![\"\"](\"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/image-1.png?w=540\")
Make Data Count and Digital Science have released a first-of-its-kind open, contextualized collection of linkages between research articles and the datasets they cite or reuse. This effort builds on Make Data Count's decade-long endeavors to make all connections between data and papers publicly accessible, with Digital Science contributing their expertise and infrastructure to greatly expand the resource.
\nThe collection, now available to access from Make Data Count, brings together a comprehensive set of datasets mentioned in research articles across disciplines, identified by DOI or accession number. Where the evidence supports it, these links are classified as primary (data generated for the article) or secondary (existing data reused in the study). Built by Digital Science in collaboration with Make Data Count and open source algorithms, the resource is available under a CC0 public-domain dedication. This resource will be updated monthly, with dated releases available so users can cite the specific version they use.
\nUnderstanding the reach of research data has been an unsolved problem due to the many ways that data are referenced and mentioned in papers. To overcome this roadblock, Make Data Count hosted a Kaggle competition where participants were asked to develop methods that could identify dataset references within research papers and distinguish data generated for a study from existing data reused in it. The competition resulted in five winning approaches, openly available for others to use and build upon.
\nThe unique value of having these algorithms is when they are put into practice at mass scale. Make Data Count approached Digital Science for its expertise in analyzing research literature and willingness to scale and maintain open science infrastructure. Digital Science's accompanying technical documentation describes the methods, implementation of the algorithms, and limitations so users can assess and interpret the results.
\n\n\n
\n\"Funders and institutions increasingly need to show that the data they invest in is actually used. This open collection gives the whole community, from research offices to government agencies, a shared and auditable view of how research data is created and reused. We're proud to support Make Data Count in turning a community competition into infrastructure everyone can build on.\"
\n
\n \u2014 Holly Wolcott, EVP Academic and Government, Digital Science
Responsible data metrics depend on evidence that the community can examine, question, and improve. This regularly updated collection is intended for use across all disciplines, research and evaluation stakeholders. The linkages also give infrastructure providers and research information services a shared foundation for developing and scrutinizing tools and indicators. Open, auditable, and trusted infrastructure are core values of the Make Data Count initiative, and the broad dissemination of this corpus allows for any use and integration of this information.
\n\n\n
\n\"While the goals of MDC have not changed since its inception, our methods for developing the necessary open infrastructure for data metrics have evolved. The key piece to all of our work, and what's been missing, is having a trusted and comprehensive base of information covering the many ways data are mentioned in scientific articles. This new approach to building a data citation corpus is a major milestone in advancing our understanding of how open data are reused\"
\n
\n \u2014 Daniella Lowenberg, Chair, Make Data Count Steering Committee\n
Since its inception, Make Data Count has achieved success through unique partnerships that allow for the greatest reach of the initiative's work to support underlying infrastructure necessary for the development of open data metrics. Support from the National Science Foundation (2015) defined researcher needs, funding from the Sloan Foundation (2017-22) helped articulate the need for and buy-in of open data metrics, and Wellcome-funded work (2022-2026) supported the development of an open data citation corpus with contributions from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. We thank partners at California Digital Library, DataCite, DataONE, PLOS, and COUNTER for their contributions to Make Data Count's development over the last decade, alongside these funders, repository teams, bibliometricians, researchers, and advocates who have supported and shaped this work.
\nMake Data Count is, and will remain, a community-governed initiative by our advisory committee. This new collaboration with Digital Science supports a specific work stream: expanding and maintaining open connections between research papers and datasets to build our collective understanding of research data impact and its ability to inform new modes of research practice, discovery, and assessment.
\nExplore this first release by downloading a CSV snapshot from the Make Data Count website or through BigQuery and consult the accompanying technical documentation for more information. We look forward to supporting all of the future integrations and use of this novel information!
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.60804/yg9v-7q17","guid":"https://makedatacount.org/?p=1851","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1792022400,"rid":"3m2rz-h4698","summary":"DOI: 10.60804/YG9V-7Q17 Make Data Count and Digital Science have released a first-of-its-kind open, contextualized collection of linkages between research articles and the datasets they cite or reuse. This effort builds on Make Data Count's decade-long endeavors to make all connections between data and papers publicly accessible, with Digital Science contributing...","tags":["News","Data Citation Corpus","Data Citations","Open Infrastructure"],"title":"Largest Collection of Data Reuse Indicators Now Openly Available","updated_at":1792346372,"url":"https://makedatacount.org/read-our-blog/new-frontier-for-open-data-metrics/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"name":"Adapt Research"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"bfd37b46-cbce-4a47-9a9d-fdc1d9c8b8d2","created":1753833600,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"As we build our world we build our minds","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/adaptresearchwriting","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/bfd37b46-cbce-4a47-9a9d-fdc1d9c8b8d2/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress.com","home_page_url":"https://adaptresearchwriting.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"adaptresearchwriting","status":"active","subfield":"2306","title":"Adapt Research Ltd","updated":1792340000,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Adapt Research Ltd","blog_slug":"adaptresearchwriting","content_html":"Lessons for global catastrophic risk from the Arctic Circle Assembly 2026, beyond AI
\nTLDR/Summary
\nIntroduction
\nThe Arctic Circle Assembly fills Reykjav\u00edk's Harpa concert hall each October with hundreds of sessions. I sampled perhaps 5%: a Wednesday pre-event \"Connected Ocean Observing: ARIA x Reykjav\u00edk Institute\", run by the UK's Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) with the Reykjav\u00edk Institute, and the first two of three days, chosen through a global catastrophic risk lens.
\nThis post is therefore partial. My companion post covers the AI sessions, including Tristan Harris's plenary, the best session I attended. My thanks to Arctic Circle and its founder, former President \u00d3lafur Ragnar Gr\u00edmsson, for an event where anyone may ask a question. Here I survey the geopolitics and infrastructure sessions, then use AMOC as the main case. The test throughout is the one I applied at SRA Nordic last week: what lessons transfer to global catastrophic risk, and what should New Zealand learn?
\nThe geopolitical weather
\nThe day one plenary set the tone. Canada's Foreign Minister Anita Anand spoke of sovereignty, respect for Arctic peoples, security, economy, and environment, and cited Prime Minister Mark Carney's Davos case for \"value-based realism\": with the threat environment changed, collaboration among like-minded states is now a necessity. That fits our view that cooperation on catastrophic risk evolves most readily at the regional level, since individual jurisdictions can't manage cross-border risks alone. Greenland's representatives set out their view of sovereignty and way of life in the face of US pressure. \"Nothing about Greenland without Greenland.\"
\nThe US session, with the Governor of Alaska and the Chair of the US Arctic Research Commission, was about hard assets: ports, shipping lanes, icebreakers and missile defence, and partners to help pay for them. Some of the language was painful and misguided. More telling was the omission. Neither speaker mentioned climate change until asked by a member of the audience, and the answers deflected.
\n![\"\"](\"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/image-ebb21d21.jpg?w=452\")
\"Can the Arctic stay calm while the world burns?\" took the cascading view and applied it to any far-flung region of the world. Lassi Heininen, a long-time scholar of Arctic politics, recalled that Reagan and Gorbachev met in Reykjav\u00edk 40 years ago this month and nearly agreed to abolish nuclear weapons.
\nToday no arms control treaty or serious negotiation is current, and with the stresses of climate change added, he is \"bloody worried\" about the risk of nuclear war. Francesco Sassi, a Norway-based energy analyst argued that security must now include energy security: after Hormuz, and a possible US export ban, Arctic oil and gas production could rise and new alliances form. Others traced Russia\u2013China cooperation on pipelines, shipping and coast guard patrols.
\nThe verdict was that the Arctic cannot be insulated from these shocks. Neither can New Zealand. Prices are not coming down, and politicians need a realist view, and to communicate expectations with society. Unfortunately the audience questions stayed with energy, not nuclear spillover, which is where the catastrophic tail sits.
\n![\"\"](\"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/image-a3d2313f.jpg?w=452\")
Infrastructure that serves two purposes
\nThe session I would most like New Zealand's regional councils to have seen was on dual-use infrastructure in Iceland's West Fjords, a remote, sparsely populated region much like the West Coast where I live. Moderator Gylfi \u00d3lafsson described how the community, as the security picture darkened, developed a shared vocabulary and a report to Parliament that prioritised local investments by cost, feasibility and dual use; search and rescue, roadside mobile coverage and fibre came out on top. But other investments in maritime upgrades, radar stations, submarine cable security, and a relocated airport are all topical. Brynja Huld \u00d3skarsd\u00f3ttir argued that dual-use infrastructure is the fastest route to defence resilience: it keeps people living there, and presence is both deterrence and capability. Patti Bruns (Arctic Mayors' Forum) and Peter Clarkson (Mayor of Inuvik) agreed: there is no Arctic security without healthy Arctic communities.
\n![\"\"](\"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/image-1a1b7ea8.jpg?w=452\")
What was missing was food and liquid fuel, the two inputs that decide whether a remote community functions in a crisis. But the community process deserves as much attention as the list. New Zealand could take this approach independently, adopting NATO-style baseline resilience requirements without NATO, and building priorities through local citizen deliberation of the kind our charity Islands for the Future of Humanity are proposing to pilot in Reefton, NZ.
\nAMOC: what science can and cannot say
\nThe Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) carries warm water north and is a large part of why north-west Europe and Iceland are so mild for their latitude. A sharp weakening would cool the North Atlantic even as the world warms, affecting weather, sea level, fisheries and agriculture across the hemisphere.
\nARIA's pre-event was the most candid account of uncertainty I heard all week. ARIA's Forecasting Tipping Points programme (\u00a3114 million, led by Sarah Bohndiek and Gemma Bale) aims to build an early-warning system for the North Atlantic, combining established observing arrays with cheaper autonomous instruments and new models, and is now moving to its second phase.
\nDr Graeme MacGilchrist (University of St Andrews) organised the science into four questions. Can AMOC collapse? Yes, in models, but rates and mechanisms are unclear. Has it? Evidence for past collapses is ambiguous. Is it changing now? The instrumental record is about 20 years, too short to say. Will it? Persistent model biases affect how sensitive the system is to forcing. Early warning, he said, is elegant theory that is not yet validated, and today's observing system is a collection of projects with precarious funding.
\n![\"\"](\"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/image-97460ffd.jpg?w=452\")
The next morning's panel, organised by Iceland, the UK and the Netherlands, gave the same message more briefly. Femke de Jong (NIOZ) explained how few lines of instruments cross the Atlantic. Laura Jackson (UK Met Office) said the AMOC is likely to weaken through this century, with abrupt collapse unlikely before 2100, but a tipping point is plausible and a much weaker state could follow. Steingr\u00edmur J\u00f3nsson (Marine and Freshwater Research Institute, Iceland) argued for sustained monitoring. Other tipping points, such as the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, may occur first and interact.
\nNot just a current
\nA session on the Arctic marine food web showed that the changes are already under way. Geraint Tarling (British Antarctic Survey) explained how sea-ice algae and copepods drive a polar biological carbon pump, and how a seasonal lipid pump locks carbon away below 1,000 metres for centuries.
\nLoss of sea ice, invasion by Atlantic species and ocean acidification are weakening it, a triple whammy that feeds back into warming. Antje Boetius (Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute) described returning to sites where long filaments of ice algae once hung beneath the ice and finding none, replaced by swarms of gelatinous life. Sea ice now forms in different places and drifts faster and thinner, and multi-year ice, with its years-long ecosystems, is gone.
\n![\"\"](\"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/image-e5eb5d8d.jpg?w=452\")
The lesson is that \"AMOC risk\" is not one variable. It is a coupled system of currents, ice, plankton and fish, ending in food prices, livelihoods and cod stocks. When I asked whether AMOC monitoring and biological monitoring are linked, the answer was that new devices make more possible. Ocean flora and plankton may be the canary in the AMOC mine, and North Atlantic monitoring should include them if it does not already.
\nThe risk keeps moving one way
\nOn day two Johan Rockstr\u00f6m (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) called AMOC the \"poster child\" tipping point and noted that six of the climate system's tipping elements are in the Arctic, with interactions we do not understand. Recent studies project limited weakening of 18\u201343% by 2100 on one approach, and 51 \u00b1 8% under intermediate emissions when models are constrained by observations; others find collapse after 2100 in many models. Rockstr\u00f6m has put the probability of a drastic slowdown or collapse at 10% or more. That is a non-trivial risk to habitability and human life on both sides of the Atlantic.
\nA later session asked whether a Chief Planetary Science Officer could help turn such science into policy. Luc Bas holds that role for Belgium. Rockstr\u00f6m noted that the entire range of AMOC uncertainty has moved upwards. Even conservative estimates now carry real risk, and even the lower impacts are severe. This is a pattern across global risk: as evidence accumulates, the news from a human point of view mostly gets worse. Uncertainty is not a reason to expect the benign end.
\n![\"\"](\"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/image-6060d4b6.jpg?w=452\")
Science is doing its job; now policy must do its own
\nAt the morning panel, one diplomat opined that science takes a long time, which makes it hard for policymakers. That is the wrong framing. Scientists are providing what they can: the mechanisms, the evidence and the uncertainty around it. Deciding under that uncertainty is not a scientific problem. It is a policy skill, decision-making under deep uncertainty (DMDU), with established methods: robust strategies that perform acceptably across many futures, adaptive pathways with signposts and triggers, and stress-testing against scenarios.
