Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33584875›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal for philosophy of science2021

Data models, representation and adequacy-for-purpose.

Alisa Bokulich, Wendy Parker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal for philosophy of science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. What can we learn from 100,000 freshwater forecasts? A synthesis from the NEON Ecological Forecasting Challenge.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025
    Article
  4. Unified and pluralistic ideals for data sharing and reuse in biodiversity.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Investigation of microorganisms in cannabis after heating in a commercial vaporizer.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alisa BokulichDepartment of Philosophy, Boston University, 745 Commonwealth Avenue, Room 516, Boston, MA 02215 USA.
Wendy ParkerDepartment of Philosophy, Virginia Tech, 229 Major Williams Hall (0126), Blacksburg, VA 24060 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We critically engage two traditional views of scientific data and outline a novel philosophical view that we call the

Indexed as

AstrophysicsClimate scienceDataData modelsData processingFit-for-purposeGeosciencesLegacy dataPragmatismScientific models

Identifiers

PMID33584875
PMCPMC7846529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.