bakerdh

@bakerdh@fediscience.org

Senior Lecturer in Psychology at the University of York. Interested in low level visual perception in humans, statistics, open science.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

bakerdh, to random

New about our experiences offering 'reproducibility as a service' for a six month period: https://psyarxiv.com/k8d4u/

We made 10 papers from @YorkPsychology covering a wide range of study designs, supported by funding from Research England 1/6

bakerdh, to random

Hi #OpenScience folks. We're making excellent progress with our Research England funded project on computational reproducibility. We've now made 5 manuscripts reproducible using Markdown. See examples here:

https://github.com/AMTdeBruin/Bilingual-switching-ageing

https://github.com/bakerdh/SizeAdaptation

The question now is what we should do next. We have a really nice pipeline for automatically building markdown files on Github. But the process of making papers reproducible is time consuming.

bakerdh,

So the question really is whether this is a useful service we could provide for researchers. If we offered this commercially, is it something people would be interested in? Here's a poll (please boost for reach).

How much would you pay for a full service to convert a completed manuscript and code into a reproducible format, with a turnaround time of ~2 weeks?

bakerdh,

@williamgunn Yeah, it depends on the paper, but it might take anything between a day and a week to go through the process

bakerdh,

@williamgunn I'd say it needs a deep understanding of programming and statistics, so there are many small judgement calls throughout. Definitely couldn't be automated, for example. However we are thinking one possibility would be to run workshops to train people to do this with their own papers - it's easier if you wrote the paper in the first place!

bakerdh,

@williamgunn We work directly with the authors, so they provide everything. The best time to do it is when the paper is written but before its been submitted anywhere. That way reviewers and editors can evaluate the code

elduvelle, to random
@elduvelle@neuromatch.social avatar

who share code with their papers: how do you make your code available to the reviewers without it being fully public? (And while guaranteeing the anonymity of the reviewers)

bakerdh,

@elduvelle Usually we just make it public at the same time as we release a preprint, so this isn't really an issue as it's available already. But OSF view-only links are useful for what you describe, and I've seen things shared this way when I've been a reviewer. I think it's even possible to link a private github repository to the OSF project

bakerdh, to random

New paper out in @PLOS ONE on tilt-shift miniaturisation, a neat photography trick that can make big things look small. Here, for example is a big gold coach, which has been made to look like a (much less ostentatious) scale model.

In the paper we show that the illusion is orientation-specific, but the blur gradient is not important. We use a performance task to compare blurred images with photographs of actual scale models.

Work with Tim Meese and Rob Summers (Aston).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285423

bakerdh,

@penguin42 Good question. We haven't tried this, though I guess it might be quite similar to the 'inverse blur' condition from our experiment. This didn't produce a tilt-shift effect, but it also didn't produce the opposite (as one might predict)

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • provamag3
  • InstantRegret
  • mdbf
  • ethstaker
  • magazineikmin
  • GTA5RPClips
  • rosin
  • thenastyranch
  • Youngstown
  • osvaldo12
  • slotface
  • khanakhh
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • JUstTest
  • Durango
  • everett
  • cisconetworking
  • Leos
  • normalnudes
  • cubers
  • modclub
  • ngwrru68w68
  • tacticalgear
  • megavids
  • anitta
  • tester
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •