Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 19h

Awesome thank you!

1

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 21h

Was this recorded?

1

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 1d

On impactful outputs.

1

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 1d

That makes sense. I guess my concern (mentioned in that thread discussion) is that single papers often become such hot topic despite being done poorly (to be fair different issue) or not being replicated but the idea sticks in the public. This may be more of a fault of science as a whole with focus

1

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 1d

Looking at this. Am I right in assuming that you are not worried about replication crises because that's what science should do? Continue to iterate and drop ideas that consistently don't work even if there are odd results that do?

I get too that this doesn't mean fraud stat magic etc.

1

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 1d

Interesting thread and thank you for sharing! My first thought when it comes to replication is being able to produce the same result with the same data as described in methods though I know this is not always what is assessed. Your thread has communicated well the idea the variation in studies 1/

1

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 1d

I like the idea of a week long process to write a 10 page recommendation letter in Stanford law. Seems like a good way to evaluate someone's contributions though needs to be done well to minimise bias

Research on Research Institute (RoRI) @rorinstitute.bsky.social · 1d

“Using metrics to assess researchers can be ‘very dodgy terrain,’” says @jameswilsdon.bsky.social.

Great overview of how research assessment is changing worldwide in @nature.com , featuring recent work by RoRI with the Global Research Council: www.nature.com/articles/d41...

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 1d

Interesting, I'll have to play around with it and watch some tutorials. Thank you!

1

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 1d

How do you like positron compared to RStudio??

1 1

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 1d

I don't think simple yes/no answers are sufficient. There can be complexity in thoughts and responses. Trying to boil things down to yes or no loses a lot of this and we are worse off for that

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 1d

The question. No not all GenAI use is bad, but I think this technology does have significant pitfalls that not everyone takes seriously...let alone the bad actors who will deliberately use this technology to continue to flood academia with poor research

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 1d

I agree in part with your point, not all AI use should be be thought as bad, but I think there are issues with this technology as your concrete examples show. GenAI can be quite bad at following along with prompts and you can get it to be quite agreeable or disagreeable depending on how you phrase/

1

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 1d

What would be your ideal solution? Curious to hear your thoughts!

1

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 1d

FailureCon*

1

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 1d

I enjoy Failure on! I think that would be a great idea particularly if each presentation had a back and forth aspect as it could identify issues

1 1

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 6d

Improve a subjective experience. It does not exist as a valid form of treatment

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 6d

Bring up the placebo effect I won't rule it out cause that could be why they are feeling better. And that effect could be happening due to expectations, agreeability and the other things you outlined.

To me the placebo effect exists to r/o a 100% certainty that your treatment did anything to

1

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 6d

Yea I agree, people that try to abuse the placebo effect or take advantage of it are an issue. It's not something that should be utilized as a treatment.

I mainly refer it e.g., do something random and the patient reports feeling less pain and asks why. I may have an opinion on why, but if they

1

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 6d

Ah ok, so it does exist just not around objective measures. I don't think this changes my perspective as a physio and discussing how placebo can have a role in pain - though I'm not up to date with papers in this area. Thank you for the info!

1

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 7d

Exactly...we recently had a pre print highlighting redundant publications likely generated in part by AI. It feels that soon it will be AI reviews of AI studies

2

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 7d

Sorry I may be misunderstanding but does this mean the placebo effect effectively doesn't exist? Or is it an over estimation of the placebo effect that is a scam

2

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 9d

Thanks for posting the other critiques. I had a similar way less detailed thread on here but it's nice to see some of my weird feelings about the paper detailed by people with more expertise!

1

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 12d

Very good thread transparency research in PT. Unfortunate results but hopefully starts some progress

François Jabouille @francois-jabouille.bsky.social · 12d

📰 New preprint: Replicability and transparency in physical therapy research: Time to wake up 📰

Where does physical therapy stand on the replication crisis and open-science practices?

We have identified significant shortcomings in current physical therapy research practice
👉 doi.org/10.1101/2025...

2

Danny Maupin @dmaupin.bsky.social · 12d

Very interesting! As a physio this is sad to see but unfortunately not very surprising. Physio could stand to benefit a lot from more open and high quality research

1 1

Reposted by Danny Maupin

Red Team of Science @redteamofsci.bsky.social · 12d

"Harvard could embed metascience into General Education Courses, ensuring that they reach as many students as possible." Ambika Grover in @theharvardcrimson.bsky.social
www.thecrimson.com/article/2025...

Can Harvard Cure Science’s Mistrust Epidemic? | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson

Harvard leads the world in science and in philosophizing on how to make the world a better place. It’s time to make metascience a bigger part of the conversation.

www.thecrimson.com

1 2