MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3213118207 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/n2ryp

Good Scientific Practice in MEEG Research: Progress and Perspectives

2021· preprint· en· W3213118207 on OpenAlexaff
Guiomar Niso, Laurens R. Krol, Etienne Combrisson, Anne‐Sophie Dubarry, Madison Elliott, François Clément, Yseult Héjja‐Brichard, Sophie K. Herbst, Karim Jerbi, Vanja Ković, Katia Lehongre, Steven J. Luck, Mercier, John C. Mosher, Yuri G. Pavlov, Aina Puce, Antonio Schettino, Daniele Schön, Walter Sinnott‐Armstrong, Bertille Somon, Аnđela Šoškić, Suzy J Styles, Roni Tibon, Martina G. Vilas, Marijn van Vliet, Maximilien Chaumon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversity of British ColumbiaGoogle (Canada)Okanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrutinyCompetence (human resources)Engineering ethicsWork (physics)Public relationsComputer scienceKnowledge managementPolitical sciencePsychologyData scienceSocial psychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Good Scientific Practice (GSP) refers to both explicit and implicit rules or guidelines that help scientists to produce work that is of the highest quality at any given time, and to efficiently share that work with the community for further scrutiny or utilization. For experimental research using magneto- and electroencephalography (MEEG), GSP includes specific standards and guidelines for technical competence, which are periodically updated whenever new findings come to light. However, GSP also needs to be periodically revisited in a broader light. At the LiveMEEG 2020 conference, a reflection on GSP was fostered that included explicitly documented guidelines and technical advances, but also emphasised intangible GSP: a general awareness of personal, organisational, and societal realities and how they can influence MEEG research. This article provides an extensive report on most of the LiveMEEG contributions and new literature, with the additional aim to synthesize ongoing cultural changes in GSP. It first covers GSP with respect to cognitive biases and logical fallacies, pre-registration as a tool to avoid those and other early pitfalls, and a number of resources to enable collaborative and reproducible research as a general approach to minimize misconceptions. Second, GSP with respect to data acquisition, analysis, reporting, and sharing is discussed, including new tools and frameworks to support collaborative work. Finally, GSP is considered in light of ethical implications of MEEG research and the resulting responsibility that scientists have to engage with societal challenges. Considering among other things the benefits of peer review and open access at all stages, the need to coordinate larger international projects, the complexity of MEEG subject matter, and today's prioritization of fairness, privacy, and the environment, we find that current GSP tends to favour collective and cooperative work, for both scientific and for societal reasons.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.252
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.295
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2520.295
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.013
Science and technology studies0.0090.067
Scholarly communication0.0400.048
Open science0.0060.021
Research integrity0.0240.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.247
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→