![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/redasadki.me/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/00420240529t2r-climate-and-health-small-1753264849.jpg?resize=1536%2C768&ssl=1\")
Climate change is harming the health of the communities you serve. The Certificate peer learning programme for leadership in climate change and health helps you act on it, where you are, with what you have. It is free, it is built from the experience of more than 80,000 health and humanitarian workers, and you can start today.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThis guide explains the courses, how to choose one, how each one helps you, how they fit a larger path from a challenge you face to results you can see, and how they grow you as a leader.
\n\n\n\nLearn more: Read this article to learn about the programme's history and talk to the evidence generated by health workers about the impacts of climate change on health.
\n\n\n\nEach course is a different door into the same problem.
\n\n\n\nPick the one that fits what you face now, and enrol.
\n\n\n\nEach one is free, works on any phone, and ends with a plan you can act on.
\n\n\n\nThis is the first course in the programme, and the best place to begin.
\n\n\n\nIt is built from the experiences of health workers in 68 countries and draws on the 2023 report from more than 1,200 of them.
\n\n\n\nYou learn to recognize climate health problems, adapt your services, and plan practical action.
\n\n\n\nChoose this for the full picture.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/redasadki.me/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/cropped-image-1779786830.jpg?resize=879%2C516&ssl=1\")
This is the newest course and the quickest route to action. It is built on the May 2026 report, Local action to mitigate the impact of the climate crisis on health, so it carries the latest practice from the field. It covers responding in emergencies, reducing health impacts, and working with your community. Choose this when you want a clear next step.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/redasadki.me/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/20260407onehealth006-1775546813.jpg?resize=1456%2C816&ssl=1\")
Animals are dying in a village.
\n\n\n\nChildren are falling sick from the same water.
\n\n\n\nThe vet writes up one.
\n\n\n\nThe nurse writes up the other.
\n\n\n\nThey have never met.
\n\n\n\nThis primer helps you see those links in your own area and plan one cross-sector action in three months.
\n\n\n\nChoose this when your problem crosses health, animals, and the environment.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/redasadki.me/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/20250609save-the-children-our-common-ambition-cover-small-1749470346.png?resize=1600%2C939&ssl=1\")
Built with Save the Children, this primer connects workers in more than 80 countries.
\n\n\n\nChildren born today will face six times more heatwaves than children born sixty years ago.
\n\n\n\nYou gain tools to spot threats to children, strengthen your services, and advocate for what your community needs.
\n\n\n\nChoose this when children are at the heart of your work.
\n\n\n\nThere are no lectures and no tests.
\n\n\n\nYour own experience is the starting point, and the experience of your peers is the main material.
\n\n\n\nEach course follows the same simple loop:
\n\n\n\nYou are asked to invite one colleague before you start.
\n\n\n\nA plan tested by a peer is stronger than a plan made alone.
\n\n\n\nThis is the part that matters most.
\n\n\n\nOrdinary training hands you knowledge and leaves you to bridge the gap to action on your own.
\n\n\n\nHere you study what colleagues have actually done, beside the best technical guidance, so you learn from peers who have already crossed that gap.
\n\n\n\nYour own next step becomes shorter and surer.
\n\n\n\nThe courses come in two kinds.
\n\n\n\nA peer learning course is built from real experiences and helps you turn them into your own plan.
\n\n\n\nA primer is faster and lighter, and brings many people together around one shared problem.
\n\n\n\nBoth put your experience at the centre.
\n\n\n\nYou earn a recognized certification, not just a record of attendance.
\n\n\n\nWhen you complete a course, your certification documents what you now know and can do, at a high level, demonstrated through the plan and the work you produced.
\n\n\n\nThis is a credential of value, not only for you but also for employers, partners, and funders.
\n\n\n\nIt aligns with professional development frameworks for public health, environmental science, and animal science, so you can present it to your employer or your professional body and have it count for your career.
\n\n\n\nThese courses were built by and for the people closest to the impacts, and they also serve the people whose decisions shape conditions on the ground.
\n\n\n\nIf you fund or partner, taking a course shows you the method from the inside, and your organization can join through the REACH network of more than 4,000 local organizations.
\n\n\n\nA course is one step on a path that runs from the challenge you face to the results you want to see.
\n\n\n\nYou can take a single course on its own.
\n\n\n\nYou can also use it as the entry to the whole path.
\n\n\n\nYou can join now and again whenever you need it.
\n\n\n\nA course helps you make a plan.
\n\n\n\nOnce you complete at least one course, you will receive an invitation to join The Geneva Learning Foundation's Impact Accelerator.
\n\n\n\nThis is the part that training leaves out.
\n\n\n\nYou finish a course full of ideas, then a new flood hits, medicines are in short supply, the same road that washes away, and the plan stays on paper.
\n\n\n\nThe Accelerator is built to stop that from happening.
\n\n\n\nIts whole focus is action.
\n\n\n\nIt stays with you while you take real steps in your own work, and keeps you moving until they produce results.
\n\n\n\nYou do not wait for the perfect conditions or the complete plan.
\n\n\n\nYou take one concrete step you can actually finish, then another, then another.
\n\n\n\nEach step teaches you something that makes the next one better.
\n\n\n\nProgress comes from doing, reflecting, and doing again, on the real challenge in front of you.
\n\n\n\nWhat this gives you:
\n\n\n\nWhen you are facing the health impacts of climate change, this is how a plan becomes action, and action becomes results your community can feel.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/redasadki.me/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/T2R-EN-Teach-to-Reach-10-questions-1280.png?resize=1280%2C720&ssl=1\")
The Certificate peer learning programme for leadership in climate change and health is not just about taking courses.
\n\n\n\nYou become part of a global community.
\n\n\n\nRequest your invitation to join Teach to Reach now.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nYou can join Teach to Reach at any time.
\n\n\n\nIt is a platform, a community, and a network where you bring the challenge you are facing and get help from peers who have faced it too.
\n\n\n\nYou can also help others with theirs.
\n\n\n\nColleagues from your country and from all over the world take part.
\n\n\n\nTogether these give you a path from the problem in front of you, to a tested plan, to action, to real change for your community.
\n\n\n\nJoining the programme also opens the door to what the Foundation offers with its partners, described below.
\n\n\n\nWe have build the first Competency Framework for Local Leadership, drawn from ten years of listening to more than 80,000 health and humanitarian workers.
\n\n\n\nThis is a tool to help you chart your career \u2013 and figure out the best next steps to accelerate your growth as a leader.
\n\n\n\nLocal leadership is a practice, not a job title.
\n\n\n\nIt is what lets a nurse or a community health worker solve a hard problem, find scarce resources, and build trust at home.
\n\n\n\nGrowth moves through three steps.
\n\n\n\nThe programme moves you along this path.
\n\n\n\nReflecting and trading feedback is collaborator practice.
\n\n\n\nUse the three steps as your own private checklist for where to go next.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/redasadki.me/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/20241106.T2R-EN-REACH-brain-1280-1.png?resize=1280%2C720&ssl=1\")
If you lead an organization, there is a further opportunity beyond your own enrolment. Your organization can join the REACH network, a coalition of more than 4,000 locally led health organizations and over 60,000 health workers across more than 70 countries, all leading climate and health action in their own settings.
\n\n\n\nREACH is built for organizational leaders, and the benefits are for your whole organization, not only for you.
\n\n\n\nYou also help shape the programme itself, so it keeps meeting the needs of organizations like yours. This is how a single enrolment can grow into capability across your whole team.
\n\n\n\nEvery course is free.
\n\n\n\nThe first three are available now in English and French.
\n\n\n\nThe children's health course is in English.
\n\n\n\nSpanish and Portuguese editions are on the way, so more workers will soon be able to learn and contribute in their own language.
\n\n\n\nIf you work in Spanish or Portuguese, you can begin now in English or French and watch for the new editions.
\n\n\n\nJoining the programme also gives you access to opportunities the Foundation offers with its partners.
\n\n\n\nThrough a three-year agreement with the Global Consortium on Climate and Health Education at Columbia University, the largest academic network for climate and health education, you can connect expert-led science with what you and your peers know from practice.
\n\n\n\nThrough an agreement with the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, the work is being adapted across the Americas, which is the route through which the Spanish and Portuguese editions are coming.
\n\n\n\nMore opportunities open as the network grows.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/c05zy-caf92","guid":"https://redasadki.me/?p=23886","image":"https://redasadki.me/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/climate-guide-featured.jpg","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1781827200,"rid":"b407t-aar49","summary":"Climate change is harming the health of the communities you serve. The Certificate peer learning programme for leadership in climate change and health helps you act on it, where you are, with what you have.","tags":["The Geneva Learning Foundation","Certification","Children","Climate And Health","Climate Change"],"title":"What you can do if climate change is harming your community's health: a practical guide","updated_at":1782492787,"url":"https://redasadki.me/2026/06/19/what-you-can-do-if-climate-change-is-harming-your-communitys-health-a-practical-guide-to-the-certificate-peer-learning-programme-for-leadership-in-climate-change-and-health/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/0153tk833","name":"University of Virginia"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Turner","given":"Stephen D.","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9140-9028"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Stephen Turner"}],"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.","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":1782465756,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Paired Ends","blog_slug":"stephenturner","content_html":"Of the roughly 20,000 PubMed papers that use \"gain of function\" in their title or abstract (try the search here), only 15 describe experiments that meet the federal criteria for the dangerous kind. That count comes from a new review in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology by Gene Godbold and colleagues at Signature Science,1 Battelle, and RAND's Center for AI, Security, and Technology (CAST).
