Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33816811›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2018

Verifiability in computer-aided research: the role of digital scientific notations at the human-computer interface.

Konrad Hinsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

1 author.

Konrad HinsenCentre de Biophysique Moléculaire (UPR4301), CNRS, Orléans, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most of today's scientific research relies on computers and software for processing scientific information. Examples of such computer-aided research are the analysis of experimental data or the simulation of phenomena based on theoretical models. With the rapid increase of computational power, scientific software has integrated more and more complex scientific knowledge in a black-box fashion. As a consequence, its users do not know, and do not even have a chance of finding out, which assumptions and approximations their computations are based on. This black-box nature of scientific software has made the verification of much computer-aided research close to impossible. The present work starts with an analysis of this situation from the point of view of human-computer interaction in scientific research. It identifies the key role of digital scientific notations at the human-computer interface, reviews the most popular ones in use today, and describes a proof-of-concept implementation of Leibniz, a language designed as a verifiable digital scientific notation for models formulated as mathematical equations.

Indexed as

Computational documentsComputational scienceDigital scientific notationsHuman-computer interactionValidationVerification

Identifiers

PMID33816811
PMCPMC7924627

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.