Additions, clarifications, and formatting. #16
Conversation
|
Thanks for this, @TheChymera! As mentioned in #11 we were thinking of editing the glossary on the doc before making one big PR before the internal deadline for preprint submission of the 28th. This way all the big (e.g. agreement on definitions) and small (e.g., typos corrections) changes can happen there without needing to revise multiple (potentially conflicting) PR. Of course down the road, once the main text is there, it'll be easier to proceed with small additions/changes. How does that sound to you? |
|
@vborghe I find it a lot easier to keep track of things via git and issues. The doc collaborative editing structure tends to become a lot more confused, with discussion threads in the tiny right-hand column etc. Plus, authorship is easier to keep track of here. There's good reasons why big collaborative projects use git :) |
|
Very good points, @TheChymera! Would it work to follow the "rules" suggested during the meeting, i.e. to work collaboratively on a branch (maybe this? https://github.com/vborghe/brainhack_jupyter_book/tree/glossary) then make only one PR? Thank you very much! And sorry for my newbie noise 😄 |
|
One tremendously important point we need to keep in mind is that we also want folks who are not experienced/comfortable with |
|
@yasminebassil is doing a pass to the doc (after all my typos LOL) 🙏 Then I will make an ongoing PR from this branch [https://github.com/vborghe/brainhack_jupyter_book/tree/glossary] That should get most of the starting content in, so that @TheChymera and anyone else can comment/add via "standard" issues/PR, sounds good? Thanks everyone for the patience and the will to be inclusive ❤️ |
|
So @yasminebassil PR #21 covers everything that has been edited on the doc, so between that and this PR we should be ready for the preprint. But at this point I am lost as to how to avoid conflicts between the two - sorry and thanks again for the patience! |
@vborghe the way this usually works, is that whoever has push access creates a merge commit with a mergetool. Meld is pretty convenient. If you can give me push access I can handle this. |
|
Conflicts with
|
|
@anibalsolon is any help from me needed on this? |
|
Hi @TheChymera Please do not hesitate to chime in as you would like to, there are still missing bits in the glossary and I added some today requires review. So please share your suggestions and whatever you think necessary for completion of the English version of the glossary. Thank you 🤗 |
|
|
||
| ### Repository | ||
| A long-lived place on the internet where resources (be they data, software, publications or anything else) can be stored and accessed. This keyword is often shortened to ‘repo’. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Reproducibility | ||
| The degree to which the same methods, results, and inferences of a study can be produced again. Methods reproducibility is the degree to which the methods described in a study report can be performed again. This may be limited by a vague description in the study report or lack of openness in the data. Results reproducibility is the degree to which the same results are produced, in a new study with the same method Inferential reproducibility is the degree to which the same inferences are drawn, either in a new study with the same method and results or in a re-analysis of the original study. | ||
|
|
||
| ### README File | ||
| File where you document your research data. The documentation should be sufficient to enable other researchers to understand, replicate or reproduce the data or reuse them in any other way. | ||
| ### README file |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like both of these definitions a lot! The first one touches on the idea that README files can accompany research objects (e.g., data, code) and the added text includes that README files can accompany software as well! I recommend combining them. How about this?
A file that documents an electronic resource, such as data, code, or software. The documentation should be sufficient to enable other researchers to understand, replicate or reproduce the data or reuse them in any way.
| @@ -18,7 +19,8 @@ The group that is addressed by intentional communication (e.g., those in attenda | |||
| All active contributors, local or remote, who have contributed significantly to any part of the overall project at any stage, including participating in initial project planning & development, to creating written documentation of global efforts, and finally to finalizing and publishing the results. | |||
|
|
|||
| ### Attendee | |||
| Any individual who attends or is present at the event, training, seminar, workshop, or activity (e.g., participant at Brainhack event, individual present at Brainhack workshop, etc.) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this definition is clear. I would say a Brainhack organizer/coordinator can also be an "attendee". What do others think?
I would maybe add that we can add that attendees can also be in-person or virtual?
Any individual who attends an event (virtually or in-person). This can include attendance at a training session, seminar, workshop, or activity (cf. Participant)
|
|
||
| ### Fully Open | ||
|
|
||
| ### Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) | ||
| A neuroscience method that indirectly measures brain activity by detecting changes in blood flow associated with brain activity through the blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) signal. | ||
| An imaging technique which leverages temporally resolved recording of magnetic resonance signals in order to elucidate the function of dynamic systems. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like saying it's an imaging technique! Maybe keep "BOLD signal" though.
Thoughts on this (as a rough pass at combining these)?
A non-invasive imaging technique that uses a magnetic resonance (MR) signal to measure brain activity over time. fMRI is primarily used to image humans or other animals by detecting changes in blood flow (hemodynamic response) as indexed by the blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) signal.
No description provided.