Godbold GD, et al. (2026) Discerning dangerous gain of function: most gain of function (GoF) research does not involve infectious microbes. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 14:1818657. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2026.1818657.
A May 2025 executive order prohibits federal funding for dangerous gain of function (DGoF) research, defined through the 7 DURC criteria written into the 2012 dual use policy: enhancing harm, defeating immunity, conferring drug resistance, increasing transmissibility, altering host range, raising host susceptibility, or reconstituting an eradicated agent. The order also calls for a way to govern such work outside federal funding. Which research the term covers has become a funding and legal question, i.e., not just semantics.
![\"\"](\"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!4TYp!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff603b627-6f0d-426a-be91-176a27a7046e_1719x902.jpeg\")
The authors began with 20,099 papers, filtered them with dictionaries and named-entity extraction, then read titles and abstracts by hand. Over 73% concern gain of function mutations in human disease, cancer, neurobiology, and similar areas, with no microbe in sight. Among the 86 experimental papers in the presumptive DGoF set, most investigate antimicrobial resistance in fungi and bacteria, work that stays inside the original organism. Fifteen fulfilled the DURC criteria.
On the flip side, most research that does meet the DGoF definition never calls itself gain of function. The team documents 62 papers that move a sequence of concern into a heterologous microbe and give it a new pathogenic function, and only 12 use \"GoF\" anywhere in the title or abstract. Screening on the keyword would miss most of the research oversight is meant to catch.
Trained reviewers also disagree on the edge cases. Three biodefense professionals, each with more than 15 years of experience, evaluated 22 viral papers. They agreed on 9 as DGoF and 6 as not, and split on the remaining 7.
Godbold's group offers what they have been building for over 20 years: a function-based catalog of sequences of concern, paired with the DURC criteria, so a reviewer can ask what a gene does to a host rather than whether a paper used a particular phrase. For oversight that has to draw clear and defensible lines, that is a steadier handle than the words authors pick for their own abstracts.
Disclosure: I have worked with, worked for, consulted, and collaborated with Signature Science LLC and several authors on this paper for over 15 years.
Im Zuge der Open-Access-Transformation haben sich diverse Finanzierungswege f\u00fcr das wissenschaftliche Publizieren herausgebildet. Die zuverl\u00e4ssige Erfassung von Publikationskosten gewinnt damit an Relevanz, sie stellt wissenschaftliche Einrichtungen jedoch auch vor erhebliche Herausforderungen (Strecker, Pampel, and H\u00f6fting 2025).
\nDarum haben die DFG-gef\u00f6rderten Projekte OA Datenpraxis und Transform2Open in einer gemeinsamen Initiative eine Sammlung textbasierten Materialien erstellt, die Praktiker:innen den Einstieg in das institutionelle Publikationskostenmonitoring erleichtern k\u00f6nnen. Die Materialsammlung baut auf den Empfehlungen zur Gestaltung des institutionellen Publikationskostenmonitorings von Transform2Open auf (Sch\u00f6n and Mittermaier 2025) und wird nun \u00f6ffentlich zur Kommentierung gestellt. Ziel des Kommentierungsprozesses ist die \u00dcberarbeitung und Erg\u00e4nzung der Materialsammlung durch Feedback aus der Open-Access-Community.
\nUns interessiert Ihre Perspektive: Ist die Sammlung nachvollziehbar beschrieben? Haben wir Materialien \u00fcbersehen, die Sie hilfreich finden?
\nAnmerkungen und Erg\u00e4nzungsvorschl\u00e4ge k\u00f6nnen Sie gerne bis einschlie\u00dflich 27.07.2026 einreichen. Diese k\u00f6nnen Sie auf zwei Wegen einbringen:
\ndurch Kommentierung in einem Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qXG1Yno0zQixbUjwEa4Zf-den88lGyT89O6a6RIMFc8/edit?usp=sharing
durch Kommentierung in einem von der HU gehosteten Dokument: https://box.hu-berlin.de/f/4b748bf9e6ca458db47d/
Am 15.07.2026, 11:00 - 12:00 Uhr veranstalten wir zus\u00e4tzlich ein Webinar im Format eines edit-a-thons, bei dem wir gemeinsam Anpassungsvorschl\u00e4ge erarbeiten. F\u00fcr die Veranstaltung k\u00f6nnen Sie sich hier registrieren: https://hu-berlin.zoom-x.de/meeting/register/59gtK8FQSYm8yu9J7lvwGg
\nBei Fragen k\u00f6nnen Sie sich gerne an Dorothea Strecker wenden: dorothea.strecker@hu-berlin.de
\nWir freuen uns auf Ihre Kommentare und Ihre Beteiligung an der Weiterentwicklung dieser Materialsammlung!
\n![](\"https://infomgnt.org/posts/2026-06-25-aufruf-zur-mitgestaltung-materialsammlung-fuer-die-gestaltung-des-institutionellen-publikationskostenmonitorings/cover-image.jpg\"/)
Weitere Informationen zur Forschungsgruppe finden sich auf unserer offiziellen Website.
\nDieser Text \u2013 mit Ausnahme von Zitaten und anderweitig gekennzeichneten Teilen \u2013 steht unter der CC BY 4.0 DEED.
\n@online{strecker2026,\n author = {Strecker, Dorothea and Pampel, Heinz},\n title = {Aufruf Zur {Mitgestaltung:} {Materialsammlung} Fuer Die\n {Gestaltung} Des Institutionellen {Publikationskostenmonitorings}},\n date = {2026-06-25},\n url = {https://infomgnt.org/posts/2026-06-25-aufruf-zur-mitgestaltung-materialsammlung-fuer-die-gestaltung-des-institutionellen-pulikationskostenmonitorings/},\n langid = {en}\n}\nFunding is one of the key enablers of the research lifecycle, but has been one of the hardest parts of the scholarly record to identify, describe and connect. This is slowly changing as we have recently reached a very exciting milestone for Crossref's Grant Linking System (GLS). What makes it remarkable is not only the numbers reached, but where the data comes from. Research funders, who joined Crossref as members, have actively contributed more than 200,000 grants to the Research Nexus (Figure 1).
\nCrossref's GLS was first introduced in 2019, following extensive community consultation with research funders, as a solution to a problem: how to place research funding in the scholarly record as a research entity in its own right, that can be connected with other outputs. Crossref grant DOIs were the first PID that specifically allows for the permanent and unambiguous identification of the support that research funders provide to their grant recipients. It places research funding where it belongs, as a research entity worthy of its own metadata record that can be linked, interpreted, and updated as time goes on. With a funder-designed metadata schema, it facilitates the linking of funding to outputs through relationship metadata, building the Research Nexus, and supporting evidence-driven evaluation.
\n![\"graph](\"https://www.crossref.org/images/blog/2026/cumulative-grant-records.png\")
\n\n
The active role of funders as owners and stewards of their grants' description in the metadata, ensuring the records reflect reality, is what makes the resulting links between funding and outputs trustworthy enough to support evidence-driven evaluation, one verifiable data point at a time, as initiatives such as DORA and CoARA are calling on the research community to do.
\nReaching 200,000 registered grants with Crossref's GLS is a milestone that belongs to the entire community. It reflects a strong commitment to open, sustainable and interoperable infrastructure from funders around the world, and a shared conviction that connected metadata makes research more transparent, more accountable and more useful for everyone.
\nIt's an opportunity to share perspectives from some of our community members helping make this possible.
\n\n\nWhen Fonds de Recherche du Qu\u00e9bec first began registering funding metadata and assigning Crossref grant DOIs to its funding through Crossref's Grant Linking System, our primary driver was straightforward: traceability. We needed a reliable way to link research outputs back to the funding that made them possible. Crossref grant DOIs provided the missing data point in an interconnected identifier and metadata ecosystem, which includes ROR and ORCID. We hope that Crossref grant DOIs will genuinely improve the researcher experience through interoperability.
\nThe journey hasn't been without complexity. Establishing metadata governance required careful collaboration with our legal team to determine what information belongs on landing pages, how to handle updates when grant titles change, and how to protect the integrity of evaluated application data.
\nOur strategy moving forward centres on two pillars: connecting and tracing. Aligned with our Open Science commitments and guided by frameworks like CoARA and DORA, we want to trace not just publications, but the full spectrum of funded outputs, such as artistic works, exhibitions, patents. We're not fully there yet, and cultural and technical readiness across the community remains a real challenge.
\nReaching 200,000 registered grants signals that the infrastructure is maturing. For Fonds de Recherche du Qu\u00e9bec, it's a motivation to keep contributing to the Research Nexus.
\n\n
\u2013 Antoine Drouin, Analyste en gestion strat\u00e9gique-Fonds de Recherche du Qu\u00e9bec
\n\n\nConnecting funding to results at scale is essential for transparent, efficient research. When we began depositing European Commission research grant DOIs with Crossref, we were tackling a practical problem: grant identifiers were used inconsistently across publishers, repositories and reporting tools, making it difficult to trace outputs back to specific EU grants. A persistent, interoperable identifier helps turn fragmented references into durable links.