\nPolicymakers should be expected to have these technical skills. Iceland's Minister J\u00f3hann P\u00e1ll J\u00f3hannsson has said it plainly: \"We cannot afford to wait for definitive, long-term research before acting.\"
\nThe answer under deep uncertainty is no-regrets action: measures worth taking whatever the ocean does. The UK speaker at ARIA's session put it well: there will never be a government department for AMOC, but many bad things could happen, so build resilience across them. Food strategy, fuel stocks, fisheries adaptation and migration planning all qualify.
\nI note that this is the logic of our own NZCat project, which contemplated the impacts of a Northern Hemisphere nuclear war on Aotearoa/New Zealand. We concluded that many of the same consequences for societal systems exist across many global risks. Our mantra was \"solve for nuclear winter, solve for all\": prepare vital systems for the severe case and you are prepared for most of the rest.
\nIn peripheral discussions I learned how AMOC reached the top of Iceland's agenda. In 2024, 44 scientists wrote to the Nordic Council of Ministers. The Icelandic Minister for the Environment, Energy, and Climate asked his department for a report, tabled it in Parliament and referred the issue to the National Security Council, which in 2025 added AMOC to its list of threats, the first climate phenomenon to be treated that way. Alongside this, a few people wrote careful op-eds that framed the issue as one of security, for food and livelihoods, and left space for someone to step up. The minister took it by the horns and became the hero of the story: a win for everyone. The lesson echoes Harris's session and last week's point about whoever frames a risk first. A few well-crafted pieces, repeated in every talk and article, do more than a stream of quick items.
\nThe security framing is spreading. The minister wrote on AMOC in the second issue (Haust 2026) of T\u00edmarit V\u00f6r\u00f0u, Iceland's first journal of national security, launched at an event adjacent to the Assembly on 9 October by its editor Kristinn \u00c1rni L. Hr\u00f3bjartsson.
\nThe issue argued for the importance of Icelandic-flagged ships and low taxes on air and sea transport for transport security, so that commercial operators keep Iceland in their networks. It also asked where Iceland's increased NATO commitment is actually going. The minister also argued that a security lens lifts climate out of left and right, rich and poor, and can build cross-class coalitions. That matches what we found in our survey of New Zealanders, where a majority favoured government plans for global catastrophic risks, and a dedicated agency.
\nEvery stressed global system is a current
\nAMOC is a chaotic system that can tip, collapse, or decay without collapsing, and it is monitored only because people built the instruments, funding and institutions to watch it. The systems New Zealand depends on are currents too. Geopolitics, trade and shipping, fuel and fertiliser supply, critical minerals, the information environment and social cohesion can each tip, collapse or slowly degrade, and they interact.
\nWe monitor almost none of them continuously with validated metrics and a view to tipping points. AMOC monitoring teaches four things. Watch constantly, with long-term dedicated funding, not a collection of short projects. Collaborate internationally, because no one country can see the whole system. Keep the information clean and shared. And prepare Plan A and Plan B, with triggers agreed in advance for moving from one to the other. That is the core of our proposals for New Zealand's national risk assessment: an accountable entity, monitoring of complex and stressed global systems, a register that maps vulnerabilities to costed options, and realistic assumptions about resources, energy and geopolitics.
\nWhat resilience looks like: Iceland counts its stocks
\nIceland is doing the unglamorous part. A 2022 task force in the Prime Minister's Office found that no rules set minimum stocks of food or farm inputs and that nobody tracked how much food importers and retailers held.
\nTwo follow-up reports for the government fill in the detail. The Agricultural University's 2024 report on emergency stocks for food production ranks fuel first, then electricity, then imported feed: without fuel, stockpiles of everything else are of little use. It calls Iceland's oil position \"unacceptable\" and recommends at least three months of fuel, feed and veterinary medicines, and spreading the timing of fertiliser imports, 85% of which now arrive between March and May.
\nThe University of Iceland's 2025 proposals set state stocks for three weeks to six months of isolation, and seven days for every household; Iceland grows about 1% of the grain its people eat, and its only grain mill closed in 2025. Both were presented to a government seminar in November 2025, alongside a public food security dashboard.
\nIceland's electricity is fully renewable and islanded, but its transport, fishing fleet and aviation depend on imported oil, with no mandatory stockholding yet in force.
\nThese problems of island isolation are old. In 1262 Icelandic chieftains swore allegiance to the King of Norway, ending the Commonwealth. Exhausted by civil war, they asked in return for peace, law and reliable shipping, a promise of ships each summer.
\nAn island that cannot secure its transport links eventually trades away its independence to someone who can.
\nThis is a warning for New Zealand.
\nNew Zealand imports all its refined liquid fuel, most of its fertiliser and much of its grain, and holds minimum fuel stocks of a few weeks. We have no mapped picture of national food stocks and no minister who owns food security. We should be doing what Iceland is doing, and at least as seriously. New Zealand needs a serious plan for rationing onshore diesel stocks across a year of disruption, and a national food security assessment and plan.
\nLessons for New Zealand
\nClosing
\nI left Reykjav\u00edk struck by how far a small nation has come in a year on a risk it cannot control alone: watching it, framing it as a national security risk, and counting what it would need. New Zealand faces its own currents. The first step is to start observing them.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/w5t9y-4k833","guid":"http://adaptresearchwriting.com/?p=8048","image":"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/image-1.png?w=540","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1792281600,"rid":"0jyz6-zas62","summary":"Lessons for global catastrophic risk from the Arctic Circle Assembly 2026, beyond AI TLDR/Summary The Arctic Circle Assembly (Reykjav\u00edk, Iceland, 8\u201310 October 2026) showed a region no longer insulated from the world. Nuclear risk, energy shocks after Hormuz, great-power posturing and Greenland were all on stage; New Zealand is not insulated either.","title":"Observing currents of global catastrophe: AMOC, deep uncertainty and what New Zealand should be monitoring","updated_at":1792340108,"url":"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/2026/10/18/observing-currents-of-global-catastrophe-amoc-deep-uncertainty-and-what-new-zealand-should-be-monitoring/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Eden","given":"Terence","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9265-9069"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Terence Eden","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9265-9069"}],"community_id":"61ce553a-bafd-4aba-a952-d3bab5e85bcc","created":1788652800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Regular nonsense about tech and its effects \ud83d\ude43","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/shkspr","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/61ce553a-bafd-4aba-a952-d3bab5e85bcc/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/feed/DOI","filter":"category:-1982","generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog","issn":"2753-1570","language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"shkspr","status":"active","subfield":"1712","title":"Terence Eden's Blog","updated":1792236373,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Terence Eden's Blog","blog_slug":"shkspr","content_html":"I don't know why hardware manufacturers find it so hard to write decent documentation. As I've said before you need to actually test your readme. The Una Watch development instructions are scattered across a bunch of different files.
\n\nSo here's how to go from zero to your first \"Hello, World!\" Glance app with the minimum of fuss.
\n\nThis all assumes a fairly modern Debian / Ubuntu / Pop OS Linux.
\n\nThis installs most of the tools you will need:
\n\nsudo apt update\nsudo apt install -y git python3 python3-pip cmake build-essential\nVisit https://www.st.com/en/development-tools/stm32cubeclt.html and download the Linux version of the tool. Inexplicably, you need to give your email address. I recommend giving a disposable one from https://10minutemail.com/
\n\nAfter downloading, unzip the file.
\n\nOn the command line, cd into the directory containing the unzipped file.
chmod +x stm32cubeclt_*.sh\nsudo ./stm32cubeclt_*.sh\nYou will need to agree to their licence. Just hit y.
That installs everything in /opt/st/stm32cubeclt_1.22.0/
You will need to make that available to your PATH.
\n\nexport PATH=\"/opt/st/stm32cubeclt_1.22.0/GNU-tools-for-STM32/bin:$PATH\"\nYou will need to copy the Una SDK. I keep my git repos in ~/git/ - you will need the location of the directory later.
cd ~/git/\ngit clone git@github.com:UNAWatch/una-sdk.git\ncd una-sdk/\ngit submodule update --init ThirdParty/lvgl\nThen update all the Python dependencies.
\n\nexport UNA_SDK=\"$PWD\"\npython3 -m pip install --upgrade pip\npython3 -m pip install -r \"$UNA_SDK/Utilities/Scripts/app_packer/requirements.txt\"\nPaste this into your terminal. Check for any errors.
\n\nwhich arm-none-eabi-gcc || true\nwhich cmake || true\nwhich make || true\nwhich python3 || true\npython3 -m pip --version\narm-none-eabi-gcc --version || true\ncmake --version || true\nmake --version || true\nIf all of the above has worked, you should be able to build the demo app with:
\n\ncd /tmp\nmkdir -p MyAlarm\ncp -r \"$UNA_SDK/Examples/Apps/Alarm/\"* MyAlarm\nmkdir -p MyAlarm/build\ncmake -G \"Unix Makefiles\" -S MyAlarm/Software/Apps/Alarm-CMake -B MyAlarm/build\ncmake --build MyAlarm/build\nStore the paths permanently. If you put cloned the Una SDK to somewhere other than ~/git/ you'll need to edit this next bit of code:
echo 'export UNA_SDK=\"$HOME/git/una-sdk\"' >> ~/.bashrc\necho 'export PATH=\"/opt/st/stm32cubeclt_1.22.0/GNU-tools-for-STM32/bin:$PATH\"' >> ~/.bashrc\nsource ~/.bashrc\nAt the moment, the only way to build a GUI app is using the Windows only (Booooo!) TouchGFX0. So, instead, we'll make a \"Hello World\" glance. All it will do is draw some text.
\n\nThe GlanceFloors demo app is the simplest one to copy.
cd $UNA_SDK/Examples/Apps/\ncp -r GlanceFloors/ GlanceHello\nUse an IDE or a text editor to open up the new GlanceHello directory.
\n\nGlanceHello/Software/App/GlanceFloors-CMake/ to GlanceHello/Software/App/GlanceHello-CMake/GlanceHello/Software/App/GlanceFloors-CMake/CMakeLists.txt - specifically the # App configuration section.APP_NAME to GlanceHelloAPP_USER_NAME to HelloFor a demo, you can leave the DEV_ID and APP_ID as their default values.
You will need to edit two more files.
\n\nIn GlanceHello/Software/Libs/Header/Service.hpp remove the following lines:
SDK::Sensor::Connection mSensorFloors;\nuint32_t mFloorsValue;\nbool mDataReceived;\nThen save the file.
\n\nEdit GlanceHello/Software/Libs/Source/Service.cpp and replace its entire contents with this:
#include \"Service.hpp\"\n#include \"SDK/Messages/CommandMessages.hpp\"\n#include \"SDK/Messages/MessageGuard.hpp\"\n\nService::Service(SDK::Kernel &kernel)\n : mKernel(kernel)\n , mGlanceUI()\n , mGlanceTitle()\n , mGlanceValue()\n{}\n\nService::~Service(){}\n\nvoid Service::run()\n{\n while (true) {\n SDK::MessageBase *msg;\n if(!mKernel.comm.getMessage(msg)) {\n continue;\n }\n\n switch (msg->getType()) {\n\n case SDK::MessageType::EVENT_GLANCE_START:\n if (configGui()) {\n createGuiControls();\n } else {\n mKernel.comm.releaseMessage(msg);\n mKernel.sys.exit(0);\n }\n break;\n\n case SDK::MessageType::COMMAND_APP_STOP:\n case SDK::MessageType::EVENT_GLANCE_STOP:\n mKernel.comm.releaseMessage(msg);\n return;\n break;\n\n case SDK::MessageType::EVENT_GLANCE_TICK:\n onGlanceTick();\n break;\n\n default:\n break;\n }\n\n mKernel.comm.releaseMessage(msg);\n }\n}\n\nvoid Service::onGlanceTick()\n{\n if (mGlanceUI.isInvalid()) {\n if (auto upd = SDK::make_msg<SDK::Message::RequestGlanceUpdate>(mKernel)) {\n upd->name = APP_NAME;\n upd->controls = mGlanceUI.data();\n upd->controlsNumber = static_cast<uint32_t>(mGlanceUI.size());\n upd.send(100);\n }\n\n mGlanceUI.setValid();\n}\n}\n\nbool Service::configGui()\n{\n bool status = false;\n if (auto gc = SDK::make_msg<SDK::Message::RequestGlanceConfig>(mKernel)) {\n if (gc.send(100) && gc.ok()) {\n if (gc->maxControls >= 3) {\n mGlanceUI.setWidth(gc->width);\n mGlanceUI.setHeight(gc->height);\n status = true;\n }\n }\n }\n return status;\n}\n\nvoid Service::createGuiControls()\n{\n mGlanceTitle = mGlanceUI.createText();\n mGlanceTitle.pos({ kTitleX, kTitleY }, { kTitleW, kTitleH })\n .font(GlanceFont_t::GLANCE_FONT_POPPINS_SEMIBOLD_20)\n .color(GlanceColor_t::GLANCE_COLOR_TEAL)\n .setText(\"Hello, World!\")\n .alignment(GlanceAlignH_t::GLANCE_ALIGN_H_CENTER);\n mGlanceValue = mGlanceUI.createText();\n mGlanceValue.pos({ 0, kValueY }, { 200, kValueH })\n .font(GlanceFont_t::GLANCE_FONT_POPPINS_SEMIBOLD_20)\n .color(GlanceColor_t::GLANCE_COLOR_WHITE)\n .setText(\"I know C++\")\n .alignment(GlanceAlignH_t::GLANCE_ALIGN_H_CENTER);\n}\nSave the file.
\n\nOn the command line
\n\ncd $UNA_SDK/Examples/Apps/GlanceHello/Software/App/GlanceHello-CMake\ncmake -G \"Unix Makefiles\" -S . -B build\ncmake --build build\nIt should finish with a success message of [100%] Built target GlanceHelloApp
Apps directory.APP_ID which is set in CMakeLists.txtGlanceHello/Output/ and will be called Hello_1.5.0-rc5.uapp or similar..uapp file from your computer to the directory you just created on the watch.If it has worked, you should see something like this:
\n\n![\"A](\"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/cpp.webp\")
\n\nHurrah! Treat yourself to a beer \ud83c\udf7b
\n\nJust after I wrote this, the SDK was updated to allow LVGL which should work on Linux. There's no documentation for it yet that I could find. \u21a9\ufe0e
\n![](\"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/wp-content/themes/edent-wordpress-theme/info/okgo.php?ID=76095&HTTP_REFERER=DOI\"){kind=small}
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/0std8-hz104","guid":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/?p=76095","image":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/cpp.webp","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1791244800,"rid":"vrwx5-w7v30","summary":"I don't know why hardware manufacturers find it so hard to write decent documentation. As I've said before you need to actually test your readme. The Una Watch development instructions are scattered across a bunch of different files. So here's how to go from zero to your first \"Hello, World!\" Glance app with the minimum of fuss. This all assumes a fairly modern Debian / Ubuntu / Pop OS Linux.","tags":["/etc/","C++","HowTo","Programming","UnaWatch"],"title":"Una Watch - SDK and Writing Your First App","updated_at":1792308616,"url":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2026/10/una-watch-sdk-and-writing-your-first-app/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Eden","given":"Terence","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9265-9069"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Terence Eden","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9265-9069"}],"community_id":"61ce553a-bafd-4aba-a952-d3bab5e85bcc","created":1788652800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Regular nonsense about tech and its effects \ud83d\ude43","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/shkspr","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/61ce553a-bafd-4aba-a952-d3bab5e85bcc/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/feed/DOI","filter":"category:-1982","generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog","issn":"2753-1570","language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"shkspr","status":"active","subfield":"1712","title":"Terence Eden's Blog","updated":1792236373,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Terence Eden's Blog","blog_slug":"shkspr","content_html":"![\"Book](\"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/are-you-really-the-doctor.avif\")
\n\nA few months ago, I went to see Dr Hutchinson record his stand-up comedy special for the BBC - it's about his experiences working in the NHS as a Black doctor. As the title of the book implies, some of the public can be a mite suspicious that anyone with even a hint of melanin can rise beyond being a porter or, at a push, a nurse.
\n\nMuch like Adam Kay's \"This Is Going To Hurt\", this is part biography, part rant about the NHS, and part humorous look at what it takes to be a modern doctor. Hutchinson's book has rather less gallows humour and rather more racism.
\n\nThe problems of racial inequality in the NHS aren't just focussed on patients; they're also reflected in the way staff are treated. Rather than just recounting all the abuse he's been subject to, the book takes a good look at the actual statistics. Of course, this makes for slightly grim reading at times, so the frequent injections of humour are most welcome.
\n\nThe UK quite often seems in the shadow of larger cultures. As the book points out:
\n\n\n\nThis same issue is understudied in the UK \u2013 to the point where the absence of research is glaring. While we are clearly not just a little America, we aren't so different that we can be confident we're not replicating the same here.
Because of that, at times the book does feel a little bit like the \"we have [racism] at home\" meme.
\n\nThere's an almost relentlessly cheery irreverence to some of the issues - but what else can you do? Sometimes it takes a good dose of comedy to cut through the bleakness. There's a slight streak of ageism within the book - especially when it comes to older doctors trying to use new technology. Although, to be fair, that was also my experience when working at NHSX. There are some people within the system who are desperate for it to remain preserved in aspic as even minor improvements are a threat to their position in the hierarchy.
\n\nA minor grumble, the problem I have with books like this - and with The Secret Barrister - is that a lot of the moaning about how hard it is to become a professional doctor / lawyer just generates a giant shrug from me. Every piece of medical media in the last 50 years talks about how bone-crunchingly hard it is. All I can think of is \"none of this should be coming as a surprise to you!\" Should it be easier (and less sleep depriving) to be a doctor? Sure! But given it isn't, perhaps dial down on the clich\u00e9s of how uniquely awful your chosen career is.
\n\nThe book isn't just a list of complaints, of course, everything is backed up with statistics (although unreferenced). Thankfully, the book ends with some practical suggestions of how the NHS can improve. It would certainly be interesting to read a version of this from 2046 to see how much has changed - given the improvements already bearing fruit, I'd hope that the UK health service would become much less racist over time.
![](\"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/wp-content/themes/edent-wordpress-theme/info/okgo.php?ID=76754&HTTP_REFERER=DOI\"){kind=small}
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/bc4fr-qcx14","guid":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/?p=76754","image":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/are-you-really-the-doctor.avif","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1792195200,"rid":"mnchs-wqn69","summary":"A few months ago, I went to see Dr Hutchinson record his stand-up comedy special for the BBC - it's about his experiences working in the NHS as a Black doctor. As the title of the book implies, some of the public can be a mite suspicious that anyone with even a hint of melanin can rise beyond being a porter or, at a push, a nurse.","tags":["/etc/","Book Review","NHS","Racism"],"title":"Book Review: Are You *Really* The Doctor? by Matthew Hutchinson","updated_at":1792308612,"url":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2026/10/book-review-are-you-really-the-doctor-by-matthew-hutchinson/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Turner","given":"Stephen D."}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Stephen Turner","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9140-9028"}],"community_id":"382941a7-2ffa-41df-8bbb-5f772188517f","created":1780876800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"A practicing data scientist's take on AI, genomics, biosecurity, and the ways AI is reshaping how science gets done. Weekly updates from the field. Occasional notes on programming.","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/stephenturner","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/382941a7-2ffa-41df-8bbb-5f772188517f/logo","feed_format":"application/rss+xml","feed_url":"https://blog.stephenturner.us/feed","filter":null,"generator":"Substack","home_page_url":"https://blog.stephenturner.us","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"stephenturner","status":"active","subfield":"1311","title":"Paired Ends","updated":1792230055,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Paired Ends","blog_slug":"stephenturner","content_html":"![\"\"](\"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!R6BB!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd1079bf5-5eb2-475f-ab58-227994e18eed_1108x583.jpeg\")
I don't like mandatory AI disclosures. And it's awkward because I require them from my students. If you've been reading here lately you also know that I'm trying to drastically reduce how much writing I delegate to AI. Writing helps me think. I lose something when I turn that over to Claude.
But I want to steelman the case against disclosure requirements, including my own.
Harlan Krumholz, EIC of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Professor of Medicine at Yale, just published an editorial explaining why JACC doesn't require AI disclosures. Authors remain responsible for what they publish. AI used to conduct research still belongs in the methods. I agree. A journal can collect a disclosure from authors but that doesn't help them get any better at checking whether their conclusions are supported by their results. An editor and reviewer still has to check the evidence and references. Humans can mis-specify a model parameter or cite the wrong paper in support of a flimsy argument at just as high or higher rate than AI.
Enforcement is impossible I think. Sure, you could run a manuscript through Pangram or whatever, but a detector can't reconstruct the author's process. It can't establish whether someone asked an LLM for an argument, then wrote every sentence themselves. Authors who follow the rules have to explain themselves, but someone willing to be dishonest can leave the box unchecked or disclose nothing.
Disclosures cast suspicion all around. Disclosing AI assistance will make a reviewer suspicious before they've even read the paper or proposal. Saying you didn't use AI at all will almost certainly invite suspicion that you're lying. This recent paper shows that readers rated creative writing less favorably when they believed AI had helped write it. This wasn't a study of peer review but I think it gives us reason to worry that disclosure changes judgments independently of quality.1
I also suspect these policies will age badly. A spellcheck disclosure in a paper from the 1990s would look silly today. AI can do much more than spellcheck, but consider for a moment that the boundary can start there. Start somewhere all reasonable people would agree on. Finding and fixing a typo hardly warrants a declaration. Correcting grammar seems fine too, right? Now what about shortening a sentence or improving its clarity? I constantly find myself at or near word count limits, and it seems quick and easy to get an LLM's help. Here's where it starts to get harder to classify. What about tightening up an argument? Reorganizing paragraphs changes the argument's presentation. Keep moving forward: Suggesting the argument, or generating the whole discussion section (or worse, the results section!) gets into uses I think most of us would reject in most settings. We can disagree about where to stop without pretending everyone agrees on the same disclosure threshold. I expect most writing will eventually involve some AI assistance, making a yes/no declaration even less informative.
I still have reservations about abandoning AI disclosures in my classroom. As I wrote recently, emphasizing an argument made my a colleague here in the psychology department at UVA: students write to develop abilities they haven't mastered yet. I ask them to disclose AI use because I want to understand what they practiced and how they're using AI to (hopefully) enhance their learning. I have a really great group of students this year, and I assume honesty and good intent. But the AI disclosure statement itself establishes neither. And after having read many of these already this semester, even an accurate account doesn't really tell me whether a student learned anything. I haven't dropped the requirement but I'm increasingly unsure how much it really tells me.
Pretty much everyone I know uses AI for writing regularly, to varying degrees. What I find kind of ironic is that some of the same people will dismiss someone else's work (a paper they're reviewing, a grant proposal, etc.) with \"whatever this is all obviously ChatGPT.\" Not uncommon I suppose \u2014 our explanations of our own use seem much more charitable than our assumptions about anyone else's.
At the end of the year, Codeberg will shut down its old Codeberg Pages server, in favor of the already deployed, git-pages-based alternative.1.\nFor many deployments, migration will be quite straight-forward, requiring little more than using a webhook, as outlined in the migration guide.\nAnd this page has already for a few months now been served by the git-pages server, without any problems.
There is only one little but for the migration path, which affects pages that so far relied on git lfs for storing larger asset files like images and that are trying to directly serve from a repository without a build stage:\ngit-pages does not (and probably never will) support git lfs.\nI ran into this problem (without noticing it) when I migrated my talks, which are all just HTML files generated locally by marpit, and for which I like keeping the images in the lfs. \nWhen I was preparing a new slide deck for a conference, I noticed that the images didn't show up when I wanted to share a draft with a friend for review.
Luckily, the at least temporary hot fix for that is quite easy:\nWhile git-pages doesn't support git lfs when serving directly from a repository via the webhook, one can use a CI action and the git-pages-cli to push a total folder. \nWhile normally more used for deploying the output of a static site generator (like this page), it can also be paired with a simple checkout action to grab a copy of the repository including the lfs objects and then push that whole folder via the git-pages-cli.
The simplest way of doing that is via writing a small Forgejo Action that triggers on a push, and is how I did it for my talks:
\n![\"mountain](\"https://tzovar.as/assets/images/2026-10-17-git-pages.jpg\"/)
\nname: Publish\non:\n push:\n branches: [pages]\njobs:\n publish:\n runs-on: codeberg-tiny\n steps:\n - uses: actions/checkout@v7\n with:\n lfs: true\n - uses: actions/git-pages@v2\n with:\n site: https://talks.tzovar.as/\n server: codeberg.page\n token: $\n source: .\nAfter the checkout of the repository, I let it just immediately use the git-pages action to deploy the folder as is.\nIf for some reason you prefer doing the same with the Woodpecker CI, I made an equivalent plugin that can be used for that.
And of course if your pages already use a CI action to deploy generated artifacts, you'll not have to worry about this either way.\nIn the long term I should probably also just let the CI also build the slides, to ensure that the deployed HTML version reflects the actually committed files, but that's a modification for a different day.
\nIf you're not sure what method you are using, this small tool lets you check\u00a0\u21a9
\nThe LIS-Bibliometrics Committee is inviting expressions of interest from UK institutions interested in hosting the 2027 conference, as well as colleagues who would like to join the organising committee.
\n\n\n\nThe proposed conference dates are between mid-June and mid-July, or in early September 2027. Hosting or helping to organise the event offers an opportunity to connect with colleagues and contribute to the bibliometrics community.
\n\n\n\nThe deadline for expressions of interest is 6 November 2026.
\n\n\n\nWe would love to hear from you and welcome your involvement in making the next conference a success.
\n\n\n\nFind out more about the conference and how to get involved.
\n\n\n\nContact us: https://lisbibliometrics.wordpress.com/contact/
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/g5rq3-kfd25","guid":"https://thebibliomagician.wordpress.com/?p=5687","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1792195200,"rid":"y4844-v1g52","summary":"Help shape the LIS Bibliometrics Conference 2027 The LIS-Bibliometrics Committee is inviting expressions of interest from UK institutions interested in hosting the 2027 conference, as well as colleagues who would like to join the organising committee. The proposed conference dates are between mid-June and mid-July, or in early September 2027.","tags":["Metrics"],"title":"LIS Bibliometrics Conference 2027 \u2013 Call for Expressions of Interest!","updated_at":1792308606,"url":"https://thebibliomagician.wordpress.com/2026/10/17/lis-bibliometrics-conference-2027-call-for-expressions-of-interest/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"name":"Durham University, Department of Psychology"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Rubin","given":"Mark","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6483-8561"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Mark Rubin","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6483-8561"}],"community_id":"3bd0dcf5-7d43-47f1-b260-87d9f30bdcd6","created":1681948800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Critical metascience takes a step back to question some common assumptions, approaches, problems, and solutions in metascience.","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/markrubin","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/3bd0dcf5-7d43-47f1-b260-87d9f30bdcd6/logo","feed_format":"application/rss+xml","feed_url":"https://markrubin.substack.com/feed","filter":null,"generator":"Substack","home_page_url":"https://markrubin.substack.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"markrubin","status":"active","subfield":"1207","title":"Critical Metascience","updated":1792151011,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Critical Metascience","blog_slug":"markrubin","content_html":"I really enjoyed Mel Andrews' recent essay: \"Philosophy in the Trenches and Laboratory Benches of Science\" and its main point that \"every laboratory needs a philosopher.\" This point is made in the context of a concern about \"the industrialisation of science\":
Not all of the shifts of recent history have constituted improvements to science, in either its truth-seeking capacity or its social responsibility. I allude to the industrialisation of science. To the corporatisation, the commodification, and the militarisation of science\u2026.
