...won't even link them to the final publication if the publisher has provided that directly! And while it does suggest some relevant and interesting studies, it also suggests many that are irrelevant, already seen many times, or even my own.
They're clearly not improving it; what are they doing?
Are we witnessing the enshittification of ResearchGate? Started promising and useful, but hasn't really gotten over toddler-stage yet. Won't read pdfs correctly, won't parse metadata from doi correctly, won't identify known authors correctly, won't join endlessly proliferating preprints,... 1/2
Are you interested in Educational Measurement? We are looking for two postdoctoral fellows. Join our Centre of Excellence at the University of Oslo!
www.jobbnorge.no/en/available...
I got it too, and I played because I was curious. Unsurprisingly, the ideas were vague nonsense. Perhaps some AI people think research is word play? Maybe *their* research is.
In my experience, ideas have never been the bottleneck in research. Again, people are trying to use AI for the wrong thing.
You can enter a nonbreaking space (through insert symbol) somewhere, then copy it, and paste it into the search field to replace globally with a regular space. Whoa, they're all gone!
(just an irrelevant momentary distraction from doomscrolling)
Scanned text reading "Fatigue also does explain the differential deficits we found."
My first publication ever, 30 years ago, was in Nature (cognitive research on Mt. Everest is cool!), with serious limitations, severely underpowered and relentlessly p-hacked, edited from several thousand words down to 500. Still, a “not” was removed after proofs had been corrected and approved.
Perhaps this means that people do recognize 2 words simultaneously after all, because if they didn't how would they know they form a compound?
In Greece, 6 pm is afternoon coffee time, not dinner. But anyway if you're invited to someone's house at 6 for anything, it would be very impolite to show up before 6:30, as nothing would be ready and the host would probably not even be dressed yet. Some time between 6:30 and 7:00 would be normal.
In Norway, in my experience when you're invited at six you're expected to ring the bell within a few minutes of 6:00, but I guess you're sort of OK within 10 minutes or so. People text to say sorry they're late even if it's 10 minutes late.
When naming visual sequences, efficiency calls for parallel processing of successive items but this leads to interference that threatens performance. To manage the load, constant monitoring allows dynamic adjustment of parallelism, seen in eye-voice span and articulation.
dx.doi.org/10.1037/xlm0...
What I wish I knew: 33 thoughts for early career researchers
Reflections I wish someone had shared with me early in my research career.
predirections.substack.com/p/what-i-wis...
In two experiments we used a flanked masked (75 ms) visual word version of the visual world paradigm with five flanking conditions: none, repeated symbols, unknown font strings, pseudowords, and words. Flankers interfered with activation of the target word, more so for frequent words.
Skilled readers use information from upcoming words to boost efficiency, but at what cost? We discovered that nearby words interfere with lexical activation of the fixated word, calling for a more nuanced approach to the role of preview in fluent reading. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jm...
Hey guys! Thumbs up from me too :-)
LQ is not only about the detailed content. It also requires strong and redundant connections among the three domains.
As for improving them, I would say that reading is the established way.