\nGrant metadata is central to our open science and open access strategy. Open, machine-readable funding information improves transparency about who funds what, and supports automated monitoring of policy requirements by connecting grants to publications and other outputs across the scholarly ecosystem.
\nRegistering grant DOIs via the Publications Office of the European Union and depositing them with Crossref is now fully integrated into our internal workflows. We have learned that the DOI is just the starting point: long-term value comes from maintaining high-quality, consistent metadata throughout a grant's lifecycle and updating it as information evolves.
\nThe benefits are clear: improved discoverability of grants, stronger links between funding and outputs, and more robust reporting and analytics. Reaching 200 000 registered grants is a community milestone showing grant identifiers can work at scale and strengthen connections between funding and research results.
\n\n
\u2013 Baya Remaoun, Head of Sector - CORDIS web & data at Publications Office of the European Union
\n\n\nOur motivation to join Crossref's GLS was to be able to disaggregate research outputs between funders. Funders' grant identifiers come in a range of formats, funders might change them over time, and there are also similarities between funders' names, which is a challenge. Permanent identifiers, in this case, Crossref Grant IDs, are an opportunity to avoid some of the confusion if we are able to implement them throughout the research ecosystem.
\nOpen Research information is a core part of our open science strategy, it is critical to both our ability to operate as a funder and to the translation of the research we fund into health impacts. That's why Wellcome is a signatory of the Barcelona Declaration of Open Research Information. Grant metadata is core part of our work, as well as helping us to understand the outputs from the work we've funded, it is critical in enabling funders like Wellcome to position our portfolio effectively within the global landscape and enable equitable funding partnerships. In addition to linking grants through Crossref, our recent investment in OpenAlex to openly index grants is aiming to rapidly bolster the global visibility of grant metadata.
\nInternally at Wellcome we're discussing how we can integrate grant DOIs into other workflows now that we have greater flexibility within our grants management system.
\nExternally we've struggled to see adoption of grant DOIs within the wider ecosystem, probably coming from challenges to surface the Crossref grant DOIs to our researchers but also uneven adoption across the ecosystem. Reaching the 200,000 grants registered with Crossref means that there are still huge opportunities to grow and evolve.
\n\n
\u2013 Hannah Hope, Open Research Lead-Wellcome
\nAs the Barcelona Declaration Call to Action on funding metadata makes clear, a rich and interoperable funding metadata landscape is a shared community endeavor. As grant records in Crossref grow, other members of the scholarly community need to ensure that they are included and reported back on their own record, closing the loop on funding reporting and contributing to a richer, more connected Research Nexus.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.64000/wvk7x-4b139","guid":"https://doi.org/10.64000/wvk7x-4b139","image":"https://www.crossref.org/images/blog/2026/cumulative-grant-records.png","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1782432000,"rid":"wx10x-qxc64","summary":"Funding is one of the key enablers of the research lifecycle, but has been one of the hardest parts of the scholarly record to identify, describe and connect.","tags":["Community","Crossref","Funders","Grant Linking System"],"title":"From commitment to connection: 200,000 grants in the scholarly record","updated_at":1782469846,"url":"https://www.crossref.org/blog/from-commitment-to-connection-200000-grants-in-the-scholarly-record/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/02mb95055","name":"Birkbeck, University of London"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Eve","given":"Martin Paul","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5589-8511"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Martin Paul Eve","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5589-8511"}],"community_id":"9224b0d7-fc03-497c-9c6f-85c9fd1e72da","created":1690329600,"current_feed_url":null,"description":null,"favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/9224b0d7-fc03-497c-9c6f-85c9fd1e72da/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://eve.gd/feed_all.xml","filter":null,"generator":"Jekyll","home_page_url":"https://eve.gd","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59348","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"eve","status":"active","subfield":"1208","title":"Martin Paul Eve","updated":1782412379,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Martin Paul Eve","blog_slug":"eve","content_html":"This is a quick \"how-to\" post because I learned something about Zotero. I want the posts on this site to be easily citeable. The name of the site that I would like in citations is \"eve.gd: Martin Paul Eve\". But here's the problem: when you put that as a Blog Title (or Website Title) and then go to cite it in a document, the CSL reformats it to the ugly \"Eve.Gd: Martin Paul Eve\". Anyway, I found how to fix this! You simply encode it thus:
\n<span class=\"nocase\">eve.gd</span>: Martin Paul Eve \nThen the CSL will preserve your original case. <span class=\"nocase\">bell hooks</span> might have found this useful, as might <span class=\"nocase\">andr\u00e9 carrington</span>.
Mind you, those two are jokes only, as Zotero automatically preserves the casing of author names.
\nThe next challenge that I faced was: how do you get an item into Zotero with the \"Blog Post\" type when you are running a static-site generator? Well, obviously, you have to embed meta tags, but which ones?
\nzotero:itemTypeGenre/OpenGraph hints alone are unreliable \u2014 prism.genre=blogentry is supposed to map to Blog Post, but in practice Zotero kept importing posts as Web Page (the OpenGraph default won). The dependable fix is Zotero's own RDFa override, zotero:itemType, which is read first in the translator's type precedence (t.zotero || t.bib || t.prism || \u2026 || t.og || \u2026 in RDF.js) and beats everything else.
Two parts are required, because zotero is not a built-in prefix in the translator (only the short z is), so it must be declared:
Declare the prefix on the <html> element (the translator's getPrefixes reads the prefix attribute of <html> and <head>):
<html lang=\"en\" prefix=\"og: http://ogp.me/ns# article: http://ogp.me/ns/article# zotero: http://www.zotero.org/namespaces/export#\">\nEmit the override (note property=, not name=):
<meta property=\"zotero:itemType\" content=\"blogPost\">\nThe prefix value is RDFa syntax: prefix: uri pairs separated by spaces (a space after each colon is required by the parser's (\\w+):\\s+(\\S+) regex).
| Tag | \nValue | \nEffect | \n
|---|---|---|
<html prefix=\"\u2026zotero: http://www.zotero.org/namespaces/export#\"> | \n(declaration) | \nRegisters the zotero prefix so the next tag is understood. | \n
zotero:itemType (property) | \nblogPost | \nForces item type \u2192 Blog Post. Highest-priority signal. | \n
prism.publicationName | \n<span class=\"nocase\">eve.gd</span>: Martin Paul Eve | \nBlog Title. Read before og:site_name. The <span class=\"nocase\"> is CSL markup so styles don't title-case eve.gd into Eve.Gd. | \n
og:title | \npost title | \nTitle. Use OpenGraph/dc.title, not citation_title (see below). | \n
citation_author | \nEve, Martin Paul | \nAuthor (Last, First; repeat for multiple). | \n
citation_publication_date | \n2022/07/26 | \nDate (YYYY/MM/DD). | \n
citation_doi | \n10.59348/kv1zh-wn208 | \nDOI (bare, not a URL). | \n
citation_public_url | \nhttps://eve.gd/2022/07/26/.../ | \nURL (absolute). | \n
citation_language | \nen | \nLanguage. | \n
| Tag | \nPurpose | \n
|---|---|
prism.genre = blogentry | \nSecondary type hint (kept in case zotero:itemType is ever ignored). | \n
dc.title / dc.creator / dc.date / dc.language | \nDublin Core fallbacks for other reference tools. | \n
| Tag | \nProblem | \n
|---|---|
citation_journal_title | \nForces the journalArticle type. | \n
citation_title | \nMakes the translator guess journalArticle. Supply the title via og:title / dc.title instead. | \n
og:site_name stays clean (eve.gd: Martin Paul Eve, no markup) because it also drives social-card previews; the case-protected title rides in prism.publicationName, which Zotero reads first.<span class=\"nocase\">\u2026</span> is one of Zotero's allowed rich-text tags, so it survives import; Zotero's item pane may show the raw markup in the field even though citations render correctly.So this should now work!
\nI must also add my thanks to Tom Elliott, whose own blog post on this subject gave me the information I needed to get the Blog Post type working. It is a shame that he stopped posting on his blog in 2020. I hope all is OK with him, but there are lots of interesting digital humanities posts on his site, on eclectic topics.