The so-called replication crisis has come about, in large part, because generations of behavioural scientists have been instructed in assembly-line procedures rather than modes of questioning and critical analysis.
This concern about the industrialisation of science reminded me of something that statistician Ronald Fisher wrote many years ago when he argued that the Neyman-Pearson approach to hypothesis testing is more suitable for \"acceptance procedures\" used during quality control on industrial production lines than for scientific research:
I am casting no contempt on acceptance procedures, and I am thankful, whenever I travel by air, that the high level of precision can really be achieved by such means. But the logical differences between such an operation and the work of scientific discovery by physical or biological experimentation seem to me so wide that the analogy between them is not helpful, and the identification of the two sorts of operation is decidedly misleading (Fisher, 1955, pp. 69\u201370).
As I've discussed elsewhere, the production line analogy assumes an inappropriate amount of knowledge and certainty on the part of scientists (Rubin, 2020). Unlike quality controllers on a factory production line, scientists don't know the relevant and irrelevant features of their populations and testing conditions. Factors that they theorize to be essential for demonstrating an effect may turn out to be unimportant, and factors that they assume to be unimportant may turn out to be essential! Indeed, one of the key differences between scientific research and quality control is that scientists can learn what's important and unimportant from their replication failures, whereas quality controllers merely consign their \"bad batches\" to the garbage. Hence, like Andrews, I see a clear link between the replication crisis and the industrialisation of science (e.g., Rubin, 2021, p. 5829).
Andrews also describes the industrialisation of science as a:
broad-sweeping prohibition against \"theorising\" \u2013 and by this it is meant any and all forms of sustained critical thought about or questioning of the scientific work
Again, this description rings true for me. In particular, it reminds me of Kerry Chamberlain's (2000) description of \"methodolatory,\" which consists of:
An overemphasis on locating the 'correct' or 'proper' methods
A focus on description at the expense of interpretation
The avoidance of theory, and
Avoidance of the critical
As Chamberlain explained \"methodolatry\u2026works to prevent us looking at the assumptions behind our research.\" Andrews' proposal of a philosopher-in-the-lab should provide an important safeguard against methodolatory:
Every laboratory needs to have someone who understands broadly and intimately what is going on and who is empowered to ask questions, to stand back from the laboratory bench or the telescope or the command line and ask: What are we really trying to determine here, and to what end? Will it be of benefit or detriment to mankind? Are the assumptions and idealisations that we have made along the way warranted? Where do our driving theories, models, and representations of the phenomena under study stand in relation to rival or complementary conceptualisations? How are we best to interpret and contextualise the results of our modelling or experimental work? Are our instruments of measurement and analysis, our conceptual repertoire, up to the task at hand?
Andrews concludes that:
Every laboratory needs a philosopher. The philosopher's role, however, is not only to philosophise on behalf of scientists, but to re-educate scientists in how to philosophise for themselves.
This seems like a good idea. In recent years, statisticians and methodologists have made excellent contributions to re-educating scientists in the wake of the replication crisis. Philosophers should be key members of this educational team!
Andrews, M. (2023). \"Philosophy in the trenches and laboratory benches of science\": An essay by Mel Andrews. The Philosopher, 111(1). https://www.thephilosopher1923.org/post/philosophy-in-the-trenches-and-laboratory-benches-of-science
Sabina Leonelli's new book \u2013 \"Philosophy of Open Science\" \u2013 will be published later this year. However, there is an open access preprint available on the PhilSci Archive here.
![\"\"](\"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!NTT9!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F086be164-e4c0-4dbe-8044-4c0f49f60696_296x446.png\")
In the book, Leonelli provides \"a constructively critical reading\" of the standard approach to open science which, she argues, is focused on sharing \"objects\" such as data and materials. In Leonelli's view, this object-sharing approach has become an obstacle to promoting open science. Grounded in philosophies of science from Popper, Chang, Longino, and others, she puts forward an alternative, process-oriented view of open science that refers to efforts to establish \"judicious connections among systems of practice.\"
I propose a conception of openness as judicious connection, which is grounded in a process-oriented epistemology of science that recognises the situated, embodied and goal-directed nature of communication and collaboration among researchers.
What does \"connection\" have to do with openness?
The idea of openness is quintessentially linked to that of learning as going beyond one's boundaries. This arguably applies to systems of research practice as much as to research groups and individual learners: establishing new connections often means expanding one's learning, challenging existing assumptions around what is considered external or irrelevant to a given system, and considering whether new boundaries need to be established that incorporate the novel relations.
Importantly, Leonelli does not equate an indiscriminate increase in scientific connections with an increase in open science. Instead,
the building and maintenance of connections need to be judicious: they require skilled deliberation, whereby the new opportunities offered by the connection in question are evaluated within the contexts at hand. Indeed, openness can itself be understood as a dynamic and highly situated mode of valuing the research process and its outputs, which encompasses economic as well as scientific, cultural, political, ethical and social considerations (Levin and Leonelli 2017).
The differences between the object-sharing and \"judicious connection\" approaches to open science also have implications for inclusion. The standard object-sharing approach assumes that greater transparency leads to a more inclusive science. In contrast, Leonelli's \"judicious connection\" approach flips the causal arrow and assumes that more inclusion leads to greater transparency.
The implementation of OS [open science] needs to start from consideration of what it may take to make research more inclusive, diverse and just \u2013 rather than expecting such an outcome to naturally follow from the 'right' choice of software, infrastructures, standards, publishing platforms, or whichever other technological or institutional fix is being devised to facilitate access to resources.
Finally, Leonelli's distinction between the two approaches to open science is important because she believes that the standard, object-sharing approach:
threatens to blindly privilege specific ways of knowing, thus potentially disrupting sophisticated methodologies, inadvertently dismissing well-established research traditions, and exacerbating the already large epistemic and social divides separating research domains and locations As denounced by a number of critics in science and science studies, there is a substantive risk of some OS policies \u2013 despite their good intentions and progressive slant - acting as a reactionary force which reinforces conservatism, discrimination, commodification and inequality in research, thus ultimately closing down opportunities for inquiry in a disastrous reversal of what they set out to achieve.
I won't go any further into the distinction between the object-sharing and judicous connection approaches to open science. Leonelli already does an excellent job of that in her book. Instead, I want to highlight five quotes that are critical of the standard object-sharing approach, because these are motivating towards a consideration of her alternative judicious connection approach.
Many of the more institutionalised OS initiatives tend to privilege a homogenous, universally applicable understanding of the scientific method over a pluralistic and situated one.
Similar points have been made by several others. For example, Malich and Rehmann-Sutter (2022) pointed out that:
Metascience often construes science and psychology from a homogenizing perspective that omits the plurality and complexity of both scientific methods and psychological approaches. This omission entails several epistemic risks because the reforms that metascience initiates or accompanies can reinforce these homogenizing tendencies
Open Methods is not a matter of recording and sharing every detail of a research procedure, but rather a reflection on which research components and techniques are most salient to the outcomes, and should thus be accessible and reproducible.
I totally agree. As I argue near the end of this presentation, I'm opposed to what I call \"mindless transparency.\"
![\"\"](\"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!XECF!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F9c63ef6d-9449-4b2d-bcff-9054ced4f8b8_1097x823.png\")
By the way, I think Popper (2002, p. 230) would also agree with this point:
When the judge tells a witness that he should speak 'The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth', then what he looks for is as much of the relevant truth as the witness may be able to offer. A witness who likes to wander off into irrelevancies is unsatisfactory as a witness, even though these irrelevancies may be truisms, and thus part of 'the whole truth'.
Taking a monolithic understanding of reproducibility as a demarcation strategy for the whole of science side-steps the precious plurality of methods developed to suit specific goals, concepts and target objects.
Again, this point has been made by several others (e.g., Devezer et al., 2019, 2021; Feest, 2019; Haig, 2022). Nonetheless, replication is often portrayed as a \"defining\" or \"essential\" aspect of science.
A case in point is the skepticism towards qualitative research often displayed within debates on reproducibility, which sometimes portray qualitative methods as hopelessly subjective and devoid of rigorous forms of data collection and verification....Assuming that qualitative research traditions in anthropology or sociology are incapable of rigorous research means drastically reducing the diversity of systems regarded as exemplars of good practice.
Yes! We need to be very careful that open science does not reopen \"'sectarian' divides between quantitative and qualitative\" research, as Dunleavy (2022) has cautioned.
To date, some parts of the OS movement \u2013 particularly its institutionalized, top-down incarnations - have paid too much attention to designing procedures and technologies for sharing, and this has come at the expense of strategies, training and procedures to assess who is included and excluded from such apparatus, understand why and with which implications, and mitigate eventual instances of epistemic injustice.
Another important point! A good example of this lack of attention to inclusion comes from Prosser et al. (2022) in their article \"When open data closes the door.\" These researchers found surveyed 261 social psychology journals and found that journal guidelines for sharing data were exclusionist with regards to qualitative data:
Guidelines explicitly addressing open qualitative data were very rare, provided by just three journals (2.1% of all relevant journals). All other journals that made reference to 'open data' did so without making a distinction between qualitative and quantitative data.\"
Leonelli, S. (2023). Philosophy of open science. [Preprint] http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/21986/
Order the published print version here.
The University of Exeter's PHIL_OS project (2021\u20132025): \"Aims to develop an empirically grounded philosophy of Open Science [OS] that emphasises the diversity of research environments around the world and articulates the conditions under which OS can leverage such diversity to promote good research practice.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/x4g76-zb210","guid":"116187642","image":"https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/564ba545-18df-463c-8bd3-65f469e19f6d_296x446.png","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1682035200,"rid":"pkrx0-kj258","summary":"Sabina Leonelli's new book \u2013 \"Philosophy of Open Science\" \u2013 will be published later this year. However, there is an open access preprint available on the PhilSci Archive here. In the book, Leonelli provides \"a constructively critical reading\" of the standard approach to open science which, she argues, is focused on sharing \"objects\" such as data and materials.","title":"Sabina Leonelli's \"Philosophy of Open Science\"","updated_at":1792238140,"url":"https://markrubin.substack.com/p/sabina-leonellis-philosophy-of-open","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"name":"Durham University, Department of Psychology"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Rubin","given":"Mark","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6483-8561"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Mark Rubin","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6483-8561"}],"community_id":"3bd0dcf5-7d43-47f1-b260-87d9f30bdcd6","created":1681948800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Critical metascience takes a step back to question some common assumptions, approaches, problems, and solutions in metascience.","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/markrubin","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/3bd0dcf5-7d43-47f1-b260-87d9f30bdcd6/logo","feed_format":"application/rss+xml","feed_url":"https://markrubin.substack.com/feed","filter":null,"generator":"Substack","home_page_url":"https://markrubin.substack.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"markrubin","status":"active","subfield":"1207","title":"Critical Metascience","updated":1792151011,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Critical Metascience","blog_slug":"markrubin","content_html":"In this new article, I consider questionable research practices in the field of metascience. A questionable metascience practice (QMP) is a research practice, assumption, or perspective that's been questioned by several commentators as being potentially problematic for metascience and/or the science reform movement. I discuss 10 QMPs that relate to criticism, replication, bias, generalization, and the characterization of science. My aim is not to cast aspersions on the field of metascience but to encourage a deeper consideration of its more questionable research practices, assumptions, and perspectives.
![\"\"](\"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!VAlR!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa5f016ff-5378-4580-8535-a4bcd097b2ef_666x500.jpeg\")
Rejecting or ignoring self-criticism: Rejecting or ignoring criticisms of metascience and/or science reform
Fast 'n' bropen scientific criticism: A quick, superficial, dismissive, and/or mocking style of scientific criticism
Overplaying the role of replication: Assuming that replication is essential to science, and that it indexes \"the truth\"
Unspecified replication rate targets: Assuming a replication rate is \"too low\" without specifying an \"acceptable\" rate
Metabias: An unacknowledged bias towards explaining the replication crisis in terms of researcher bias
A bias reduction assumption: Focusing on selective reporting as the primary form of researcher bias and assuming that it can be reduced without increasing other forms of bias
Devaluing exploratory results: Devaluing an exploratory result as being more \"tentative\" than a confirmatory result without considering other relevant issues (e.g., quality of associated theory, methods, analyses, transparency)
Presuming QRPs are problematic: Presuming that questionable research practices (e.g., HARKing) are always problematic research practices
A focus on knowledge accumulation: Conceiving knowledge accumulation as the primary objective of science without considering (a) the role of specified ignorance or (b) different objectives in other philosophies of science
Homogenizing science: Focusing on specific approaches (e.g., quantitative methods; replicable effects) as \"the scientific method\"
In my article, I stress that only some metascientists engage in some QMPs some of the time, and that these QMPs may not always be problematic. Research is required to estimate the prevalence and impact of QMPs. In the meantime, I think that QMPs should be viewed as invitations to ask questions about how we go about doing better metascience.
