Second draft of topic definitions

[nniiicc]

• When you're ready assign to @nniiicc for review

[sarah114tran]

@nniiicc I am ready for review!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BTqMdEd-tYHfFPzMcjk83NBF4Xl8qs6IExTVdR8U9R8/edit?usp=sharing

• Whats in bold is the original version, and the ones below are our versions.

Sarah next steps:

• [x] Sample another set of ten and try to apply the new definitions
• [x] See if we need to look at the entire abstract to determine topic more confidently

[sarah114tran]

Update: coded a new set of 10, and defining the topics did go a bit easier with the new definitions. Also, I have found that referring back to the abstracts of the paper may help resolve differences.

[nniiicc]

@sarah114tran -these are excellent. Thank you for the careful eye on their edits. Here is what I did:

• I copied the same 10 and coded with your defintions.
• We agreed on all but one "Can Open Source Hardware Mechanical Ventilator (OSH-MVs) initiatives help cope with the COVID-19 health crisis? Taxonomy and state of the art" - I coded Characteristcs and you coded Development
• After reading the abstract I agree that it should be Development

Here are my proposed next steps:

• Sarah and Lindsey code the rest of the papers (in total)
• When you are finished - find a time to meet and resolve any differences.

A few other ideas:

• I will work on the classifier so we can report the distribution of papers (empirical, review, etc)
• I think we should NOT include any review articles in our scoping review even if they are systematic and empirical. Instead we should include a separate section that discusses previous review articles and describe some of their major findings - I can write out the logic for this in the paper draft. If I can write the classifier correctly we can identify review articles automatically. If not we can probably just do some keyword searching titles (which I can do)
• In the paper that we developed the topical categories from ( https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1109/FLOSS.2009.5071355) they cite another paper that they used to structure their presentation of their systematic review results (doi: 10.1109/APSEC.2008.50) -essentially calling things "facts, trends, and directions" - I think this is OVERLY reductive - but it might help spark some ideas for how we divide up the results section