\nMaking blog posts harvestable by Zotero and preserving case in citation fields was originally published by Martin Paul Eve at Martin Paul Eve on June 23, 2026.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59348/vrt01-f3b49","guid":"https://doi.org/10.59348/vrt01-f3b49","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1782172800,"rid":"11809-0cg45","summary":"This is a quick \"how-to\" post because I learned something about Zotero. I want the posts on this site to be easily citeable. The name of the site that I would like in citations is \"eve.gd: Martin Paul Eve\". But here's the problem: when you put that as a Blog Title (or Website Title) and then go to cite it in a document, the CSL reformats it to the ugly \"Eve.Gd: Martin Paul Eve\". Anyway, I found how to fix this!","title":"Making blog posts harvestable by Zotero and preserving case in citation fields","updated_at":1782413221,"url":"https://eve.gd/2026/06/23/making-blog-posts-harvestable-by-zotero-and-preserving-case-in-citation-fields/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"name":"Research Software Alliance"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Research Software Alliance"}],"community_id":"79c5ab82-d540-413c-a8cf-3e55d0135a40","created":1780876800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Recent content on Research Software Alliance","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/79c5ab82-d540-413c-a8cf-3e55d0135a40/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://www.researchsoft.org/feed.xml","filter":null,"generator":"Hugo","home_page_url":"https://www.researchsoft.org/","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"researchsoft","status":"active","subfield":"1802","title":"Research Software Alliance","updated":1782399472,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Research Software Alliance","blog_slug":"researchsoft","content_html":"This month's news includes:
\nRegistrierung unter folgendem Link: https://fu-berlin.webex.com/weblink/register/r9fe0ce62cb9536e2356e0be01b26d909
\n\nHintergrund: Im Februar 2024 wurde der europ\u00e4ische Digital Services Act (kurz DSA, deutsch: Gesetz \u00fcber digitale Dienste) innerhalb der EU und damit auch in Deutschland vollst\u00e4ndig anwendbar. Mit dem DSA legt die EU ein Regelwerk vor, um digitale Plattformen, Dienste und Produkte wirkungsvoller und einheitlicher zu regulieren. Der DSA richtet sich unter anderem an Akteure wie X, Meta, TikTok oder Google. In dem Gesetz sind etwa Regeln festgelegt, nach denen digitale Online-Plattformen Inhalte entfernen oder auch wieder freischalten m\u00fcssen, sowie wie sie dar\u00fcber mehr Transparenz verschaffen sollen. Zur Bemessung und Eind\u00e4mmung von sogenannten systemischen Risiken h\u00e4lt der DSA Regelungen bereit, die dem Schutz Minderj\u00e4hriger dienen oder die Transparenz von Werbung erm\u00f6glichen sollen, etwa in Bezug auf suchtf\u00f6rderndes Design oder illegale beziehungsweise gef\u00e4hrliche Inhalte.
\nAuch enth\u00e4lt der DSA in Artikel 40 ein Recht auf Forschungszugang: Forschende haben seit Oktober 2025 die M\u00f6glichkeit, \u00fcber eine Registrierung auf dem Data Access Portal Daten von sehr gro\u00dfen Online-Plattformen und -Suchmaschinen zu bekommen und zu analysieren (weitere Informationen dazu beispielsweise bei der Bundesnetzagentur). Die Veranstaltung am 30. Juni bietet eine Einf\u00fchrung in diese neue und f\u00fcr viele Forschende noch unbekannte Thematik. Wir wollen die Regelungen des DSA insbesondere im Zusammenhang mit den Ma\u00dfgaben von Open Research, Forschungsdaten bzw. Open Data diskutieren.
\n\u00dcber die Referentin: Die Juristin Simone Ruf von der Gesellschaft f\u00fcr Freiheitsrechte (GFF) begleitet die Einf\u00fchrung des DSA in die Praxis seit langem, setzt sich kritisch mit dem Regelwerk sowie mit den Reaktionen der Plattformen darauf auseinander. In ihrem Input wird die juristische Expertin die Hintergr\u00fcnde des DSA erl\u00e4utern, die Potentiale des darin enthaltenen Forschungszugangs ausloten sowie die Chancen und Herausforderungen des Rechtsinstruments f\u00fcr die offene Forschung diskutieren. Anschlie\u00dfend wird es Gelegenheit f\u00fcr Fragen und gemeinsame Diskussion geben.
\nDie Veranstaltung richtet sich an Forschende mit Schwerpunkt digitale Plattformen insbesondere aus der Medien- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, aus den Sozial- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften, aus den Rechtswissenschaften und weiteren Forschungsfeldern, sowie an Mitarbeitende aus Bibliotheken, Archiven und anderen Infrastruktureinrichtungen. Auch Studierende und andere Interessierte sind selbstverst\u00e4ndlich willkommen. Juristische Kenntnisse sind nicht erforderlich.
\nF\u00fcr die Teilnahme ist eine Registrierung unter folgendem Link erforderlich: https://fu-berlin.webex.com/weblink/register/r9fe0ce62cb9536e2356e0be01b26d909\nDer Link zur Teilnahme wird nach Registrierung per Mail zugesandt.","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/xc1cy-31210","guid":"https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-research-berlin/?p=4098","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1780272000,"rid":"9cg1z-m8p86","summary":"Chancen und Herausforderungen f\u00fcr die (offene) Erforschung von gro\u00dfen Online-Plattformen Online-Veranstaltung am 30. Juni (13:15 bis 14:45 Uhr) mit Simone Ruf, Gesellschaft f\u00fcr Freiheitsrechte (GFF) Registrierung unter folgendem Link: https://fu-berlin.webex.com/weblink/register/r9fe0ce62cb9536e2356e0be01b26d909","tags":["Allgemein","Veranstaltungshinweise","Legal Helpdesk Berlin","Digital Services Act","Forschungszugang"],"title":"Der Forschungszugang nach Digital Services Act (DSA), 30. Juni, online","updated_at":1782389625,"url":"https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-research-berlin/2026/06/01/der-forschungszugang-nach-digital-services-act-dsa-30-juni-online/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/02dpqcy73","name":"Centre de biophysique mol\u00e9culaire"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Hinsen","given":"Konrad","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0330-9428"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"2488dc7f-4f82-4051-8490-22d2cd8d472d","created":1719792000,"current_feed_url":null,"description":null,"favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/2488dc7f-4f82-4051-8490-22d2cd8d472d/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://blog.khinsen.net/feeds/all.atom.xml","filter":null,"generator":"Other","home_page_url":"https://blog.khinsen.net/","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"khinsen","status":"active","subfield":"1802","title":"Konrad Hinsen's blog","updated":1782376251,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Konrad Hinsen's blog","blog_slug":"khinsen","content_html":"
Cultures of Programming - The Development of Programming Concepts and Methodologies is a recent book by Tom\u00e1\u0161 Pet\u0159\u00ed\u010dek that analyses the history of programming from the perspective of five interwoven cultures. It contains a lot of interesting insight, so I encourage you to read it. At the very least, read the first chapter. In this post, I try to relate these five cultures to the wider world of technology, and to the practices of scientific research.
\n\nThe five cultures identified in the book are the following (my summaries):
\nMathematical culture sees computer programs as mathematical entities whose properties are amenable to proof.
Hacker culture sees programming as a conversation with a machine as it runs.
Engineering culture sees programs as technical artifacts whose construction according to established best practices is a trade-off between desirable properties and economic constraints.
Management culture sees software as an industrial product whose qualities depend on suitable organisation structures.
Humanist culture sees computation and programs as extensions and externalisations of human thought and notations.
Individuals typically adopt a primary culture that defines their main attitude towards programming, but also take the points of view of other cultures depending on context.
\nMy first observation is that these five cultures fall into two categories:
\nHacker, engineering, and management culture are about making software.
Mathematical and humanist culture are about relating to software.
These two categories are not completely independent. If you care about software having certain formally provable properties, for example, you better take into account that requirement during all stages of software construction.
\nMy second observation is that these cultures are not specific to programming. This is perhaps easiest to see for engineering and management, the duo that has been piloting manufacturing industries for quite a while, with engineering focusing on the technical aspects and management on the coordination of human efforts. As for hackers, I see them as a reincarnation of craftspeople. They have the same approach of making something with their hands while constantly integrating feedback from their senses. They also work alone or in small self-organizing teams, and favor learning-by-doing over formal education. The trade-offs between bespoke artisanal software as made by hackers, and industrial mass-market software as made by a cooperation of engineers and managers, is very similar to the trade-offs between a tailor-made wardrobe and Ikea furniture.
\nMathematical culture is not so much about the academic discipline of mathematics, but about applying the formal associated with mathematics to software. In contrast, humanist culture emphasizes contextual reasoning about software. Formalization requires decontextualisation, which creates a tension between formally provable properties on one hand, and contextually relevant properties on the other hand. In simpler terms, formal methods can provide rigorous proofs of some properties, but those properties are often not the most relevant ones in your application context. Similar tensions between formal and informal reasoning exist in other intellectual disciplines. For example, many fields of science use both qualitative (informal) and quantitative (formal) approaches in research, and have subcultures that favor one or the other.
\nEarly scientists worked in the same spirit as craftspeople and hackers: alone or in small teams, alternating between making things (instruments, experimental setups) and observing, and organizing in non-hierarchical institutions (learned societies) that support research while respecting individual autonomy. More recently, some scientific activities have been industrialized (see this earlier post), and organized according to management principles. Science thus has its own analogue of the tensions between hacker culture on one hand and engineering plus management culture on the other hand. Management culture is mostly seen as imposed from the outside, by funders, and it is a particularly serious mismatch for the inherently exploratory nature of research.
\nScientific software inherits both the cultures of programming and the cultures of scientific research. In its early decades, from the 1950s to the 1970s, science was still dominantly a craft, and its practitioners adopted hacker culture in the creation of their software, which was typically small to medium-sized Fortran programs with no dependencies other than a Fortran compiler. A minority of researchers adopted humanist culture in publishing and reviewing this software much like a journal article - see my article on reviewing research software. With increasing software size and complexity, reusable libraries grew in importance, an early example being LINPACK in the 1970s. Software development started to become an activity distinct from research itself, dominated by engineering culture, and ultimately leading to the establishment of the research software engineer as a distinct profession. However, hacker culture continues to prevail for software produced as part of a research project, nowadays often taking the form of computational notebooks or workflows.