![\"\"](\"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!v6xt!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd160ceec-8493-446f-9352-de9bd3860f4d_500x605.jpeg\")
Rubin, M. (2023). Questionable metascience practices. Journal of Trial and Error. https://doi.org/10.36850/mr4
My article is part of a special issue in the Journal of Trial and Error: \"Consequences of the scientific reform movement: Is the scientific reform movement headed in the right direction? https://journal.trialanderror.org/pub/callscientificreform/release/4
Many of the articles that I cite in my article are included in this chronological list of critical metascience articles: https://sites.google.com/site/markrubinsocialpsychresearch/replication-crisis/list-of-critical-metascience-articles
Make Data Count and Digital Science have released a first-of-its-kind open, contextualized collection of linkages between research articles and the datasets they cite or reuse. This effort builds on Make Data Count's decade-long endeavors to make all connections between data and papers publicly accessible, with Digital Science contributing their expertise and infrastructure to greatly expand the resource.
\nThe collection, now available to access from Make Data Count, brings together a comprehensive set of datasets mentioned in research articles across disciplines, identified by DOI or accession number. Where the evidence supports it, these links are classified as primary (data generated for the article) or secondary (existing data reused in the study). Built by Digital Science in collaboration with Make Data Count and open source algorithms, the resource is available under a CC0 public-domain dedication. This resource will be updated monthly, with dated releases available so users can cite the specific version they use.
\nUnderstanding the reach of research data has been an unsolved problem due to the many ways that data are referenced and mentioned in papers. To overcome this roadblock, Make Data Count hosted a Kaggle competition where participants were asked to develop methods that could identify dataset references within research papers and distinguish data generated for a study from existing data reused in it. The competition resulted in five winning approaches, openly available for others to use and build upon.
\nThe unique value of having these algorithms is when they are put into practice at mass scale. Make Data Count approached Digital Science for its expertise in analyzing research literature and willingness to scale and maintain open science infrastructure. Digital Science's accompanying technical documentation describes the methods, implementation of the algorithms, and limitations so users can assess and interpret the results.
\n\n\n
\n\"Funders and institutions increasingly need to show that the data they invest in is actually used. This open collection gives the whole community, from research offices to government agencies, a shared and auditable view of how research data is created and reused. We're proud to support Make Data Count in turning a community competition into infrastructure everyone can build on.\"
\n
\n \u2014 Holly Wolcott, EVP Academic and Government, Digital Science
Responsible data metrics depend on evidence that the community can examine, question, and improve. This regularly updated collection is intended for use across all disciplines, research and evaluation stakeholders. The linkages also give infrastructure providers and research information services a shared foundation for developing and scrutinizing tools and indicators. Open, auditable, and trusted infrastructure are core values of the Make Data Count initiative, and the broad dissemination of this corpus allows for any use and integration of this information.
\n\n\n
\n\"While the goals of MDC have not changed since its inception, our methods for developing the necessary open infrastructure for data metrics have evolved. The key piece to all of our work, and what's been missing, is having a trusted and comprehensive base of information covering the many ways data are mentioned in scientific articles. This new approach to building a data citation corpus is a major milestone in advancing our understanding of how open data are reused\"
\n
\n \u2014 Daniella Lowenberg, Chair, Make Data Count Steering Committee\n
Since its inception, Make Data Count has achieved success through unique partnerships that allow for the greatest reach of the initiative's work to support underlying infrastructure necessary for the development of open data metrics. Support from the National Science Foundation (2015) defined researcher needs, funding from the Sloan Foundation (2017-22) helped articulate the need for and buy-in of open data metrics, and Wellcome-funded work (2022-2026) supported the development of an open data citation corpus with contributions from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. We thank partners at California Digital Library, DataCite, DataONE, PLOS, and COUNTER for their contributions to Make Data Count's development over the last decade, alongside these funders, repository teams, bibliometricians, researchers, and advocates who have supported and shaped this work.
\nMake Data Count is, and will remain, a community-governed initiative by our advisory committee. This new collaboration with Digital Science supports a specific work stream: expanding and maintaining open connections between research papers and datasets to build our collective understanding of research data impact and its ability to inform new modes of research practice, discovery, and assessment.
\nExplore this first release by downloading a CSV snapshot from the Make Data Count website or through BigQuery and consult the accompanying technical documentation for more information. We look forward to supporting all of the future integrations and use of this novel information!
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.60804/yg9v-7q17","guid":"https://makedatacount.org/?p=1851","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1792022400,"rid":"3m2rz-h4698","summary":"DOI: 10.60804/YG9V-7Q17 Make Data Count and Digital Science have released a first-of-its-kind open, contextualized collection of linkages between research articles and the datasets they cite or reuse. This effort builds on Make Data Count's decade-long endeavors to make all connections between data and papers publicly accessible, with Digital Science contributing...","tags":["News","Data Citation Corpus","Data Citations","Open Infrastructure"],"title":"Largest Collection of Data Reuse Indicators Now Openly Available","updated_at":1792346372,"url":"https://makedatacount.org/read-our-blog/new-frontier-for-open-data-metrics/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"name":"Adapt Research"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"bfd37b46-cbce-4a47-9a9d-fdc1d9c8b8d2","created":1753833600,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"As we build our world we build our minds","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/adaptresearchwriting","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/bfd37b46-cbce-4a47-9a9d-fdc1d9c8b8d2/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress.com","home_page_url":"https://adaptresearchwriting.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"adaptresearchwriting","status":"active","subfield":"2306","title":"Adapt Research Ltd","updated":1792340000,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Adapt Research Ltd","blog_slug":"adaptresearchwriting","content_html":"Lessons for global catastrophic risk from the Arctic Circle Assembly 2026, beyond AI
\nTLDR/Summary
\nIntroduction
\nThe Arctic Circle Assembly fills Reykjav\u00edk's Harpa concert hall each October with hundreds of sessions. I sampled perhaps 5%: a Wednesday pre-event \"Connected Ocean Observing: ARIA x Reykjav\u00edk Institute\", run by the UK's Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) with the Reykjav\u00edk Institute, and the first two of three days, chosen through a global catastrophic risk lens.
\nThis post is therefore partial. My companion post covers the AI sessions, including Tristan Harris's plenary, the best session I attended. My thanks to Arctic Circle and its founder, former President \u00d3lafur Ragnar Gr\u00edmsson, for an event where anyone may ask a question. Here I survey the geopolitics and infrastructure sessions, then use AMOC as the main case. The test throughout is the one I applied at SRA Nordic last week: what lessons transfer to global catastrophic risk, and what should New Zealand learn?
\nThe geopolitical weather
\nThe day one plenary set the tone. Canada's Foreign Minister Anita Anand spoke of sovereignty, respect for Arctic peoples, security, economy, and environment, and cited Prime Minister Mark Carney's Davos case for \"value-based realism\": with the threat environment changed, collaboration among like-minded states is now a necessity. That fits our view that cooperation on catastrophic risk evolves most readily at the regional level, since individual jurisdictions can't manage cross-border risks alone. Greenland's representatives set out their view of sovereignty and way of life in the face of US pressure. \"Nothing about Greenland without Greenland.\"
\nThe US session, with the Governor of Alaska and the Chair of the US Arctic Research Commission, was about hard assets: ports, shipping lanes, icebreakers and missile defence, and partners to help pay for them. Some of the language was painful and misguided. More telling was the omission. Neither speaker mentioned climate change until asked by a member of the audience, and the answers deflected.
\n\"Can the Arctic stay calm while the world burns?\" took the cascading view and applied it to any far-flung region of the world. Lassi Heininen, a long-time scholar of Arctic politics, recalled that Reagan and Gorbachev met in Reykjav\u00edk 40 years ago this month and nearly agreed to abolish nuclear weapons.
\nToday no arms control treaty or serious negotiation is current, and with the stresses of climate change added, he is \"bloody worried\" about the risk of nuclear war. Francesco Sassi, a Norway-based energy analyst argued that security must now include energy security: after Hormuz, and a possible US export ban, Arctic oil and gas production could rise and new alliances form. Others traced Russia\u2013China cooperation on pipelines, shipping and coast guard patrols.
\nThe verdict was that the Arctic cannot be insulated from these shocks. Neither can New Zealand. Prices are not coming down, and politicians need a realist view, and to communicate expectations with society. Unfortunately the audience questions stayed with energy, not nuclear spillover, which is where the catastrophic tail sits.
\nInfrastructure that serves two purposes
\nThe session I would most like New Zealand's regional councils to have seen was on dual-use infrastructure in Iceland's West Fjords, a remote, sparsely populated region much like the West Coast where I live. Moderator Gylfi \u00d3lafsson described how the community, as the security picture darkened, developed a shared vocabulary and a report to Parliament that prioritised local investments by cost, feasibility and dual use; search and rescue, roadside mobile coverage and fibre came out on top. But other investments in maritime upgrades, radar stations, submarine cable security, and a relocated airport are all topical. Brynja Huld \u00d3skarsd\u00f3ttir argued that dual-use infrastructure is the fastest route to defence resilience: it keeps people living there, and presence is both deterrence and capability. Patti Bruns (Arctic Mayors' Forum) and Peter Clarkson (Mayor of Inuvik) agreed: there is no Arctic security without healthy Arctic communities.
\nWhat was missing was food and liquid fuel, the two inputs that decide whether a remote community functions in a crisis. But the community process deserves as much attention as the list. New Zealand could take this approach independently, adopting NATO-style baseline resilience requirements without NATO, and building priorities through local citizen deliberation of the kind our charity Islands for the Future of Humanity are proposing to pilot in Reefton, NZ.
\nAMOC: what science can and cannot say
\nThe Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) carries warm water north and is a large part of why north-west Europe and Iceland are so mild for their latitude. A sharp weakening would cool the North Atlantic even as the world warms, affecting weather, sea level, fisheries and agriculture across the hemisphere.
\nARIA's pre-event was the most candid account of uncertainty I heard all week. ARIA's Forecasting Tipping Points programme (\u00a3114 million, led by Sarah Bohndiek and Gemma Bale) aims to build an early-warning system for the North Atlantic, combining established observing arrays with cheaper autonomous instruments and new models, and is now moving to its second phase.
\nDr Graeme MacGilchrist (University of St Andrews) organised the science into four questions. Can AMOC collapse? Yes, in models, but rates and mechanisms are unclear. Has it? Evidence for past collapses is ambiguous. Is it changing now? The instrumental record is about 20 years, too short to say. Will it? Persistent model biases affect how sensitive the system is to forcing. Early warning, he said, is elegant theory that is not yet validated, and today's observing system is a collection of projects with precarious funding.
\nThe next morning's panel, organised by Iceland, the UK and the Netherlands, gave the same message more briefly. Femke de Jong (NIOZ) explained how few lines of instruments cross the Atlantic. Laura Jackson (UK Met Office) said the AMOC is likely to weaken through this century, with abrupt collapse unlikely before 2100, but a tipping point is plausible and a much weaker state could follow. Steingr\u00edmur J\u00f3nsson (Marine and Freshwater Research Institute, Iceland) argued for sustained monitoring. Other tipping points, such as the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, may occur first and interact.
\nNot just a current
\nA session on the Arctic marine food web showed that the changes are already under way. Geraint Tarling (British Antarctic Survey) explained how sea-ice algae and copepods drive a polar biological carbon pump, and how a seasonal lipid pump locks carbon away below 1,000 metres for centuries.
\nLoss of sea ice, invasion by Atlantic species and ocean acidification are weakening it, a triple whammy that feeds back into warming. Antje Boetius (Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute) described returning to sites where long filaments of ice algae once hung beneath the ice and finding none, replaced by swarms of gelatinous life. Sea ice now forms in different places and drifts faster and thinner, and multi-year ice, with its years-long ecosystems, is gone.
\nThe lesson is that \"AMOC risk\" is not one variable. It is a coupled system of currents, ice, plankton and fish, ending in food prices, livelihoods and cod stocks. When I asked whether AMOC monitoring and biological monitoring are linked, the answer was that new devices make more possible. Ocean flora and plankton may be the canary in the AMOC mine, and North Atlantic monitoring should include them if it does not already.
\nThe risk keeps moving one way
\nOn day two Johan Rockstr\u00f6m (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) called AMOC the \"poster child\" tipping point and noted that six of the climate system's tipping elements are in the Arctic, with interactions we do not understand. Recent studies project limited weakening of 18\u201343% by 2100 on one approach, and 51 \u00b1 8% under intermediate emissions when models are constrained by observations; others find collapse after 2100 in many models. Rockstr\u00f6m has put the probability of a drastic slowdown or collapse at 10% or more. That is a non-trivial risk to habitability and human life on both sides of the Atlantic.
\nA later session asked whether a Chief Planetary Science Officer could help turn such science into policy. Luc Bas holds that role for Belgium. Rockstr\u00f6m noted that the entire range of AMOC uncertainty has moved upwards. Even conservative estimates now carry real risk, and even the lower impacts are severe. This is a pattern across global risk: as evidence accumulates, the news from a human point of view mostly gets worse. Uncertainty is not a reason to expect the benign end.
\nScience is doing its job; now policy must do its own
\nAt the morning panel, one diplomat opined that science takes a long time, which makes it hard for policymakers. That is the wrong framing. Scientists are providing what they can: the mechanisms, the evidence and the uncertainty around it. Deciding under that uncertainty is not a scientific problem. It is a policy skill, decision-making under deep uncertainty (DMDU), with established methods: robust strategies that perform acceptably across many futures, adaptive pathways with signposts and triggers, and stress-testing against scenarios.
