Episode 4 - Reproducibility now
b'Episode 4 - Reproducibility Now\\n\\nThis week we dive into the Open Science Collaboration\\u2019s (2015) paper \\u201cEstimating the reproducibility of psychological science\\u201d\\nhttp://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716 \\n\\nHighlights:\\n\\n[1:00] This paper has all of the authors\\n[1:30] Direct vs conceptual replications\\n[4:30] PhD students running replications as the basis of extending a paradigm\\n[6:00] The 100 studies paper methods in brief\\n[8:00] everything\\u2019s available for this collaborative effort, and that is awesome\\n(https://osf.io/ezcuj)\\n[9:00] Reproducibility vs Replicability - what are we actually talking about\\n[9:30] Oxford summer school in reproducibiltiy \\n(https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/oxford-reproducibility-school-tickets-48405892327)\\n[11:00] paper discussing the computational reproducibility of papers \\n[15:00] Replication is not only about the p value folks!\\n[17:30] Sam brings up Bayes purely to be a douchebag\\n[19:30] A bayesian approach - Sophia gives us the paper (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149794) and we move on\\n[20:00] Replications as a method to diagnose problems in science. Are replications a viable problem solver?\\n[24:00] Psychology is only a teenager really\\n[26:00] If the original paper is trash, there\\u2019s probably no need to replicate it. Maybe just burn it down?\\n[27:00] Figure 1 - the average effect size halved in the replication attempt and most effects did not replicate. \\n[31:30] Do the results hint at more than publication bias? Are other QRPs involved?\\n[33:00] Comparing reproducibility across subfields of psychology. But, are these studies representative of an entire subfield\\n[35:30] Does journal impact factor mean anything? \\n[39:30] Are we actually being critical of previous research in general?\\n[41:00] \\u201cOur foundations have as many holes as a swiss cheese\\u201d\\n\\nMusic credit: Kevin MacLeod - Funkeriffic\\nfreepd.com/misc.php'