\nGiven the importance of mathematics in the quantitative sciences, it is surprising that mathematical culture only plays a minor role for research software. My guess is that this is due to the dearth of mature formal methods for software. Quantitative sciences mostly rely on decades-old and well-understood mathematics, rather than on cutting-edge mathematical research. Applying this principle to formal methods for software, this leaves static type checking by compilers as the only formal method that is widely available in standard software development tools. Scientists are no different from software developers in embracing or despising static type checking. This is perhaps the most visible expression of the tension between engineering and hacker culture.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/2cn03-3kv74","guid":"https://blog.khinsen.net/posts/2026/06/25/cultures.html","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1782345600,"rid":"zqfvm-03889","summary":"Cultures of Programming - The Development of Programming Concepts and Methodologies is a recent book by Tom\u00e1\u0161 Pet\u0159\u00ed\u010dek that analyses the history of programming from the perspective of five interwoven cultures. It contains a lot of interesting insight, so I encourage you to read it. At the very least, read the first chapter.","title":"Cultures of making and relating","updated_at":1782376461,"url":"https://blog.khinsen.net/posts/2026/06/25/cultures.html","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/02hpadn98","name":"Bielefeld University"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Friederichs","given":"Hendrik","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9671-5235"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"304adf51-cbb7-4ff1-a505-1dc06082fbad","created":1776988800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Aktuelle Einblicke aus der medizinischen Bildungsforschung \u2014 evidenzbasiert, verst\u00e4ndlich, mit gelegentlichem Augenzwinkern.","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/304adf51-cbb7-4ff1-a505-1dc06082fbad/logo","feed_format":"application/rss+xml","feed_url":"https://medical-education.pages.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/research/mes-blog/blog.xml","filter":null,"generator":"Quarto","home_page_url":"https://medical-education.pages.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/research/mes-blog/blog.html","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"medical_education","status":"active","subfield":"2739","title":"Entscheiden(d) lernen","updated":1782338400,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Entscheiden(d) lernen","blog_slug":"medical_education","content_html":"![](\"https://medical-education.pages.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/research/mes-blog/posts/2026-06-25-KI-verantworten/FriederichsH_KI-verantworten.png\"/)
\"KI \u2013 mit Ihrem guten Namen?\" Das, was bleibt \u2026
\nEs war einer meiner ersten Eins\u00e4tze als Notarzt. Ein Auto war bei Rot \u00fcber die Kreuzung gefahren und auf der anderen Seite gegen einen Ampelmast geprallt, mit voller Wucht. Im Wagen sa\u00df ein \u00e4lteres Ehepaar, er am Steuer, sie daneben.
\nAls wir ankamen, war der Aufprall deutlich zu sehen. Die Beifahrerin war eingeklemmt, ich kam kaum an sie heran. Ich fand keinen Puls, sie reagierte nicht, aber sie war noch warm. Auch mit der vielen Technik konnten wir nicht sicher feststellen, ob sie schon tot war. Ihr Mann sprach zuerst mit uns, dann wurde er immer benommener.
\nIch musste mich entscheiden. Um ihn zu versorgen, h\u00e4tte ich mit den Notfallsanit\u00e4tern losfahren und seine Frau zur\u00fccklassen m\u00fcssen. Ich bin viermal um das Auto gegangen und habe sie immer wieder untersucht. Kein Puls, sie war immer noch warm.
\nDann sind wir gefahren. Der Mann hatte eine Hirnblutung. Er wurde operiert und \u00fcberlebte.
\nDer Dienst war lang und aufreibend. Sp\u00e4t am Abend habe ich dann beim Bestattungsinstitut angerufen, um sicher zu sein, dass die Frau wirklich tot war. Meine Hand hat dabei gezittert.
\nDas ist Verantwortung. Nicht das Wort, sondern das, was bleibt. Sicher sein konnte ich nicht, kein Puls und doch noch diese W\u00e4rme. Entscheiden musste ich trotzdem, und ich habe die Entscheidung damals getragen, bis zu jenem Anruf und eigentlich bis heute.
\n(Im Nachhinein h\u00e4tte ich einen zus\u00e4tzlichen Notarzt rufen sollen. Hinterher ist man kl\u00fcger. Auch das geh\u00f6rt dazu.)
\nWas hat diese Szene mit K\u00fcnstlicher Intelligenz zu tun? Mehr, als es auf den ersten Blick scheint. Im ersten Teil stand eine Frage im Raum. Wer spricht da eigentlich, wenn nachts um halb zwei eine Antwort aus dem Chatfenster kommt? Die Antwort fiel beruhigend und ern\u00fcchternd zugleich aus. Niemand. Ein Sprachmodell denkt nicht, es verdichtet (Lanier, 2023). Es ist die j\u00fcngste in einer langen Reihe von Maschinen, die menschliches Wissen ordnen und zug\u00e4nglich machen.
\nDas hat eine Folge, die uns als Lehrende angeht. Wenn die Maschine das abrufbare Wissen \u00fcbernimmt, rund um die Uhr und fast umsonst, verliert ein Teil unserer Lehre seinen alten Wert. Nicht das Wissen selbst, aber seine Exklusivit\u00e4t. Und wo niemand spricht, haftet auch niemand. Was bleibt dann eigentlich dem Menschen?
\nDer Wirtschaftsinformatiker Detlef Schoder hat das in einem lesenswerten FAZ-Beitrag zugespitzt. Die Maschine liefere \u00abAuskunft, nicht Einsicht\u00bb (Schoder, Detlef, 2026). Was sie nicht ersetze, sei das Deuten, das Verbinden, das Abw\u00e4gen, das Urteilen \u2014 und das Verantworten.
\nIn einem Punkt m\u00f6chte ich Schoder erg\u00e4nzen, eventuell sogar widersprechen. Die ersten vier dieser T\u00e4tigkeiten kann KI inzwischen erstaunlich gut. Sie deutet, sie verkn\u00fcpft entfernte Felder, sie w\u00e4gt ab und legt am Ende sogar ein Urteil vor. Wer das einmal richtig mit leistungsf\u00e4higen Modellen ausprobiert, kommt aus dem Staunen kaum heraus. Ein Bildungsverst\u00e4ndnis, das den Menschen vor allem dar\u00fcber definiert, dass er besser deutet als die Maschine, d\u00fcrfte deshalb bald in Erkl\u00e4rungsnot geraten.
\nDamit sind wir beim Kern. Eine T\u00e4tigkeit f\u00e4llt aus der Reihe, und das grunds\u00e4tzlich, nicht nur graduell. Es ist das Verantworten. Wer verantwortet, pr\u00fcft das Erzeugte am Fall, legt sich auf eine Antwort fest und steht f\u00fcr sie gerade. Das setzt jemanden voraus, der zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden kann, der etwas zu verlieren hat und die Folgen tr\u00e4gt (\"Skin in the game\", siehe Taleb, 2018). Ein Modell hat davon nichts. Es kann ein Urteil erzeugen, aber es nicht zu seinem eigenen machen und nicht daf\u00fcr einstehen. Diese L\u00fccke schlie\u00dft auch das n\u00e4chste, gr\u00f6\u00dfere Modell nicht, denn sie ist keine Frage des K\u00f6nnens, sondern der Stellung. Schoder bringt es sch\u00f6n auf den Punkt. Eine Maschine kann Optionen erzeugen, einstehen f\u00fcr die gew\u00e4hlte L\u00f6sung kann nur der Mensch.
\nUnd es hei\u00dft mehr, als ein Ergebnis abzuliefern. Es hei\u00dft, f\u00fcr das Warum geradezustehen, nachpr\u00fcfbar und nachvollziehbar. In Medizin und Recht nennt man das die Begr\u00fcndungspflicht. Man muss sagen k\u00f6nnen, warum man so gehandelt hat und nicht anders. Genau das liefert ein Sprachmodell nicht mit.
\nAber kann sich ein Modell nicht selbst begr\u00fcnden? Man muss es doch nur fragen, warum es so geantwortet hat, und schon erkl\u00e4rt es sich, oft erstaunlich \u00fcberzeugend.
\nNur zeigt diese Erkl\u00e4rung nicht, wie die Antwort wirklich zustande kam. Das Modell rechnet seine Begr\u00fcndung in dem Moment neu aus, in dem wir danach fragen. Es erz\u00e4hlt uns also eine plausible Geschichte, die zur Antwort passt, und nicht den tats\u00e4chlichen Weg dorthin. Und genau das ist heikler als ein ehrliches Schweigen. Ein System, dem man ansieht, dass man nicht hineinschauen kann, l\u00e4dt zum Pr\u00fcfen ein. Ein System, das glatte Gr\u00fcnde nachreicht, l\u00e4dt zum Vertrauen ein. Das ist die eigentliche Stolperfalle.
\nEin Einwand bleibt, und er ist berechtigt. Auch wir Menschen handeln aus Wissen, das wir nicht restlos in Worte fassen k\u00f6nnen. Die erfahrene \u00c4rztin sp\u00fcrt, dass etwas nicht stimmt, bevor sie es benennen kann. Michael Polanyi hat das in eine sch\u00f6ne Formel gefasst. Wir wissen mehr, als wir sagen k\u00f6nnen (Polanyi, 2009). Wer also l\u00fcckenlose Erkl\u00e4rbarkeit verlangt, trifft damit auch die \u00e4rztliche Intuition.