\nPolicymakers should be expected to have these technical skills. Iceland's Minister J\u00f3hann P\u00e1ll J\u00f3hannsson has said it plainly: \"We cannot afford to wait for definitive, long-term research before acting.\"
\nThe answer under deep uncertainty is no-regrets action: measures worth taking whatever the ocean does. The UK speaker at ARIA's session put it well: there will never be a government department for AMOC, but many bad things could happen, so build resilience across them. Food strategy, fuel stocks, fisheries adaptation and migration planning all qualify.
\nI note that this is the logic of our own NZCat project, which contemplated the impacts of a Northern Hemisphere nuclear war on Aotearoa/New Zealand. We concluded that many of the same consequences for societal systems exist across many global risks. Our mantra was \"solve for nuclear winter, solve for all\": prepare vital systems for the severe case and you are prepared for most of the rest.
\nIn peripheral discussions I learned how AMOC reached the top of Iceland's agenda. In 2024, 44 scientists wrote to the Nordic Council of Ministers. The Icelandic Minister for the Environment, Energy, and Climate asked his department for a report, tabled it in Parliament and referred the issue to the National Security Council, which in 2025 added AMOC to its list of threats, the first climate phenomenon to be treated that way. Alongside this, a few people wrote careful op-eds that framed the issue as one of security, for food and livelihoods, and left space for someone to step up. The minister took it by the horns and became the hero of the story: a win for everyone. The lesson echoes Harris's session and last week's point about whoever frames a risk first. A few well-crafted pieces, repeated in every talk and article, do more than a stream of quick items.
\nThe security framing is spreading. The minister wrote on AMOC in the second issue (Haust 2026) of T\u00edmarit V\u00f6r\u00f0u, Iceland's first journal of national security, launched at an event adjacent to the Assembly on 9 October by its editor Kristinn \u00c1rni L. Hr\u00f3bjartsson.
\nThe issue argued for the importance of Icelandic-flagged ships and low taxes on air and sea transport for transport security, so that commercial operators keep Iceland in their networks. It also asked where Iceland's increased NATO commitment is actually going. The minister also argued that a security lens lifts climate out of left and right, rich and poor, and can build cross-class coalitions. That matches what we found in our survey of New Zealanders, where a majority favoured government plans for global catastrophic risks, and a dedicated agency.
\nEvery stressed global system is a current
\nAMOC is a chaotic system that can tip, collapse, or decay without collapsing, and it is monitored only because people built the instruments, funding and institutions to watch it. The systems New Zealand depends on are currents too. Geopolitics, trade and shipping, fuel and fertiliser supply, critical minerals, the information environment and social cohesion can each tip, collapse or slowly degrade, and they interact.
\nWe monitor almost none of them continuously with validated metrics and a view to tipping points. AMOC monitoring teaches four things. Watch constantly, with long-term dedicated funding, not a collection of short projects. Collaborate internationally, because no one country can see the whole system. Keep the information clean and shared. And prepare Plan A and Plan B, with triggers agreed in advance for moving from one to the other. That is the core of our proposals for New Zealand's national risk assessment: an accountable entity, monitoring of complex and stressed global systems, a register that maps vulnerabilities to costed options, and realistic assumptions about resources, energy and geopolitics.
\nWhat resilience looks like: Iceland counts its stocks
\nIceland is doing the unglamorous part. A 2022 task force in the Prime Minister's Office found that no rules set minimum stocks of food or farm inputs and that nobody tracked how much food importers and retailers held.
\nTwo follow-up reports for the government fill in the detail. The Agricultural University's 2024 report on emergency stocks for food production ranks fuel first, then electricity, then imported feed: without fuel, stockpiles of everything else are of little use. It calls Iceland's oil position \"unacceptable\" and recommends at least three months of fuel, feed and veterinary medicines, and spreading the timing of fertiliser imports, 85% of which now arrive between March and May.
\nThe University of Iceland's 2025 proposals set state stocks for three weeks to six months of isolation, and seven days for every household; Iceland grows about 1% of the grain its people eat, and its only grain mill closed in 2025. Both were presented to a government seminar in November 2025, alongside a public food security dashboard.
\nIceland's electricity is fully renewable and islanded, but its transport, fishing fleet and aviation depend on imported oil, with no mandatory stockholding yet in force.
\nThese problems of island isolation are old. In 1262 Icelandic chieftains swore allegiance to the King of Norway, ending the Commonwealth. Exhausted by civil war, they asked in return for peace, law and reliable shipping, a promise of ships each summer.
\nAn island that cannot secure its transport links eventually trades away its independence to someone who can.
\nThis is a warning for New Zealand.
\nNew Zealand imports all its refined liquid fuel, most of its fertiliser and much of its grain, and holds minimum fuel stocks of a few weeks. We have no mapped picture of national food stocks and no minister who owns food security. We should be doing what Iceland is doing, and at least as seriously. New Zealand needs a serious plan for rationing onshore diesel stocks across a year of disruption, and a national food security assessment and plan.
\nLessons for New Zealand
\nClosing
\nI left Reykjav\u00edk struck by how far a small nation has come in a year on a risk it cannot control alone: watching it, framing it as a national security risk, and counting what it would need. New Zealand faces its own currents. The first step is to start observing them.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/w5t9y-4k833","guid":"http://adaptresearchwriting.com/?p=8048","image":"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/image-1.png?w=540","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1792281600,"rid":"0jyz6-zas62","summary":"Lessons for global catastrophic risk from the Arctic Circle Assembly 2026, beyond AI TLDR/Summary The Arctic Circle Assembly (Reykjav\u00edk, Iceland, 8\u201310 October 2026) showed a region no longer insulated from the world. Nuclear risk, energy shocks after Hormuz, great-power posturing and Greenland were all on stage; New Zealand is not insulated either.","title":"Observing currents of global catastrophe: AMOC, deep uncertainty and what New Zealand should be monitoring","updated_at":1792340108,"url":"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/2026/10/18/observing-currents-of-global-catastrophe-amoc-deep-uncertainty-and-what-new-zealand-should-be-monitoring/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Eden","given":"Terence","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9265-9069"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Terence Eden","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9265-9069"}],"community_id":"61ce553a-bafd-4aba-a952-d3bab5e85bcc","created":1788652800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Regular nonsense about tech and its effects \ud83d\ude43","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/shkspr","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/61ce553a-bafd-4aba-a952-d3bab5e85bcc/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/feed/DOI","filter":"category:-1982","generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog","issn":"2753-1570","language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"shkspr","status":"active","subfield":"1712","title":"Terence Eden's Blog","updated":1792236373,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Terence Eden's Blog","blog_slug":"shkspr","content_html":"I don't know why hardware manufacturers find it so hard to write decent documentation. As I've said before you need to actually test your readme. The Una Watch development instructions are scattered across a bunch of different files.
\n\nSo here's how to go from zero to your first \"Hello, World!\" Glance app with the minimum of fuss.
\n\nThis all assumes a fairly modern Debian / Ubuntu / Pop OS Linux.
\n\nThis installs most of the tools you will need:
\n\n![\"\"](\"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!MULU!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F482eb29e-586d-4b27-8e53-f99411b5254f_1023x757.jpeg\")
sudo apt update\nsudo apt install -y git python3 python3-pip cmake build-essential\nVisit https://www.st.com/en/development-tools/stm32cubeclt.html and download the Linux version of the tool. Inexplicably, you need to give your email address. I recommend giving a disposable one from https://10minutemail.com/
\n\nAfter downloading, unzip the file.
\n\nOn the command line, cd into the directory containing the unzipped file.
chmod +x stm32cubeclt_*.sh\nsudo ./stm32cubeclt_*.sh\nYou will need to agree to their licence. Just hit y.
That installs everything in /opt/st/stm32cubeclt_1.22.0/
You will need to make that available to your PATH.
\n\nexport PATH=\"/opt/st/stm32cubeclt_1.22.0/GNU-tools-for-STM32/bin:$PATH\"\nYou will need to copy the Una SDK. I keep my git repos in ~/git/ - you will need the location of the directory later.
cd ~/git/\ngit clone git@github.com:UNAWatch/una-sdk.git\ncd una-sdk/\ngit submodule update --init ThirdParty/lvgl\nThen update all the Python dependencies.
\n\nexport UNA_SDK=\"$PWD\"\npython3 -m pip install --upgrade pip\npython3 -m pip install -r \"$UNA_SDK/Utilities/Scripts/app_packer/requirements.txt\"\nPaste this into your terminal. Check for any errors.
\n\nwhich arm-none-eabi-gcc || true\nwhich cmake || true\nwhich make || true\nwhich python3 || true\npython3 -m pip --version\narm-none-eabi-gcc --version || true\ncmake --version || true\nmake --version || true\nIf all of the above has worked, you should be able to build the demo app with:
\n\ncd /tmp\nmkdir -p MyAlarm\ncp -r \"$UNA_SDK/Examples/Apps/Alarm/\"* MyAlarm\nmkdir -p MyAlarm/build\ncmake -G \"Unix Makefiles\" -S MyAlarm/Software/Apps/Alarm-CMake -B MyAlarm/build\ncmake --build MyAlarm/build\nStore the paths permanently. If you put cloned the Una SDK to somewhere other than ~/git/ you'll need to edit this next bit of code:
echo 'export UNA_SDK=\"$HOME/git/una-sdk\"' >> ~/.bashrc\necho 'export PATH=\"/opt/st/stm32cubeclt_1.22.0/GNU-tools-for-STM32/bin:$PATH\"' >> ~/.bashrc\nsource ~/.bashrc\nAt the moment, the only way to build a GUI app is using the Windows only (Booooo!) TouchGFX0. So, instead, we'll make a \"Hello World\" glance. All it will do is draw some text.
\n\nThe GlanceFloors demo app is the simplest one to copy.
cd $UNA_SDK/Examples/Apps/\ncp -r GlanceFloors/ GlanceHello\nUse an IDE or a text editor to open up the new GlanceHello directory.
\n\nGlanceHello/Software/App/GlanceFloors-CMake/ to GlanceHello/Software/App/GlanceHello-CMake/GlanceHello/Software/App/GlanceFloors-CMake/CMakeLists.txt - specifically the # App configuration section.APP_NAME to GlanceHelloAPP_USER_NAME to HelloFor a demo, you can leave the DEV_ID and APP_ID as their default values.
You will need to edit two more files.
\n\nIn GlanceHello/Software/Libs/Header/Service.hpp remove the following lines:
SDK::Sensor::Connection mSensorFloors;\nuint32_t mFloorsValue;\nbool mDataReceived;\nThen save the file.
\n\nEdit GlanceHello/Software/Libs/Source/Service.cpp and replace its entire contents with this:
#include \"Service.hpp\"\n#include \"SDK/Messages/CommandMessages.hpp\"\n#include \"SDK/Messages/MessageGuard.hpp\"\n\nService::Service(SDK::Kernel &kernel)\n : mKernel(kernel)\n , mGlanceUI()\n , mGlanceTitle()\n , mGlanceValue()\n{}\n\nService::~Service(){}\n\nvoid Service::run()\n{\n while (true) {\n SDK::MessageBase *msg;\n if(!mKernel.comm.getMessage(msg)) {\n continue;\n }\n\n switch (msg->getType()) {\n\n case SDK::MessageType::EVENT_GLANCE_START:\n if (configGui()) {\n createGuiControls();\n } else {\n mKernel.comm.releaseMessage(msg);\n mKernel.sys.exit(0);\n }\n break;\n\n case SDK::MessageType::COMMAND_APP_STOP:\n case SDK::MessageType::EVENT_GLANCE_STOP:\n mKernel.comm.releaseMessage(msg);\n return;\n break;\n\n case SDK::MessageType::EVENT_GLANCE_TICK:\n onGlanceTick();\n break;\n\n default:\n break;\n }\n\n mKernel.comm.releaseMessage(msg);\n }\n}\n\nvoid Service::onGlanceTick()\n{\n if (mGlanceUI.isInvalid()) {\n if (auto upd = SDK::make_msg<SDK::Message::RequestGlanceUpdate>(mKernel)) {\n upd->name = APP_NAME;\n upd->controls = mGlanceUI.data();\n upd->controlsNumber = static_cast<uint32_t>(mGlanceUI.size());\n upd.send(100);\n }\n\n mGlanceUI.setValid();\n}\n}\n\nbool Service::configGui()\n{\n bool status = false;\n if (auto gc = SDK::make_msg<SDK::Message::RequestGlanceConfig>(mKernel)) {\n if (gc.send(100) && gc.ok()) {\n if (gc->maxControls >= 3) {\n mGlanceUI.setWidth(gc->width);\n mGlanceUI.setHeight(gc->height);\n status = true;\n }\n }\n }\n return status;\n}\n\nvoid Service::createGuiControls()\n{\n mGlanceTitle = mGlanceUI.createText();\n mGlanceTitle.pos({ kTitleX, kTitleY }, { kTitleW, kTitleH })\n .font(GlanceFont_t::GLANCE_FONT_POPPINS_SEMIBOLD_20)\n .color(GlanceColor_t::GLANCE_COLOR_TEAL)\n .setText(\"Hello, World!\")\n .alignment(GlanceAlignH_t::GLANCE_ALIGN_H_CENTER);\n mGlanceValue = mGlanceUI.createText();\n mGlanceValue.pos({ 0, kValueY }, { 200, kValueH })\n .font(GlanceFont_t::GLANCE_FONT_POPPINS_SEMIBOLD_20)\n .color(GlanceColor_t::GLANCE_COLOR_WHITE)\n .setText(\"I know C++\")\n .alignment(GlanceAlignH_t::GLANCE_ALIGN_H_CENTER);\n}\nSave the file.
