Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Google scholar is probably your best starting point. Just throw in the search terms you are interested in and start clicking and reading. Its free, and is a pretty complete archive.
The biggest issue you'll get into is that many papers are behind paywalls.
To get around that (and you morally should) you have two options.
Step one option a:
The first and easier is to go onto scihub and see if someone has uploaded the paper: https://www.sci-hub.st/
Step one option b:
The second is to make an account on research gate, track down one of the authors, and just straight up ask them for a copy. They'll almost always send it to you. If you can't find them on research gate, just throw their name into the google and they might have a lab or professional email you can track down.
Step two:
In terms of how to comprehend? My recommendation, if the paper is English language, is to start in the upper left corner of the first page, and read from left to right in a clockwise descending manner one line at a time, until you get to the lower right corner of the page. This can vary depending on the number of columns on the page, but will generally work. If there are any sections you don't understand, all scientific papers will have citations you can look up to get further explanation on a given subject. For each citation repeat steps one and two. Continue this process recursively until you comprehend the material.
And the point of the last couple of lines really is the point. There is no replacement for comprehension and understanding other than to read the material over and over again, to look up what its referencing, and to keep trying and working on it and digging until you do get it. You can find some youtube videos and lectures for some understanding, but even these aren't replacements for the conversation which is what actual publications represent.
Its work to understand research.
Is there a way I can scan it before to get a sense of how credible it is in terms of sample sizes etc.
I always hear scientific voices immediately disregard papers and sources because its like p or n=10 (10 people or something) and I dont want to waste time with vanity publications/articles
They've got an abstract that covers this in short as the first paragraph.
This is an interesting sentiment. Almost all scientific publications undergo peer review, so this is the primary filter for keeping "crap" out.
I'm interested where you got the idea that people are doing or publishing scientific or research material for "vanity" purposes. Where did you hear about this or decide it was a thing?
And don't get me wrong. There is PLENTY of crap out there. And do you know how to know it is crap? You read it. You read the entire god-damned thing and you understand and interpret, and read between the lines of what they did in their experimental design. The gaps they left in their methods or statistical analyses that weren't obvious to the referees. You have a suspicion that its too good to be true and you spend time with that suspicion and their material, maybe even ask for their data, and you work out why you have this suspicion. You ideate, obsess over it. You think about it in the shower, on your bike, while grocery shopping. You harass strangers on the bus with the issue. You learn simulation theory and monte carlo to see how reproducible the result was. And eventually, you break through. Eureka! You've done one science.
There is no faster way (other than simply developing experience, knowledge and improving by doing the thing). You need to read the crap too so that you can understand why its crap. Seeking a faster way is to miss the concept entirely.
The process is the point. There is no where to go; there is only chop wood and carry water.
She's talking about art here, but I think Sarah Andersens comic makes the point:
Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you for that. I've tried to enter university once but the noise and pressure in teenage times plus mediocre education plus laziness from my side didn't allow it, but the curiosity was still here but I never knew (or, at least, I thought I didn't knew) how to do it. Don't want to do it professionally, at least not now, don't have time, but I would like to understand things more. In the end, what I had in my mind and thought was wrong is something like what u said, so I have no excuses and nothing else to do besides starts doing.
The OP and you didn't know, but you've made the life of someone better just by giving hope that this someone know how to do.
Thanks ❤️
I would add to this libmaps, great resource to put the title of your document and it maps the paper, from where it is cited to whom cites the paper that has more up to date research. Then if the paper isn't available use my friend above's method to access the papers
Also Ai is your friend in interpreting and summarising the paper, but be careful it isn't perfect
MMmm.
No. Don't do this unless you want wildly wrong results. Summarizing a scientific paper and extracting its key conclusions using a GPT is not a trivial thing. It might work for faking your way through an undergraduate level project, but its fundamentally antagonistic towards developing real understanding. There is no replacement for just reading the paper and its citations until you understand it. Even if a GPT can summarize a scientific paper (and I have volumes of data to show they can't with out significant guard rails) reading or memorizing "just the conclusions" is a great way to fool yourself and others into thinking you understand something. You have not done the thing if you do only this thing. If you want to truly understand it, there are no shortcuts.