\nDas stimmt. Der Unterschied liegt aber nicht darin, wie undurchsichtig dieses Wissen ist, sondern darin, wo es verankert ist. Das stille Wissen der \u00c4rztin steckt in einem Menschen, in einer, die haftet, die \u00fcber Jahre und auch durch Fehler gelernt hat und die zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden kann. Hinter der Undurchsichtigkeit des Modells steht nichts davon. Da ist niemand.
\nDie Pflicht ist also nicht, jeden Gedankenschritt auszusprechen. Das k\u00f6nnten wir bei uns selbst nicht. Die Pflicht ist, daf\u00fcr zu sorgen, dass am Ende ein verantwortlicher Mensch hinter der Aussage steht. Und das kann das Modell nicht sein.
\nDas dreht die anf\u00e4ngliche Sorge um. Gerade weil Wissen, Deuten und Abw\u00e4gen billig und reichlich werden, wird etwas anderes kostbar. N\u00e4mlich jemand, der bereit und befugt ist, f\u00fcr eine Entscheidung geradezustehen. Je besser die Maschine urteilt, desto wichtiger wird der Mensch, der dieses Urteil zu seinem eigenen macht.
\nF\u00fcr das, was hier \u00fcbrig bleibt, gibt es einen alten Namen. Die Griechen nannten es Phronesis, die praktische Klugheit. Aristoteles hat sie vom reinen Wissen und vom blo\u00dfen K\u00f6nnen unterschieden. Sie ist nicht die F\u00e4higkeit, ein Urteil zu erzeugen, sondern die F\u00e4higkeit, im einzelnen Fall das Richtige zu sehen und daf\u00fcr einzustehen. Sie w\u00e4chst nur mit der Erfahrung, dadurch, dass man eigene Entscheidungen immer wieder tr\u00e4gt. Herunterladen l\u00e4sst sie sich deshalb nicht. Ein Modell kann den kl\u00fcgsten Rat formulieren. Phronesis hat es nicht, weil ihm das Leben fehlt, das gelingen oder scheitern kann. In der Medizin ist dieser Gedanke \u00fcbrigens alt. Die Urteilskraft am Krankenbett galt immer als Musterbeispiel praktischer Klugheit, nie als blo\u00dfe Anwendung einer Formel.
\nDer Unterschied zwischen Mensch und Maschine liegt also nicht im Deuten, Verbinden, Abw\u00e4gen oder Urteilen. Das kann KI zunehmend gut, und das d\u00fcrfen wir ruhig anerkennen. Er liegt im Verantworten. Nur wer zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden kann, kann f\u00fcr eine Entscheidung einstehen, und das l\u00e4sst sich an kein System abgeben. Je selbstverst\u00e4ndlicher die Maschine uns das Denken abnimmt, desto mehr kommt es auf jene an, die am Ende daf\u00fcr nachvollziehbar und nachpr\u00fcfbar geradestehen. Was das f\u00fcr unsere Ausbildung und unsere Pr\u00fcfungen hei\u00dft, schauen wir uns im letzten Teil an.
\n@misc{friederichs2026,\n author = {Friederichs, Hendrik},\n title = {KI -\\/- mit Ihrem guten Namen?},\n date = {2026-06-25},\n url = {https://medical-education.pages.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/research/mes-blog/posts/2026-06-25-KI-verantworten/},\n langid = {de}\n}\nClimate change is harming the health of the communities you serve. The Certificate peer learning programme for leadership in climate change and health helps you act on it, where you are, with what you have. It is free, it is built from the experience of more than 80,000 health and humanitarian workers, and you can start today.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThis guide explains the courses, how to choose one, how each one helps you, how they fit a larger path from a challenge you face to results you can see, and how they grow you as a leader.
\n\n\n\nLearn more: Read this article to learn about the programme's history and talk to the evidence generated by health workers about the impacts of climate change on health.
\n\n\n\nEach course is a different door into the same problem.
\n\n\n\nPick the one that fits what you face now, and enrol.
\n\n\n\nEach one is free, works on any phone, and ends with a plan you can act on.
\n\n\n\nThis is the first course in the programme, and the best place to begin.
\n\n\n\nIt is built from the experiences of health workers in 68 countries and draws on the 2023 report from more than 1,200 of them.
\n\n\n\nYou learn to recognize climate health problems, adapt your services, and plan practical action.
\n\n\n\nChoose this for the full picture.
\n\n\n\nThis is the newest course and the quickest route to action. It is built on the May 2026 report, Local action to mitigate the impact of the climate crisis on health, so it carries the latest practice from the field. It covers responding in emergencies, reducing health impacts, and working with your community. Choose this when you want a clear next step.
\n\n\n\nAnimals are dying in a village.
\n\n\n\nChildren are falling sick from the same water.
\n\n\n\nThe vet writes up one.
\n\n\n\nThe nurse writes up the other.
\n\n\n\nThey have never met.
\n\n\n\nThis primer helps you see those links in your own area and plan one cross-sector action in three months.
\n\n\n\nChoose this when your problem crosses health, animals, and the environment.
\n\n\n\nBuilt with Save the Children, this primer connects workers in more than 80 countries.
\n\n\n\nChildren born today will face six times more heatwaves than children born sixty years ago.
\n\n\n\nYou gain tools to spot threats to children, strengthen your services, and advocate for what your community needs.
\n\n\n\nChoose this when children are at the heart of your work.
\n\n\n\nThere are no lectures and no tests.
\n\n\n\nYour own experience is the starting point, and the experience of your peers is the main material.
\n\n\n\nEach course follows the same simple loop:
\n\n\n\nYou are asked to invite one colleague before you start.
\n\n\n\nA plan tested by a peer is stronger than a plan made alone.
\n\n\n\nThis is the part that matters most.
\n\n\n\nOrdinary training hands you knowledge and leaves you to bridge the gap to action on your own.
\n\n\n\nHere you study what colleagues have actually done, beside the best technical guidance, so you learn from peers who have already crossed that gap.
\n\n\n\nYour own next step becomes shorter and surer.
\n\n\n\nThe courses come in two kinds.
\n\n\n\nA peer learning course is built from real experiences and helps you turn them into your own plan.
\n\n\n\nA primer is faster and lighter, and brings many people together around one shared problem.
\n\n\n\nBoth put your experience at the centre.
\n\n\n\nYou earn a recognized certification, not just a record of attendance.
\n\n\n\nWhen you complete a course, your certification documents what you now know and can do, at a high level, demonstrated through the plan and the work you produced.
\n\n\n\nThis is a credential of value, not only for you but also for employers, partners, and funders.
\n\n\n\nIt aligns with professional development frameworks for public health, environmental science, and animal science, so you can present it to your employer or your professional body and have it count for your career.
\n\n\n\nThese courses were built by and for the people closest to the impacts, and they also serve the people whose decisions shape conditions on the ground.
\n\n\n\nIf you fund or partner, taking a course shows you the method from the inside, and your organization can join through the REACH network of more than 4,000 local organizations.
\n\n\n\nA course is one step on a path that runs from the challenge you face to the results you want to see.
\n\n\n\nYou can take a single course on its own.
\n\n\n\nYou can also use it as the entry to the whole path.
\n\n\n\nYou can join now and again whenever you need it.
\n\n\n\nA course helps you make a plan.
\n\n\n\nOnce you complete at least one course, you will receive an invitation to join The Geneva Learning Foundation's Impact Accelerator.
\n\n\n\nThis is the part that training leaves out.
\n\n\n\nYou finish a course full of ideas, then a new flood hits, medicines are in short supply, the same road that washes away, and the plan stays on paper.
\n\n\n\nThe Accelerator is built to stop that from happening.
\n\n\n\nIts whole focus is action.
\n\n\n\nIt stays with you while you take real steps in your own work, and keeps you moving until they produce results.
\n\n\n\nYou do not wait for the perfect conditions or the complete plan.
\n\n\n\nYou take one concrete step you can actually finish, then another, then another.
\n\n\n\nEach step teaches you something that makes the next one better.
\n\n\n\nProgress comes from doing, reflecting, and doing again, on the real challenge in front of you.
\n\n\n\nWhat this gives you:
\n\n\n\nWhen you are facing the health impacts of climate change, this is how a plan becomes action, and action becomes results your community can feel.
\n\n\n\nThe Certificate peer learning programme for leadership in climate change and health is not just about taking courses.
\n\n\n\nYou become part of a global community.
\n\n\n\nRequest your invitation to join Teach to Reach now.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nYou can join Teach to Reach at any time.
\n\n\n\nIt is a platform, a community, and a network where you bring the challenge you are facing and get help from peers who have faced it too.
\n\n\n\nYou can also help others with theirs.
\n\n\n\nColleagues from your country and from all over the world take part.
\n\n\n\nTogether these give you a path from the problem in front of you, to a tested plan, to action, to real change for your community.
\n\n\n\nJoining the programme also opens the door to what the Foundation offers with its partners, described below.