\n\nOn the command line
\n\ncd $UNA_SDK/Examples/Apps/GlanceHello/Software/App/GlanceHello-CMake\ncmake -G \"Unix Makefiles\" -S . -B build\ncmake --build build\nIt should finish with a success message of [100%] Built target GlanceHelloApp
Apps directory.APP_ID which is set in CMakeLists.txtGlanceHello/Output/ and will be called Hello_1.5.0-rc5.uapp or similar..uapp file from your computer to the directory you just created on the watch.If it has worked, you should see something like this:
\n\n\n\nHurrah! Treat yourself to a beer \ud83c\udf7b
\n\nJust after I wrote this, the SDK was updated to allow LVGL which should work on Linux. There's no documentation for it yet that I could find. \u21a9\ufe0e
\n","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/0std8-hz104","guid":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/?p=76095","image":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/cpp.webp","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1791244800,"rid":"vrwx5-w7v30","summary":"I don't know why hardware manufacturers find it so hard to write decent documentation. As I've said before you need to actually test your readme. The Una Watch development instructions are scattered across a bunch of different files. So here's how to go from zero to your first \"Hello, World!\" Glance app with the minimum of fuss. This all assumes a fairly modern Debian / Ubuntu / Pop OS Linux.","tags":["/etc/","C++","HowTo","Programming","UnaWatch"],"title":"Una Watch - SDK and Writing Your First App","updated_at":1792308616,"url":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2026/10/una-watch-sdk-and-writing-your-first-app/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Eden","given":"Terence","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9265-9069"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Terence Eden","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9265-9069"}],"community_id":"61ce553a-bafd-4aba-a952-d3bab5e85bcc","created":1788652800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Regular nonsense about tech and its effects \ud83d\ude43","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/shkspr","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/61ce553a-bafd-4aba-a952-d3bab5e85bcc/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/feed/DOI","filter":"category:-1982","generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog","issn":"2753-1570","language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"shkspr","status":"active","subfield":"1712","title":"Terence Eden's Blog","updated":1792236373,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Terence Eden's Blog","blog_slug":"shkspr","content_html":"\n\nA few months ago, I went to see Dr Hutchinson record his stand-up comedy special for the BBC - it's about his experiences working in the NHS as a Black doctor. As the title of the book implies, some of the public can be a mite suspicious that anyone with even a hint of melanin can rise beyond being a porter or, at a push, a nurse.
\n\nMuch like Adam Kay's \"This Is Going To Hurt\", this is part biography, part rant about the NHS, and part humorous look at what it takes to be a modern doctor. Hutchinson's book has rather less gallows humour and rather more racism.
\n\nThe problems of racial inequality in the NHS aren't just focussed on patients; they're also reflected in the way staff are treated. Rather than just recounting all the abuse he's been subject to, the book takes a good look at the actual statistics. Of course, this makes for slightly grim reading at times, so the frequent injections of humour are most welcome.
\n\nThe UK quite often seems in the shadow of larger cultures. As the book points out:
\n\n\n\nThis same issue is understudied in the UK \u2013 to the point where the absence of research is glaring. While we are clearly not just a little America, we aren't so different that we can be confident we're not replicating the same here.
Because of that, at times the book does feel a little bit like the \"we have [racism] at home\" meme.
\n\nThere's an almost relentlessly cheery irreverence to some of the issues - but what else can you do? Sometimes it takes a good dose of comedy to cut through the bleakness. There's a slight streak of ageism within the book - especially when it comes to older doctors trying to use new technology. Although, to be fair, that was also my experience when working at NHSX. There are some people within the system who are desperate for it to remain preserved in aspic as even minor improvements are a threat to their position in the hierarchy.
\n\nA minor grumble, the problem I have with books like this - and with The Secret Barrister - is that a lot of the moaning about how hard it is to become a professional doctor / lawyer just generates a giant shrug from me. Every piece of medical media in the last 50 years talks about how bone-crunchingly hard it is. All I can think of is \"none of this should be coming as a surprise to you!\" Should it be easier (and less sleep depriving) to be a doctor? Sure! But given it isn't, perhaps dial down on the clich\u00e9s of how uniquely awful your chosen career is.
\n\nThe book isn't just a list of complaints, of course, everything is backed up with statistics (although unreferenced). Thankfully, the book ends with some practical suggestions of how the NHS can improve. It would certainly be interesting to read a version of this from 2046 to see how much has changed - given the improvements already bearing fruit, I'd hope that the UK health service would become much less racist over time.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/bc4fr-qcx14","guid":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/?p=76754","image":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/are-you-really-the-doctor.avif","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1792195200,"rid":"mnchs-wqn69","summary":"A few months ago, I went to see Dr Hutchinson record his stand-up comedy special for the BBC - it's about his experiences working in the NHS as a Black doctor. As the title of the book implies, some of the public can be a mite suspicious that anyone with even a hint of melanin can rise beyond being a porter or, at a push, a nurse.","tags":["/etc/","Book Review","NHS","Racism"],"title":"Book Review: Are You *Really* The Doctor? by Matthew Hutchinson","updated_at":1792308612,"url":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2026/10/book-review-are-you-really-the-doctor-by-matthew-hutchinson/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Turner","given":"Stephen D."}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Stephen Turner","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9140-9028"}],"community_id":"382941a7-2ffa-41df-8bbb-5f772188517f","created":1780876800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"A practicing data scientist's take on AI, genomics, biosecurity, and the ways AI is reshaping how science gets done. Weekly updates from the field. Occasional notes on programming.","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/stephenturner","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/382941a7-2ffa-41df-8bbb-5f772188517f/logo","feed_format":"application/rss+xml","feed_url":"https://blog.stephenturner.us/feed","filter":null,"generator":"Substack","home_page_url":"https://blog.stephenturner.us","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"stephenturner","status":"active","subfield":"1311","title":"Paired Ends","updated":1792230055,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Paired Ends","blog_slug":"stephenturner","content_html":"I don't like mandatory AI disclosures. And it's awkward because I require them from my students. If you've been reading here lately you also know that I'm trying to drastically reduce how much writing I delegate to AI. Writing helps me think. I lose something when I turn that over to Claude.
But I want to steelman the case against disclosure requirements, including my own.
Harlan Krumholz, EIC of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Professor of Medicine at Yale, just published an editorial explaining why JACC doesn't require AI disclosures. Authors remain responsible for what they publish. AI used to conduct research still belongs in the methods. I agree. A journal can collect a disclosure from authors but that doesn't help them get any better at checking whether their conclusions are supported by their results. An editor and reviewer still has to check the evidence and references. Humans can mis-specify a model parameter or cite the wrong paper in support of a flimsy argument at just as high or higher rate than AI.
Enforcement is impossible I think. Sure, you could run a manuscript through Pangram or whatever, but a detector can't reconstruct the author's process. It can't establish whether someone asked an LLM for an argument, then wrote every sentence themselves. Authors who follow the rules have to explain themselves, but someone willing to be dishonest can leave the box unchecked or disclose nothing.
Disclosures cast suspicion all around. Disclosing AI assistance will make a reviewer suspicious before they've even read the paper or proposal. Saying you didn't use AI at all will almost certainly invite suspicion that you're lying. This recent paper shows that readers rated creative writing less favorably when they believed AI had helped write it. This wasn't a study of peer review but I think it gives us reason to worry that disclosure changes judgments independently of quality.1
I also suspect these policies will age badly. A spellcheck disclosure in a paper from the 1990s would look silly today. AI can do much more than spellcheck, but consider for a moment that the boundary can start there. Start somewhere all reasonable people would agree on. Finding and fixing a typo hardly warrants a declaration. Correcting grammar seems fine too, right? Now what about shortening a sentence or improving its clarity? I constantly find myself at or near word count limits, and it seems quick and easy to get an LLM's help. Here's where it starts to get harder to classify. What about tightening up an argument? Reorganizing paragraphs changes the argument's presentation. Keep moving forward: Suggesting the argument, or generating the whole discussion section (or worse, the results section!) gets into uses I think most of us would reject in most settings. We can disagree about where to stop without pretending everyone agrees on the same disclosure threshold. I expect most writing will eventually involve some AI assistance, making a yes/no declaration even less informative.
I still have reservations about abandoning AI disclosures in my classroom. As I wrote recently, emphasizing an argument made my a colleague here in the psychology department at UVA: students write to develop abilities they haven't mastered yet. I ask them to disclose AI use because I want to understand what they practiced and how they're using AI to (hopefully) enhance their learning. I have a really great group of students this year, and I assume honesty and good intent. But the AI disclosure statement itself establishes neither. And after having read many of these already this semester, even an accurate account doesn't really tell me whether a student learned anything. I haven't dropped the requirement but I'm increasingly unsure how much it really tells me.
Pretty much everyone I know uses AI for writing regularly, to varying degrees. What I find kind of ironic is that some of the same people will dismiss someone else's work (a paper they're reviewing, a grant proposal, etc.) with \"whatever this is all obviously ChatGPT.\" Not uncommon I suppose \u2014 our explanations of our own use seem much more charitable than our assumptions about anyone else's.
At the end of the year, Codeberg will shut down its old Codeberg Pages server, in favor of the already deployed, git-pages-based alternative.1.\nFor many deployments, migration will be quite straight-forward, requiring little more than using a webhook, as outlined in the migration guide.\nAnd this page has already for a few months now been served by the git-pages server, without any problems.
There is only one little but for the migration path, which affects pages that so far relied on git lfs for storing larger asset files like images and that are trying to directly serve from a repository without a build stage:\ngit-pages does not (and probably never will) support git lfs.\nI ran into this problem (without noticing it) when I migrated my talks, which are all just HTML files generated locally by marpit, and for which I like keeping the images in the lfs. \nWhen I was preparing a new slide deck for a conference, I noticed that the images didn't show up when I wanted to share a draft with a friend for review.
Luckily, the at least temporary hot fix for that is quite easy:\nWhile git-pages doesn't support git lfs when serving directly from a repository via the webhook, one can use a CI action and the git-pages-cli to push a total folder. \nWhile normally more used for deploying the output of a static site generator (like this page), it can also be paired with a simple checkout action to grab a copy of the repository including the lfs objects and then push that whole folder via the git-pages-cli.
The simplest way of doing that is via writing a small Forgejo Action that triggers on a push, and is how I did it for my talks:
\nname: Publish\non:\n push:\n branches: [pages]\njobs:\n publish:\n runs-on: codeberg-tiny\n steps:\n - uses: actions/checkout@v7\n with:\n lfs: true\n - uses: actions/git-pages@v2\n with:\n site: https://talks.tzovar.as/\n server: codeberg.page\n token: $\n source: .\nAfter the checkout of the repository, I let it just immediately use the git-pages action to deploy the folder as is.\nIf for some reason you prefer doing the same with the Woodpecker CI, I made an equivalent plugin that can be used for that.
And of course if your pages already use a CI action to deploy generated artifacts, you'll not have to worry about this either way.\nIn the long term I should probably also just let the CI also build the slides, to ensure that the deployed HTML version reflects the actually committed files, but that's a modification for a different day.
\nIf you're not sure what method you are using, this small tool lets you check\u00a0\u21a9
\nThe LIS-Bibliometrics Committee is inviting expressions of interest from UK institutions interested in hosting the 2027 conference, as well as colleagues who would like to join the organising committee.
\n\n\n\nThe proposed conference dates are between mid-June and mid-July, or in early September 2027. Hosting or helping to organise the event offers an opportunity to connect with colleagues and contribute to the bibliometrics community.
\n\n\n\nThe deadline for expressions of interest is 6 November 2026.
\n\n\n\nWe would love to hear from you and welcome your involvement in making the next conference a success.
\n\n\n\nFind out more about the conference and how to get involved.
\n\n\n\nContact us: https://lisbibliometrics.wordpress.com/contact/
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/g5rq3-kfd25","guid":"https://thebibliomagician.wordpress.com/?p=5687","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1792195200,"rid":"y4844-v1g52","summary":"Help shape the LIS Bibliometrics Conference 2027 The LIS-Bibliometrics Committee is inviting expressions of interest from UK institutions interested in hosting the 2027 conference, as well as colleagues who would like to join the organising committee. The proposed conference dates are between mid-June and mid-July, or in early September 2027.","tags":["Metrics"],"title":"LIS Bibliometrics Conference 2027 \u2013 Call for Expressions of Interest!","updated_at":1792308606,"url":"https://thebibliomagician.wordpress.com/2026/10/17/lis-bibliometrics-conference-2027-call-for-expressions-of-interest/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"name":"Durham University, Department of Psychology"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Rubin","given":"Mark","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6483-8561"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Mark Rubin","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6483-8561"}],"community_id":"3bd0dcf5-7d43-47f1-b260-87d9f30bdcd6","created":1681948800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Critical metascience takes a step back to question some common assumptions, approaches, problems, and solutions in metascience.","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/markrubin","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/3bd0dcf5-7d43-47f1-b260-87d9f30bdcd6/logo","feed_format":"application/rss+xml","feed_url":"https://markrubin.substack.com/feed","filter":null,"generator":"Substack","home_page_url":"https://markrubin.substack.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"markrubin","status":"active","subfield":"1207","title":"Critical Metascience","updated":1792151011,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Critical Metascience","blog_slug":"markrubin","content_html":"I really enjoyed Mel Andrews' recent essay: \"Philosophy in the Trenches and Laboratory Benches of Science\" and its main point that \"every laboratory needs a philosopher.\" This point is made in the context of a concern about \"the industrialisation of science\":
Not all of the shifts of recent history have constituted improvements to science, in either its truth-seeking capacity or its social responsibility. I allude to the industrialisation of science. To the corporatisation, the commodification, and the militarisation of science\u2026.
