search

uchicago-computation-workshop / Spring2022

Repository for the Spring 2022 Computational Social Science Workshop
5 stars 3 forks source link

03/31: James Evans #1

Open ehuppert opened 2 years ago

ehuppert commented 2 years ago

Comment below with a well-developed question or comment about the reading for this week's workshop. These are individual questions and comments.

Please post your question by Wednesday 11:59 PM, and upvote at least three of your peers' comments on Thursday prior to the workshop. You need to use 'thumbs-up' for your reactions to count towards 'top comments,' but you can use other emojis on top of the thumbs up.

qishenfu1 commented 2 years ago

Hi Prof. Evans, it is great seeing you at our workshop session! After reading your paper, my major concern is the measurement of variables, especially measuring innovation and creativity can be hard and sometimes problematic. Overall, the results are very interesting and insightful. Look forward to tomorrow's talk!

boyafu commented 2 years ago

For the team collaboration in scientific research, I wonder if the pattern would vary for different disciplines - natural science, engineering, and social science. I find it interesting to think about the hidden hierarchy of scientific teams with publications in PNAS, Nature, Science, and PLOS One, whose results may heavily rely on experiments and group work. For disciplines with fewer collaborators and arguably less hands-on prep work, I wonder if the organization still factors into the process of output quality. Thanks!

zbchen0129 commented 2 years ago

Hi Prof. Evans. Thanks for sharing your latest research work. I have several questions about the first paper, Flat Teams Drive Scientific Innovation.

  1. Since to measure the structure of a team is hard, do you think your approach to construct L-ratio for the team structure may contain bias?
  2. Are there any different team structure that can lead to higher creativity or other advantages?
  3. Is there a hidden pattern between flat team structure and higher creativity? Thanks a lot!
Emily-fyeh commented 2 years ago

Hi Prof. Evans, thank you for sharing two of your latest paper with us! I am curious about the L-ratio concept in the Xu et al., 2022 paper, when identifying the relationship between co-authors, would you consider the different perceptions of the same verb? For example, in different academic fields, the general/typical description of the division of labor on a paper could possibly be different.

GabeNicholson commented 2 years ago

Regarding the Aging Scientist and Old Advance paper, it may be true that older scientists cling to their work and ideas, but It's also true rapid change can happen in old fields as new breakthroughs appear. The first thing that comes to mind is plate tectonics. An old field of archaeology and climate studies basically accepted this idea and had it within textbooks in less than a few years as the standard orthodoxy. So in that case the older scientist accepted the theory pretty much instantly on the basis of its merit. How does your theory respond to these cases? My guess is that when there is strong reasons involved, anyone can be swayed, but when it is ambiguous then there can be lower churn.