledged as a natural expansion of the debate over research reproducibility. Several principles laid in the 2015 TOP guidelines already implied the existence of explicit editorial standards. Unprecedented attention given to editorial transparency has also been motivated by the diversification and the complexification of the open science publishing landscape: "Triggered by a wide variety of expectations for journals' editorial processes, journals have started to experiment with new ways of organizing their editorial assessment and peer review systems (...) The arrival of these innovations in an already diverse set of practices of peer review and editorial selection means we can no longer assume that authors, readers, and reviewers simply know how editorial assessment operates." + +== Transparent by design: developing open workflow == +The TOPs Guidelines have set up an influential transdisciplinary standard to establish result reproducibility in an open science context. While experimental and computational disciplines remains a primary focus, the standards have strived to integrate concerns and formats more specific to other disciplinary practices (such as research materials). +Informal incentives like badges or indexes have been initially advocated as a way to support the adoption of harmonized policies in regard to research transparency. Due to the development of open science, regulation and standardized infrastructures or processes are increasingly favored. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-5.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-5.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..637c59826 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-5.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +--- +title: "Research transparency" +chunk: 6/6 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:09.728209+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Sharing of research outputs === +Data sharing has been early on identified as major potential solution to the reproducibility crisis and the lack of solid guidelines for statistical indicators. In 2005, John Ioannidis hypothesized that "some kind of registration or networking of data collections or investigators within fields may be more feasible than registration of each and every hypothesis-generating experiment." +The sharing of research outputs is covered by three standards of the TOPs guidelines: on Data transparency (2), Analytic/code methods transparency (3) and Research materials transparency (4). All the relevant data, code and research materials are to be stored on a "trusted repository" and all analysis being already reproduced independently prior to publication. + +=== Extended citation standards === +While citation standards are commonly applied to academic reference, there is much less formalization for all the other research output, such as data, code, primary sources or qualitative assessments. +In 2012, the American Political Science Association adopted new policies for open qualitative research. They covered three dimensions of transparency: data transparency (in the sense of precise bibliographic data to the original sources), analytic transparency (in regards to claims extrapolated from the cited sources) and production transparency (in reference to the editorial choices made in the selection of the sources). In 2014, Andrew Moravcsik advocated the implementation of transparency appendix, containing detailed quotes of original sources as well as annotations "explaining how the source supports the claim being made". +According to the TOP Guidelines, "appropriate citation for data and materials" should be provided each publication. Consequently, scientific outputs like code or dataset are fully acknowledged as citable contributions: "Regular and rigorous citation of these materials credit them as original intellectual contributions." + +=== Pre-registrations === +Pre-registrations are covered by two TOP guidelines: Preregistration of studies (6) and Preregistration of analysis plans (7). In both cases, for the highest level of compliance journal should provide "link and badge in article to meeting requirements". +Pre-registrations aims to preventively address a variety of questionable research practices. It takes usually the form of "a timestamped uneditable research plan to a public archive [that] states the hypotheses to be tested, target sample sizes". Preregistration acts as an ethical contract as it theoretically constrains "the researcher degrees of freedom that make QRPs and p-hacking work". +Preregistration do not solve all the range of questionable research practices. Selective reporting of the results would especially still be compatible with a predefined research plan: "preregistration does not fully counter publication bias as it does not guarantee that findings will be reported." It has been argued that preregistration may also in some cases harm the quality of the research output by creating artificial constraints that do not fit with the reality of the research field: "Preregistration may interfere with valid inference because nothing prevents a researcher from preregistering a poor analytical plan." +While advocated as a relatively cost-free solution, preregistration may be in reality harder to implement as it relies on a significant commitment on the part of the researchers. An empiric study of the adoption of open science experiments in a psychology journals has shown that "Adoption of pre-registration lags relative to other open science practices (…) from 2015 to 2020". Consequently "even within researchers who see field-wide benefits of pre-registration, there is uncertainty surrounding the costs and benefits to individuals." + +=== Replication studies === +Replication studies or assessments of replicability aims to re-do one or several original studies. Although the concept has only appeared in the 2010s, replication studies have been existing for decades but were not acknowledged as such. The 2019 report of the National academies include a meta-analysis of 25 replications published between 1986 and 2019. It finds that the majority of the replication concern the medical and social sciences (especially, psychology and behavioral economics) and that there is for now no standardized evaluation criteria: "methods of assessing replicability are inconsistent and the replicability percentages depend strongly on the methods used." Consequently, at least as for 2019, replication studies cannot be aggregated to extrapolate a replicability rate: they "are not necessarily indicative of the actual rate of non-replicability across science for a number" +The TOPs guidelines have called for an enhanced recognition and valorization of replication studies. The eighth standards state that compliant journals should use "registered Reports as a submission option for replication studies with peer review". + +=== Open editorial policies === +In July 2018, several publishers, librarians, journal editors and researchers drafted a Leiden Declaration for Transparent Editorial Policies. The declaration underlined that journals "often do not contain information about reviewer selection, review criteria, blinding, the use of digital tools such as text similarity scanners, as well as policies on corrections and retractions" and this lack of transparency. The declaration identifies four main publication and peer review phases that should be better documented: + +At submission: details on the governance of the journal, its scope, the editorial board or the rejection rates. +During review: criteria for selection, timing of the review and model of peer review (double bind, single bind, open). +Publication: disclosure of the "roles in the review process". +Post-publication: "criteria and procedures for corrections, expressions of concern, retraction" and other changes. +In 2020, the Leiden Declaration has been expanded and supplemented by a Platform for Responsible Editorial Policies (PREP). This initiative also aims to solve the structural scarcity of data and empirical information on editorial policies and peer review practices. As of 2022, this database contains partially crowdsourced information on the editorial procedures of 490 journals, from an initial base of 353 journals. The procedures evaluated include especially "the level of anonymity afforded to authors and reviewers; the use of digital tools such as plagiarism scanners; and the timing of peer review in the research and publication process". Despite this developments, research on editorial research still highlight the need for the "a comprehensive database that would allow authors or other stakeholders to compare journals based on their (…) requirements or recommendations" + +== See also == +Fabrication (science) +Post-publication peer review +Scientific misconduct +Research Integrity Risk Index + +== References == + +== Bibliography == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrodiction-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrodiction-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..658e198aa --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrodiction-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +--- +title: "Retrodiction" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrodiction" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:10.942865+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Retrodiction is the act of making a prediction about the past. It is also known as postdiction (but this should not be confused with the use of the term in criticisms of parapsychological research). + + +== Activity == + +The activity of retrodiction (or postdiction) involves moving backwards in time, step-by-step, in as many stages as are considered necessary, from the present into the speculated past to establish the ultimate cause of a specific event (for instance, in the case of reverse engineering, forensics, etc.). +Given that retrodiction is a process in which "past observations, events and data are used as evidence to infer the process(es) that produced them" and that diagnosis "involve[s] going from visible effects such as symptoms, signs and the like to their prior causes", the essential balance between prediction and retrodiction could be characterized as: + +retrodiction : diagnosis :: prediction : prognosis +regardless of whether the prognosis is of the course of the disease in the absence of treatment, or of the application of a specific treatment regimen to a specific disorder in a particular patient: + +"We consider diagnostic inference to be based on causal thinking, although in doing diagnosis one has to mentally reverse the time order in which events were thought to have occurred (hence the term "backward inference"). On the other hand, predictions involve forward inference; i.e., one goes forward in time from present causes to future effects. However, it is important to recognize the dependence of forward inference/prediction on backward inference/diagnosis. In particular, it seems likely that success in predicting the future depends to a considerable degree on making sense of the past. Therefore, people are continually engaged in shifting between forward and backward inference in both making and evaluating forecasts. Indeed, this can be eloquently summarized by Kierkegaard's observation that, "Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards". + + +== Scientific method == +In the scientific method, the terms retrodiction or postdiction are used in several senses. +One use refers to the act of evaluating a scientific theory by predicting known rather than new events. For example, a theory in physics that claims to extend or replace the Standard Model but that fails to predict the existence of known particles has not met the test of postdiction. +Michael Clive Price has written: + +A retrodiction occurs when already gathered data is accounted for by a later theoretical advance in a more convincing fashion. The advantage of a retrodiction over a prediction is that the already gathered data is more likely to be free of experimenter bias. An example of a retrodiction is the perihelion shift of Mercury which Newtonian mechanics plus gravity was unable, totally, to account for whilst Einstein's general relativity made short work of it. +Another use refers to a process by which one attempts to test a theory whose predictions are too long-term to be tested by waiting for a future event to occur. Instead, one speculates about uncertain events in the more distant past, and applies the theory to consider how it would have predicted a known event in the less distant past. This is useful in, for example, the fields of archaeology, climatology, evolutionary biology, financial analysis, forensic science, and cosmology. +The term can also refer to instances when a theory implies or explains a past event that is not yet known but is later discovered. An example in linguistics is laryngeal theory. Linguists in the 19th century hypothesized that Indo-European languages derived from an ancestral language that originally had a class of three unique consonants that were subsequently lost in all known descendant languages. They were able to infer the presence of these consonants based on the lasting effects they seemed to have on neighboring sounds. Because the laryngeal consonants were not directly attested in any ancient inscriptions known at the time, the theory was not widely accepted. In the 20th century, the ancient Hittite language was discovered, deciphered, and classified as an Indo-European language. Unlike the other, previously known Indo-European languages, it preserved two of the laryngeal consonants as discrete phonemes. This discovery led to the widespread acceptance of laryngeal theory. + + +== Sensory perception == +In the field of neuroscience, the term postdiction was introduced by David Eagleman to describe a perceptual process in which the brain collects information after an event before it retrospectively decides what happened at the time of the event (Eagleman and Sejnowski, 2000). Some perceptual illusions in which the brain mistakenly perceives the location of moving stimuli may involve postdiction. Such illusions include the flash lag illusion and the cutaneous rabbit illusion. + + +== See also == +Hindcast – Testing a predictive model on historical dataPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets + + +== Footnotes == + + +== References == +Einhorn, H.J. & Hogarth, R.M., "Prediction, Diagnosis, and Causal Thinking in Forecasting", Journal of Forecasting, (January–March 1982), Vol.1, No.1, pp. 23–36. +Yeates, L.B., Thought Experimentation: A Cognitive Approach, Graduate Diploma in Arts (By Research) dissertation, University of New South Wales, 2004. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_chance_in_scientific_discoveries-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_chance_in_scientific_discoveries-0.md index 07ba00bb1..85b1f350b 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_chance_in_scientific_discoveries-0.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_chance_in_scientific_discoveries-0.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_chance_in_scientific_discoveries" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:34.722732+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:12.138189+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-0.md index d80b75454..ffd73f6fe 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-0.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-0.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/17 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:38.329419+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:13.409273+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-1.md index 3a57b50ef..68b3cb572 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-1.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-1.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/17 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:38.329419+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:13.409273+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-10.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-10.md index d96f8468d..93f7a9a4e 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-10.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-10.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 11/17 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:38.329419+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:13.409273+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-11.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-11.md index d2114db9a..0ab4f9a36 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-11.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-11.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 12/17 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:38.329419+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:13.409273+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-12.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-12.md index 9d0ecc9ec..95a720b1f 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-12.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-12.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 13/17 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:38.329419+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:13.409273+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-13.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-13.md index d229ca858..d5190ee7c 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-13.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-13.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 14/17 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:38.329419+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:13.409273+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-14.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-14.md index ddb7fc978..aeb26ff40 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-14.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-14.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 15/17 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:38.329419+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:13.409273+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-15.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-15.md index 530b3e8cd..326ba699e 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-15.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-15.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 16/17 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:38.329419+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:13.409273+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-16.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-16.md index 77340bb9f..1e0b200c9 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-16.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-16.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 17/17 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:38.329419+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:13.409273+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-2.md index e373ab8d8..574b37862 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-2.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-2.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 3/17 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:38.329419+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:13.409273+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-3.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-3.md index 561fab095..14b9a1738 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-3.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-3.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 4/17 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:38.329419+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:13.409273+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-4.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-4.md index 5d009bc68..4d0103540 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-4.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-4.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 5/17 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:38.329419+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:13.409273+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-5.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-5.md index 63b2be714..fcab86d11 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-5.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-5.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 6/17 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:38.329419+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:13.409273+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-6.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-6.md index 8fedcb5e3..a83115d79 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-6.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-6.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 7/17 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:38.329419+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:13.409273+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-7.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-7.md index f4f4a0f71..392488bec 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-7.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-7.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 8/17 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:38.329419+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:13.409273+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-8.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-8.md index 87ab2e837..51f400288 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-8.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-8.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 9/17 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:38.329419+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:13.409273+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-9.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-9.md index 344b607ca..deddcfd18 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-9.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-9.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 10/17 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:38.329419+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:13.409273+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" ---