[open-science] IPCC report

Thu Oct 3 08:24:34 UTC 2013

I know them well. They ran a hackathon last month with pizza etc. I've
blogged them. I am kicking myself I didn't make the connection! But hey!
that's why we have a collective approach to projects. I am copying them in.

And they were at C4CC hack / maker on Tuesday.

It's a wonderful synergy. Climate and Health are probably the two areas
that Citizens care most about. They have different public appeals. The
thing about Climate is it has a simple closure - we have 10000 references
and that's the immediate goal. So yes, getting the OA button technology
into analysing the climate references would be sensational!

Meanwhile I am looking to see how to extract the references automatically.
They won't be trivial to parse as there are references to a  number of
reports and chapters. But we should be able to poke something into Google
scholar or Microsoft academic.

P.

On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Daniel Lombraña González <
teleyinex at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Cameron,
>
> I think I talked to them in the past OKCon13 actually :-) In any case, you
> are right! Your idea is really good! Interaction between both projects
> should be something to discuss by all means. Peter, do you know this group?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Daniel
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Cameron Neylon <cn at cameronneylon.net>wrote:
>
>> One thing that you may want to consider is working with the OA Button
>> group. Once you've got a list of articles and a way of distributing them
>>  you could interact with the infrastructure they are building to make it
>> easy to record failed access requests.
>>
>> https://oabutton.wordpress.com/
>> https://github.com/oabutton
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Cameron
>>
>> On 3 Oct 2013, at 08:24, Daniel Lombraña González <teleyinex at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Couture Marc <marc.couture at teluq.ca>wrote:
>>
>>>  Daniel suggests the following for the crowdcrafting application:
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > * Each citizen is given a reference. and asked "can you read this"
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > […]
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > * they click questions such as "is this paper on a public site?" "is
>>> it the publisher
>>>
>>> > site?" "can you access the full-text?" "if not, how much does it
>>> cost?" "please save
>>>
>>> > the URL"
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>
>> Actually that was suggested by Peter :-) And I like his proposal.
>>
>>>
>>>  I don’t know if this forum is the right place to discuss these
>>> details; maybe one should put up an EtherPad or Google Doc  to that effet.
>>> Anyway, I’ll go ahead.
>>>
>> Well,  I think that as the first e-mail included this list, it is fair to
>> continue the discussion, unless someone says we should move to another
>> place :-)
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don’t have any concrete experience with crowdcrafting, only a
>>> knowledge derived from reading about some projects, mainly Galaxy Zoo, and
>>> I had a look at Ross Mounce’s app for OA journals copyright policies (a
>>> subject I know very well).
>>>
>>>
>>> All I can say is that different people will come up with different
>>> answers to these questions; some will find an OA version, others won’t. And
>>> I know, because I do it on a regular basis for a journal, that OA versions
>>> are sometimes quite hard to find.
>>>
>>
>> IMHO this is also interesting :-) The perception of users regarding OA
>> versions could be something really good to analyze too. It would be cool to
>> show which references generated more disagreement regarding the chosen
>> licenses. For example, for our ForestWatchers.net project, we analyze
>> the disagreement for specific tasks<http://forestwatchers.net/pybossa/app/besttile/>(check the map, and select the Heat Map layer), and it reveals very useful
>> information: the most cloudy areas, are the most difficult ones.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My point is that I don’t know what would be the quality of a survey in
>>> which each reference is checked by only one person. In Galaxy Zoo, for
>>> instance, they combine answers from many participants and empirically
>>> determined thresholds (number of participants and % of agreement) for an
>>> answer to be considered reliable (in their case, as reliable as what would
>>> be obtained by a trained astrophysicist).
>>>
>>
>> You have raised a very good point: using only one user is bad, really
>> bad. For this reason, and by default, CrowdCrafting and any PyBossa server
>> sends an application task to at least 30 different persons, so you can do
>> the statistical analysis correctly.
>>
>> PyBossa allows you to change that value, to have a bigger sample, or a
>> smaller one, but by default, if you do not touch anything you will get 30
>> samples per task. In other words, each task is going to be reviewed by 30
>> different people, so as you can see we are doing the same as Galaxy Zoo,
>> and other citizen science projects.
>>
>> CrowdCrafting and PyBossa also supports "golden tasks" (in PyBossa terms
>> I called them calibration tasks) which means that you can weight the answer
>> of the users based on the answer given to the golden ones.
>>
>> Thus, the application is covered by the server unless the authors decide
>> to change that value to something like one (i.e. for testing purposes). In
>> summary, CrowdCrafting follows the same pattern as GalaxyZoo.
>>
>> I hope this is much clearer now :-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> PS: PyBossa also supports task priorities, so you can change the priority