The so-called replication crisis has come about, in large part, because generations of behavioural scientists have been instructed in assembly-line procedures rather than modes of questioning and critical analysis.
This concern about the industrialisation of science reminded me of something that statistician Ronald Fisher wrote many years ago when he argued that the Neyman-Pearson approach to hypothesis testing is more suitable for \"acceptance procedures\" used during quality control on industrial production lines than for scientific research:
I am casting no contempt on acceptance procedures, and I am thankful, whenever I travel by air, that the high level of precision can really be achieved by such means. But the logical differences between such an operation and the work of scientific discovery by physical or biological experimentation seem to me so wide that the analogy between them is not helpful, and the identification of the two sorts of operation is decidedly misleading (Fisher, 1955, pp. 69\u201370).
As I've discussed elsewhere, the production line analogy assumes an inappropriate amount of knowledge and certainty on the part of scientists (Rubin, 2020). Unlike quality controllers on a factory production line, scientists don't know the relevant and irrelevant features of their populations and testing conditions. Factors that they theorize to be essential for demonstrating an effect may turn out to be unimportant, and factors that they assume to be unimportant may turn out to be essential! Indeed, one of the key differences between scientific research and quality control is that scientists can learn what's important and unimportant from their replication failures, whereas quality controllers merely consign their \"bad batches\" to the garbage. Hence, like Andrews, I see a clear link between the replication crisis and the industrialisation of science (e.g., Rubin, 2021, p. 5829).
Andrews also describes the industrialisation of science as a:
broad-sweeping prohibition against \"theorising\" \u2013 and by this it is meant any and all forms of sustained critical thought about or questioning of the scientific work
Again, this description rings true for me. In particular, it reminds me of Kerry Chamberlain's (2000) description of \"methodolatory,\" which consists of:
An overemphasis on locating the 'correct' or 'proper' methods
A focus on description at the expense of interpretation
The avoidance of theory, and
Avoidance of the critical
As Chamberlain explained \"methodolatry\u2026works to prevent us looking at the assumptions behind our research.\" Andrews' proposal of a philosopher-in-the-lab should provide an important safeguard against methodolatory:
Every laboratory needs to have someone who understands broadly and intimately what is going on and who is empowered to ask questions, to stand back from the laboratory bench or the telescope or the command line and ask: What are we really trying to determine here, and to what end? Will it be of benefit or detriment to mankind? Are the assumptions and idealisations that we have made along the way warranted? Where do our driving theories, models, and representations of the phenomena under study stand in relation to rival or complementary conceptualisations? How are we best to interpret and contextualise the results of our modelling or experimental work? Are our instruments of measurement and analysis, our conceptual repertoire, up to the task at hand?
Andrews concludes that:
Every laboratory needs a philosopher. The philosopher's role, however, is not only to philosophise on behalf of scientists, but to re-educate scientists in how to philosophise for themselves.
This seems like a good idea. In recent years, statisticians and methodologists have made excellent contributions to re-educating scientists in the wake of the replication crisis. Philosophers should be key members of this educational team!
Andrews, M. (2023). \"Philosophy in the trenches and laboratory benches of science\": An essay by Mel Andrews. The Philosopher, 111(1). https://www.thephilosopher1923.org/post/philosophy-in-the-trenches-and-laboratory-benches-of-science
Sabina Leonelli's new book \u2013 \"Philosophy of Open Science\" \u2013 will be published later this year. However, there is an open access preprint available on the PhilSci Archive here.
In the book, Leonelli provides \"a constructively critical reading\" of the standard approach to open science which, she argues, is focused on sharing \"objects\" such as data and materials. In Leonelli's view, this object-sharing approach has become an obstacle to promoting open science. Grounded in philosophies of science from Popper, Chang, Longino, and others, she puts forward an alternative, process-oriented view of open science that refers to efforts to establish \"judicious connections among systems of practice.\"
I propose a conception of openness as judicious connection, which is grounded in a process-oriented epistemology of science that recognises the situated, embodied and goal-directed nature of communication and collaboration among researchers.
What does \"connection\" have to do with openness?
The idea of openness is quintessentially linked to that of learning as going beyond one's boundaries. This arguably applies to systems of research practice as much as to research groups and individual learners: establishing new connections often means expanding one's learning, challenging existing assumptions around what is considered external or irrelevant to a given system, and considering whether new boundaries need to be established that incorporate the novel relations.
Importantly, Leonelli does not equate an indiscriminate increase in scientific connections with an increase in open science. Instead,
the building and maintenance of connections need to be judicious: they require skilled deliberation, whereby the new opportunities offered by the connection in question are evaluated within the contexts at hand. Indeed, openness can itself be understood as a dynamic and highly situated mode of valuing the research process and its outputs, which encompasses economic as well as scientific, cultural, political, ethical and social considerations (Levin and Leonelli 2017).
The differences between the object-sharing and \"judicious connection\" approaches to open science also have implications for inclusion. The standard object-sharing approach assumes that greater transparency leads to a more inclusive science. In contrast, Leonelli's \"judicious connection\" approach flips the causal arrow and assumes that more inclusion leads to greater transparency.
The implementation of OS [open science] needs to start from consideration of what it may take to make research more inclusive, diverse and just \u2013 rather than expecting such an outcome to naturally follow from the 'right' choice of software, infrastructures, standards, publishing platforms, or whichever other technological or institutional fix is being devised to facilitate access to resources.
Finally, Leonelli's distinction between the two approaches to open science is important because she believes that the standard, object-sharing approach:
threatens to blindly privilege specific ways of knowing, thus potentially disrupting sophisticated methodologies, inadvertently dismissing well-established research traditions, and exacerbating the already large epistemic and social divides separating research domains and locations As denounced by a number of critics in science and science studies, there is a substantive risk of some OS policies \u2013 despite their good intentions and progressive slant - acting as a reactionary force which reinforces conservatism, discrimination, commodification and inequality in research, thus ultimately closing down opportunities for inquiry in a disastrous reversal of what they set out to achieve.
I won't go any further into the distinction between the object-sharing and judicous connection approaches to open science. Leonelli already does an excellent job of that in her book. Instead, I want to highlight five quotes that are critical of the standard object-sharing approach, because these are motivating towards a consideration of her alternative judicious connection approach.
Many of the more institutionalised OS initiatives tend to privilege a homogenous, universally applicable understanding of the scientific method over a pluralistic and situated one.
Similar points have been made by several others. For example, Malich and Rehmann-Sutter (2022) pointed out that:
Metascience often construes science and psychology from a homogenizing perspective that omits the plurality and complexity of both scientific methods and psychological approaches. This omission entails several epistemic risks because the reforms that metascience initiates or accompanies can reinforce these homogenizing tendencies
Open Methods is not a matter of recording and sharing every detail of a research procedure, but rather a reflection on which research components and techniques are most salient to the outcomes, and should thus be accessible and reproducible.
I totally agree. As I argue near the end of this presentation, I'm opposed to what I call \"mindless transparency.\"
By the way, I think Popper (2002, p. 230) would also agree with this point:
When the judge tells a witness that he should speak 'The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth', then what he looks for is as much of the relevant truth as the witness may be able to offer. A witness who likes to wander off into irrelevancies is unsatisfactory as a witness, even though these irrelevancies may be truisms, and thus part of 'the whole truth'.
Taking a monolithic understanding of reproducibility as a demarcation strategy for the whole of science side-steps the precious plurality of methods developed to suit specific goals, concepts and target objects.
Again, this point has been made by several others (e.g., Devezer et al., 2019, 2021; Feest, 2019; Haig, 2022). Nonetheless, replication is often portrayed as a \"defining\" or \"essential\" aspect of science.
A case in point is the skepticism towards qualitative research often displayed within debates on reproducibility, which sometimes portray qualitative methods as hopelessly subjective and devoid of rigorous forms of data collection and verification....Assuming that qualitative research traditions in anthropology or sociology are incapable of rigorous research means drastically reducing the diversity of systems regarded as exemplars of good practice.
Yes! We need to be very careful that open science does not reopen \"'sectarian' divides between quantitative and qualitative\" research, as Dunleavy (2022) has cautioned.
To date, some parts of the OS movement \u2013 particularly its institutionalized, top-down incarnations - have paid too much attention to designing procedures and technologies for sharing, and this has come at the expense of strategies, training and procedures to assess who is included and excluded from such apparatus, understand why and with which implications, and mitigate eventual instances of epistemic injustice.
Another important point! A good example of this lack of attention to inclusion comes from Prosser et al. (2022) in their article \"When open data closes the door.\" These researchers found surveyed 261 social psychology journals and found that journal guidelines for sharing data were exclusionist with regards to qualitative data:
Guidelines explicitly addressing open qualitative data were very rare, provided by just three journals (2.1% of all relevant journals). All other journals that made reference to 'open data' did so without making a distinction between qualitative and quantitative data.\"
Leonelli, S. (2023). Philosophy of open science. [Preprint] http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/21986/
Order the published print version here.
The University of Exeter's PHIL_OS project (2021\u20132025): \"Aims to develop an empirically grounded philosophy of Open Science [OS] that emphasises the diversity of research environments around the world and articulates the conditions under which OS can leverage such diversity to promote good research practice.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/x4g76-zb210","guid":"116187642","image":"https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/564ba545-18df-463c-8bd3-65f469e19f6d_296x446.png","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1682035200,"rid":"pkrx0-kj258","summary":"Sabina Leonelli's new book \u2013 \"Philosophy of Open Science\" \u2013 will be published later this year. However, there is an open access preprint available on the PhilSci Archive here. In the book, Leonelli provides \"a constructively critical reading\" of the standard approach to open science which, she argues, is focused on sharing \"objects\" such as data and materials.","title":"Sabina Leonelli's \"Philosophy of Open Science\"","updated_at":1792238140,"url":"https://markrubin.substack.com/p/sabina-leonellis-philosophy-of-open","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"name":"Durham University, Department of Psychology"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Rubin","given":"Mark","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6483-8561"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Mark Rubin","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6483-8561"}],"community_id":"3bd0dcf5-7d43-47f1-b260-87d9f30bdcd6","created":1681948800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Critical metascience takes a step back to question some common assumptions, approaches, problems, and solutions in metascience.","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/markrubin","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/3bd0dcf5-7d43-47f1-b260-87d9f30bdcd6/logo","feed_format":"application/rss+xml","feed_url":"https://markrubin.substack.com/feed","filter":null,"generator":"Substack","home_page_url":"https://markrubin.substack.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"markrubin","status":"active","subfield":"1207","title":"Critical Metascience","updated":1792151011,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Critical Metascience","blog_slug":"markrubin","content_html":"In this new article, I consider questionable research practices in the field of metascience. A questionable metascience practice (QMP) is a research practice, assumption, or perspective that's been questioned by several commentators as being potentially problematic for metascience and/or the science reform movement. I discuss 10 QMPs that relate to criticism, replication, bias, generalization, and the characterization of science. My aim is not to cast aspersions on the field of metascience but to encourage a deeper consideration of its more questionable research practices, assumptions, and perspectives.
Rejecting or ignoring self-criticism: Rejecting or ignoring criticisms of metascience and/or science reform
Fast 'n' bropen scientific criticism: A quick, superficial, dismissive, and/or mocking style of scientific criticism
Overplaying the role of replication: Assuming that replication is essential to science, and that it indexes \"the truth\"
Unspecified replication rate targets: Assuming a replication rate is \"too low\" without specifying an \"acceptable\" rate
Metabias: An unacknowledged bias towards explaining the replication crisis in terms of researcher bias
A bias reduction assumption: Focusing on selective reporting as the primary form of researcher bias and assuming that it can be reduced without increasing other forms of bias
Devaluing exploratory results: Devaluing an exploratory result as being more \"tentative\" than a confirmatory result without considering other relevant issues (e.g., quality of associated theory, methods, analyses, transparency)
Presuming QRPs are problematic: Presuming that questionable research practices (e.g., HARKing) are always problematic research practices
A focus on knowledge accumulation: Conceiving knowledge accumulation as the primary objective of science without considering (a) the role of specified ignorance or (b) different objectives in other philosophies of science
Homogenizing science: Focusing on specific approaches (e.g., quantitative methods; replicable effects) as \"the scientific method\"
In my article, I stress that only some metascientists engage in some QMPs some of the time, and that these QMPs may not always be problematic. Research is required to estimate the prevalence and impact of QMPs. In the meantime, I think that QMPs should be viewed as invitations to ask questions about how we go about doing better metascience.
Rubin, M. (2023). Questionable metascience practices. Journal of Trial and Error. https://doi.org/10.36850/mr4
My article is part of a special issue in the Journal of Trial and Error: \"Consequences of the scientific reform movement: Is the scientific reform movement headed in the right direction? https://journal.trialanderror.org/pub/callscientificreform/release/4
Many of the articles that I cite in my article are included in this chronological list of critical metascience articles: https://sites.google.com/site/markrubinsocialpsychresearch/replication-crisis/list-of-critical-metascience-articles