"a framework for segmenting a scholarly article’s audience on Twitter...into granular, informative categories inferred through probabilistic topic modeling of metadata collected from each user’s network of followers"
(could be useful @nikaletras ?)
Big up "plant biology" for having a solid 0% pre-print audience with "white nationalist follower homophily"
Genetics leading the dismal pack, perhaps predictably, with animal behaviour and cognition second
(probably small number of preprints analysed for animal behaviour, but neuroscience also looks solid for white nationalism)
There's a fascinating story in here which I am sure I haven't fully understood
"These preprints often involved research pertaining to human population history & the genetic and neurological architecture & evolution of sociobehavioral traits, suggesting such research is seen by these audience sectors as especially relevant to right-wing political ideologies"
So, on what hand, we have a story about white nationalist twitter recruiting preprints as support for their ideological position
But more generally this is a lens for looking at how scholarly outputs are taken up by special interest communities ("...mental health advocates, dog lovers, video game developers, vegans, bitcoin investors, conspiracy theorists, journalists, religious groups...")
Part of their "night science" project ("exciting and significant parts of scientific research that occur behind the scenes") biomedcentral.com/collections/ni…
Why would you be driven to make baseless claims about election fraud? it seems so norm-eroding, so dangerous a precedent to set - knocking out the epistemic ladder up which we climb to democracy, leaving a future in which legitimacy can't exist.
Presumably (1) you would only do so if you felt that the threat posed by losing the election was as large as the threat of the collapse of legitimate government anyway (i.e. if you were really desperate) but also ...
...(2)Do accusations of electoral fraud betray a lack of faith in the rationality of voters: "Reasonable people couldn't vote for the opposition, so those votes must be fraudulent"? In this way calls of electoral fraud are the right's Cambridge Analytica
During my PhD I nearly lost my mind thinking about why we build computational models in cognitive science. {thread}
Modelling defines what makes cognitive science different from psychology. All cognitive scientists know that formal, computable models are good, but we don't always say exactly *why*
And when we do say, we find we don't exactly agree
After my PhD (which I completed without completely losing my mind), the issue of articulating exactly why we put so much effort into modelling still bugged me. Eventually I wrote something up, organised around answering the charge that models are just tautological
Thread, top five drone takedowns.
#5 Shotgun - simple, effective. A classic
#4 Eagle - Dutch authorities *were* training eagles to take down drones, but have since given up on this idea (either due to risk of injury, or difficulty training the eagles, reports vary) theverge.com/2017/12/12/167…
#3 Spear - thrown by medieval warrior at reenactment in central Russia. Link for full video:
Many Analysts, One Data Set: Making Transparent How Variations in Analytic Choices Affect Results journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/25… our 65 author collaboration is finally published in Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science