>> of apps as you wish.
>> PS2: PyBossa is the open-source software that powers CrowdCrafting.organd
>> ForestWatchers.net
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Marc Couture
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *De :* open-science-bounces at lists.okfn.org [mailto:
>>> open-science-bounces at lists.okfn.org] *De la part de* Daniel Lombraña
>>> González
>>> *Envoyé :* 2 octobre 2013 04:15
>>> *À :* Peter Murray-Rust
>>> *Cc :* open-science; okfn-discuss
>>> *Objet :* Re: [open-science] IPCC report
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Great,
>>>
>>> I'll probably try to hack bits of the report today.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nice!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The way I see it is something like:
>>>
>>> * Crowdcrafting is given 9000 references:
>>>
>>> * Each citizen is given a reference. and asked "can you read this"
>>>
>>> * they are expected to paste the text into Google or some other search
>>> engine (maybe Microsoft Academic Search)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the application I mentioned before, I basically avoid the copy&paste
>>> action by giving a button that will directly do the search in Google
>>> Scholar in a new tab. You can adapt it easily to any service :-)
>>>
>>>    * they click questions such as "is this paper on a public site?" "is
>>> it the publisher site?" "can you access the full-text?" "if not, how much
>>> does it cost?" "please save the URL"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It makes a lot of sense :-) Once the user has all that info, they will
>>> click a button with the Save URL or Send report, and a new task will be
>>> loaded for them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> and repeat.  It's up to our app to keep track of the results.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yep! You will be able to get all the answers via JavaScript, or if you
>>> prefer, download them, do the statistics first, and then generate the
>>> output. This is up to you to decide how do you want to achieve it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There's slightly more cut and paste than normal, but many citizens
>>> should have high motivation. My guess it will take about 0.5-3 mins. We may
>>> need notes on how to navigate some journals. Their interfaces are awful.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's something you can address in the tutorial. Every
>>> CrowdCrafting.org application can have one, so all you have to do is to
>>> create one for yours :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We also need a wiki/mail - e.g. how do we find the cost for Journal X...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's something CrowdCrafting does not have, but there should be free
>>> Wikis or Etherpads to coordinate yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think it could be exciting, rapid and very worthwhile.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed! If promoted well, you will get a lot of people!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> open-science mailing list
>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://daniellombrana.es
>> http://citizencyberscience.net
>> http://www.shuttleworthfoundation.org/fellows/daniel-lombrana/
>>
>> ··························································································································································
>> Please do NOT use proprietary file formats to share files
>> like DOC or XLS, instead use PDF, HTML, RTF, TXT, CSV or
>> any other format that does not impose on the user the employment
>> of any specific software to work with the information inside the files.
>>
>> ··························································································································································
>> Por favor, NO utilice formatos de archivo propietarios para el
>> intercambio de documentos, como DOC y XLS, sino PDF, HTML, RTF, TXT, CSV
>> o cualquier otro que no obligue a utilizar un programa de un
>> fabricante concreto para tratar la información contenida en él.
>>
>> ··························································································································································
>>  _______________________________________________
>> open-science mailing list
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> http://daniellombrana.es
> http://citizencyberscience.net
> http://www.shuttleworthfoundation.org/fellows/daniel-lombrana/
>
> ··························································································································································
> Please do NOT use proprietary file formats to share files
> like DOC or XLS, instead use PDF, HTML, RTF, TXT, CSV or
> any other format that does not impose on the user the employment
> of any specific software to work with the information inside the files.
>
> ··························································································································································
> Por favor, NO utilice formatos de archivo propietarios para el
> intercambio de documentos, como DOC y XLS, sino PDF, HTML, RTF, TXT, CSV
> o cualquier otro que no obligue a utilizar un programa de un
> fabricante concreto para tratar la información contenida en él.
>
> ··························································································································································
>

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20131003/2656c1ce/attachment-0001.html>