\n\n\n\nWe have build the first Competency Framework for Local Leadership, drawn from ten years of listening to more than 80,000 health and humanitarian workers.
\n\n\n\nThis is a tool to help you chart your career \u2013 and figure out the best next steps to accelerate your growth as a leader.
\n\n\n\nLocal leadership is a practice, not a job title.
\n\n\n\nIt is what lets a nurse or a community health worker solve a hard problem, find scarce resources, and build trust at home.
\n\n\n\nGrowth moves through three steps.
\n\n\n\nThe programme moves you along this path.
\n\n\n\nReflecting and trading feedback is collaborator practice.
\n\n\n\nUse the three steps as your own private checklist for where to go next.
\n\n\n\nIf you lead an organization, there is a further opportunity beyond your own enrolment. Your organization can join the REACH network, a coalition of more than 4,000 locally led health organizations and over 60,000 health workers across more than 70 countries, all leading climate and health action in their own settings.
\n\n\n\nREACH is built for organizational leaders, and the benefits are for your whole organization, not only for you.
\n\n\n\nYou also help shape the programme itself, so it keeps meeting the needs of organizations like yours. This is how a single enrolment can grow into capability across your whole team.
\n\n\n\nEvery course is free.
\n\n\n\nThe first three are available now in English and French.
\n\n\n\nThe children's health course is in English.
\n\n\n\nSpanish and Portuguese editions are on the way, so more workers will soon be able to learn and contribute in their own language.
\n\n\n\nIf you work in Spanish or Portuguese, you can begin now in English or French and watch for the new editions.
\n\n\n\nJoining the programme also gives you access to opportunities the Foundation offers with its partners.
\n\n\n\nThrough a three-year agreement with the Global Consortium on Climate and Health Education at Columbia University, the largest academic network for climate and health education, you can connect expert-led science with what you and your peers know from practice.
\n\n\n\nThrough an agreement with the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, the work is being adapted across the Americas, which is the route through which the Spanish and Portuguese editions are coming.
\n\n\n\nMore opportunities open as the network grows.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/c05zy-caf92","guid":"https://redasadki.me/?p=23886","image":"https://redasadki.me/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/climate-guide-featured.jpg","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1781827200,"rid":"b407t-aar49","summary":"Climate change is harming the health of the communities you serve. The Certificate peer learning programme for leadership in climate change and health helps you act on it, where you are, with what you have.","tags":["The Geneva Learning Foundation","Certification","Children","Climate And Health","Climate Change"],"title":"What you can do if climate change is harming your community's health: a practical guide","updated_at":1782492787,"url":"https://redasadki.me/2026/06/19/what-you-can-do-if-climate-change-is-harming-your-communitys-health-a-practical-guide-to-the-certificate-peer-learning-programme-for-leadership-in-climate-change-and-health/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/0153tk833","name":"University of Virginia"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Turner","given":"Stephen D.","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9140-9028"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Stephen Turner"}],"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.","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":1782465756,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Paired Ends","blog_slug":"stephenturner","content_html":"Of the roughly 20,000 PubMed papers that use \"gain of function\" in their title or abstract (try the search here), only 15 describe experiments that meet the federal criteria for the dangerous kind. That count comes from a new review in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology by Gene Godbold and colleagues at Signature Science,1 Battelle, and RAND's Center for AI, Security, and Technology (CAST).
Godbold GD, et al. (2026) Discerning dangerous gain of function: most gain of function (GoF) research does not involve infectious microbes. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 14:1818657. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2026.1818657.
A May 2025 executive order prohibits federal funding for dangerous gain of function (DGoF) research, defined through the 7 DURC criteria written into the 2012 dual use policy: enhancing harm, defeating immunity, conferring drug resistance, increasing transmissibility, altering host range, raising host susceptibility, or reconstituting an eradicated agent. The order also calls for a way to govern such work outside federal funding. Which research the term covers has become a funding and legal question, i.e., not just semantics.
The authors began with 20,099 papers, filtered them with dictionaries and named-entity extraction, then read titles and abstracts by hand. Over 73% concern gain of function mutations in human disease, cancer, neurobiology, and similar areas, with no microbe in sight. Among the 86 experimental papers in the presumptive DGoF set, most investigate antimicrobial resistance in fungi and bacteria, work that stays inside the original organism. Fifteen fulfilled the DURC criteria.
On the flip side, most research that does meet the DGoF definition never calls itself gain of function. The team documents 62 papers that move a sequence of concern into a heterologous microbe and give it a new pathogenic function, and only 12 use \"GoF\" anywhere in the title or abstract. Screening on the keyword would miss most of the research oversight is meant to catch.
Trained reviewers also disagree on the edge cases. Three biodefense professionals, each with more than 15 years of experience, evaluated 22 viral papers. They agreed on 9 as DGoF and 6 as not, and split on the remaining 7.
Godbold's group offers what they have been building for over 20 years: a function-based catalog of sequences of concern, paired with the DURC criteria, so a reviewer can ask what a gene does to a host rather than whether a paper used a particular phrase. For oversight that has to draw clear and defensible lines, that is a steadier handle than the words authors pick for their own abstracts.
Disclosure: I have worked with, worked for, consulted, and collaborated with Signature Science LLC and several authors on this paper for over 15 years.
Im Zuge der Open-Access-Transformation haben sich diverse Finanzierungswege f\u00fcr das wissenschaftliche Publizieren herausgebildet. Die zuverl\u00e4ssige Erfassung von Publikationskosten gewinnt damit an Relevanz, sie stellt wissenschaftliche Einrichtungen jedoch auch vor erhebliche Herausforderungen (Strecker, Pampel, and H\u00f6fting 2025).
\nDarum haben die DFG-gef\u00f6rderten Projekte OA Datenpraxis und Transform2Open in einer gemeinsamen Initiative eine Sammlung textbasierten Materialien erstellt, die Praktiker:innen den Einstieg in das institutionelle Publikationskostenmonitoring erleichtern k\u00f6nnen. Die Materialsammlung baut auf den Empfehlungen zur Gestaltung des institutionellen Publikationskostenmonitorings von Transform2Open auf (Sch\u00f6n and Mittermaier 2025) und wird nun \u00f6ffentlich zur Kommentierung gestellt. Ziel des Kommentierungsprozesses ist die \u00dcberarbeitung und Erg\u00e4nzung der Materialsammlung durch Feedback aus der Open-Access-Community.
\nUns interessiert Ihre Perspektive: Ist die Sammlung nachvollziehbar beschrieben? Haben wir Materialien \u00fcbersehen, die Sie hilfreich finden?
\nAnmerkungen und Erg\u00e4nzungsvorschl\u00e4ge k\u00f6nnen Sie gerne bis einschlie\u00dflich 27.07.2026 einreichen. Diese k\u00f6nnen Sie auf zwei Wegen einbringen:
\ndurch Kommentierung in einem Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qXG1Yno0zQixbUjwEa4Zf-den88lGyT89O6a6RIMFc8/edit?usp=sharing
durch Kommentierung in einem von der HU gehosteten Dokument: https://box.hu-berlin.de/f/4b748bf9e6ca458db47d/
Am 15.07.2026, 11:00 - 12:00 Uhr veranstalten wir zus\u00e4tzlich ein Webinar im Format eines edit-a-thons, bei dem wir gemeinsam Anpassungsvorschl\u00e4ge erarbeiten. F\u00fcr die Veranstaltung k\u00f6nnen Sie sich hier registrieren: https://hu-berlin.zoom-x.de/meeting/register/59gtK8FQSYm8yu9J7lvwGg
\nBei Fragen k\u00f6nnen Sie sich gerne an Dorothea Strecker wenden: dorothea.strecker@hu-berlin.de
\nWir freuen uns auf Ihre Kommentare und Ihre Beteiligung an der Weiterentwicklung dieser Materialsammlung!
\n
Weitere Informationen zur Forschungsgruppe finden sich auf unserer offiziellen Website.
\nDieser Text \u2013 mit Ausnahme von Zitaten und anderweitig gekennzeichneten Teilen \u2013 steht unter der CC BY 4.0 DEED.
\n@online{strecker2026,\n author = {Strecker, Dorothea and Pampel, Heinz},\n title = {Aufruf Zur {Mitgestaltung:} {Materialsammlung} Fuer Die\n {Gestaltung} Des Institutionellen {Publikationskostenmonitorings}},\n date = {2026-06-25},\n url = {https://infomgnt.org/posts/2026-06-25-aufruf-zur-mitgestaltung-materialsammlung-fuer-die-gestaltung-des-institutionellen-pulikationskostenmonitorings/},\n langid = {en}\n}\nFunding is one of the key enablers of the research lifecycle, but has been one of the hardest parts of the scholarly record to identify, describe and connect. This is slowly changing as we have recently reached a very exciting milestone for Crossref's Grant Linking System (GLS). What makes it remarkable is not only the numbers reached, but where the data comes from. Research funders, who joined Crossref as members, have actively contributed more than 200,000 grants to the Research Nexus (Figure 1).
\nCrossref's GLS was first introduced in 2019, following extensive community consultation with research funders, as a solution to a problem: how to place research funding in the scholarly record as a research entity in its own right, that can be connected with other outputs. Crossref grant DOIs were the first PID that specifically allows for the permanent and unambiguous identification of the support that research funders provide to their grant recipients. It places research funding where it belongs, as a research entity worthy of its own metadata record that can be linked, interpreted, and updated as time goes on. With a funder-designed metadata schema, it facilitates the linking of funding to outputs through relationship metadata, building the Research Nexus, and supporting evidence-driven evaluation.
\n\n\n
The active role of funders as owners and stewards of their grants' description in the metadata, ensuring the records reflect reality, is what makes the resulting links between funding and outputs trustworthy enough to support evidence-driven evaluation, one verifiable data point at a time, as initiatives such as DORA and CoARA are calling on the research community to do.
\nReaching 200,000 registered grants with Crossref's GLS is a milestone that belongs to the entire community. It reflects a strong commitment to open, sustainable and interoperable infrastructure from funders around the world, and a shared conviction that connected metadata makes research more transparent, more accountable and more useful for everyone.
\nIt's an opportunity to share perspectives from some of our community members helping make this possible.
\n\n\nWhen Fonds de Recherche du Qu\u00e9bec first began registering funding metadata and assigning Crossref grant DOIs to its funding through Crossref's Grant Linking System, our primary driver was straightforward: traceability. We needed a reliable way to link research outputs back to the funding that made them possible. Crossref grant DOIs provided the missing data point in an interconnected identifier and metadata ecosystem, which includes ROR and ORCID. We hope that Crossref grant DOIs will genuinely improve the researcher experience through interoperability.
\nThe journey hasn't been without complexity. Establishing metadata governance required careful collaboration with our legal team to determine what information belongs on landing pages, how to handle updates when grant titles change, and how to protect the integrity of evaluated application data.
\nOur strategy moving forward centres on two pillars: connecting and tracing. Aligned with our Open Science commitments and guided by frameworks like CoARA and DORA, we want to trace not just publications, but the full spectrum of funded outputs, such as artistic works, exhibitions, patents. We're not fully there yet, and cultural and technical readiness across the community remains a real challenge.
\nReaching 200,000 registered grants signals that the infrastructure is maturing. For Fonds de Recherche du Qu\u00e9bec, it's a motivation to keep contributing to the Research Nexus.
\n\n
\u2013 Antoine Drouin, Analyste en gestion strat\u00e9gique-Fonds de Recherche du Qu\u00e9bec
\n\n\nConnecting funding to results at scale is essential for transparent, efficient research. When we began depositing European Commission research grant DOIs with Crossref, we were tackling a practical problem: grant identifiers were used inconsistently across publishers, repositories and reporting tools, making it difficult to trace outputs back to specific EU grants. A persistent, interoperable identifier helps turn fragmented references into durable links.
\nGrant metadata is central to our open science and open access strategy. Open, machine-readable funding information improves transparency about who funds what, and supports automated monitoring of policy requirements by connecting grants to publications and other outputs across the scholarly ecosystem.
\nRegistering grant DOIs via the Publications Office of the European Union and depositing them with Crossref is now fully integrated into our internal workflows. We have learned that the DOI is just the starting point: long-term value comes from maintaining high-quality, consistent metadata throughout a grant's lifecycle and updating it as information evolves.
\nThe benefits are clear: improved discoverability of grants, stronger links between funding and outputs, and more robust reporting and analytics. Reaching 200 000 registered grants is a community milestone showing grant identifiers can work at scale and strengthen connections between funding and research results.
\n\n
\u2013 Baya Remaoun, Head of Sector - CORDIS web & data at Publications Office of the European Union
\n\n\nOur motivation to join Crossref's GLS was to be able to disaggregate research outputs between funders. Funders' grant identifiers come in a range of formats, funders might change them over time, and there are also similarities between funders' names, which is a challenge. Permanent identifiers, in this case, Crossref Grant IDs, are an opportunity to avoid some of the confusion if we are able to implement them throughout the research ecosystem.
\nOpen Research information is a core part of our open science strategy, it is critical to both our ability to operate as a funder and to the translation of the research we fund into health impacts. That's why Wellcome is a signatory of the Barcelona Declaration of Open Research Information. Grant metadata is core part of our work, as well as helping us to understand the outputs from the work we've funded, it is critical in enabling funders like Wellcome to position our portfolio effectively within the global landscape and enable equitable funding partnerships. In addition to linking grants through Crossref, our recent investment in OpenAlex to openly index grants is aiming to rapidly bolster the global visibility of grant metadata.
\nInternally at Wellcome we're discussing how we can integrate grant DOIs into other workflows now that we have greater flexibility within our grants management system.
\nExternally we've struggled to see adoption of grant DOIs within the wider ecosystem, probably coming from challenges to surface the Crossref grant DOIs to our researchers but also uneven adoption across the ecosystem. Reaching the 200,000 grants registered with Crossref means that there are still huge opportunities to grow and evolve.
\n\n
\u2013 Hannah Hope, Open Research Lead-Wellcome
\nAs the Barcelona Declaration Call to Action on funding metadata makes clear, a rich and interoperable funding metadata landscape is a shared community endeavor. As grant records in Crossref grow, other members of the scholarly community need to ensure that they are included and reported back on their own record, closing the loop on funding reporting and contributing to a richer, more connected Research Nexus.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.64000/wvk7x-4b139","guid":"https://doi.org/10.64000/wvk7x-4b139","image":"https://www.crossref.org/images/blog/2026/cumulative-grant-records.png","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1782432000,"rid":"wx10x-qxc64","summary":"Funding is one of the key enablers of the research lifecycle, but has been one of the hardest parts of the scholarly record to identify, describe and connect.","tags":["Community","Crossref","Funders","Grant Linking System"],"title":"From commitment to connection: 200,000 grants in the scholarly record","updated_at":1782469846,"url":"https://www.crossref.org/blog/from-commitment-to-connection-200000-grants-in-the-scholarly-record/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/02mb95055","name":"Birkbeck, University of London"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Eve","given":"Martin Paul","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5589-8511"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Martin Paul Eve","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5589-8511"}],"community_id":"9224b0d7-fc03-497c-9c6f-85c9fd1e72da","created":1690329600,"current_feed_url":null,"description":null,"favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/9224b0d7-fc03-497c-9c6f-85c9fd1e72da/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://eve.gd/feed_all.xml","filter":null,"generator":"Jekyll","home_page_url":"https://eve.gd","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59348","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"eve","status":"active","subfield":"1208","title":"Martin Paul Eve","updated":1782412379,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Martin Paul Eve","blog_slug":"eve","content_html":"This is a quick \"how-to\" post because I learned something about Zotero. I want the posts on this site to be easily citeable. The name of the site that I would like in citations is \"eve.gd: Martin Paul Eve\". But here's the problem: when you put that as a Blog Title (or Website Title) and then go to cite it in a document, the CSL reformats it to the ugly \"Eve.Gd: Martin Paul Eve\". Anyway, I found how to fix this! You simply encode it thus:
\n<span class=\"nocase\">eve.gd</span>: Martin Paul Eve \nThen the CSL will preserve your original case. <span class=\"nocase\">bell hooks</span> might have found this useful, as might <span class=\"nocase\">andr\u00e9 carrington</span>.
Mind you, those two are jokes only, as Zotero automatically preserves the casing of author names.
\nThe next challenge that I faced was: how do you get an item into Zotero with the \"Blog Post\" type when you are running a static-site generator? Well, obviously, you have to embed meta tags, but which ones?
\nzotero:itemTypeGenre/OpenGraph hints alone are unreliable \u2014 prism.genre=blogentry is supposed to map to Blog Post, but in practice Zotero kept importing posts as Web Page (the OpenGraph default won). The dependable fix is Zotero's own RDFa override, zotero:itemType, which is read first in the translator's type precedence (t.zotero || t.bib || t.prism || \u2026 || t.og || \u2026 in RDF.js) and beats everything else.
Two parts are required, because zotero is not a built-in prefix in the translator (only the short z is), so it must be declared:
Declare the prefix on the <html> element (the translator's getPrefixes reads the prefix attribute of <html> and <head>):
<html lang=\"en\" prefix=\"og: http://ogp.me/ns# article: http://ogp.me/ns/article# zotero: http://www.zotero.org/namespaces/export#\">\nEmit the override (note property=, not name=):
<meta property=\"zotero:itemType\" content=\"blogPost\">\nThe prefix value is RDFa syntax: prefix: uri pairs separated by spaces (a space after each colon is required by the parser's (\\w+):\\s+(\\S+) regex).
| Tag | \nValue | \nEffect | \n
|---|---|---|
<html prefix=\"\u2026zotero: http://www.zotero.org/namespaces/export#\"> | \n(declaration) | \nRegisters the zotero prefix so the next tag is understood. | \n
zotero:itemType (property) | \nblogPost | \nForces item type \u2192 Blog Post. Highest-priority signal. | \n
prism.publicationName | \n<span class=\"nocase\">eve.gd</span>: Martin Paul Eve | \nBlog Title. Read before og:site_name. The <span class=\"nocase\"> is CSL markup so styles don't title-case eve.gd into Eve.Gd. | \n
og:title | \npost title | \nTitle. Use OpenGraph/dc.title, not citation_title (see below). | \n
citation_author | \nEve, Martin Paul | \nAuthor (Last, First; repeat for multiple). | \n
citation_publication_date | \n2022/07/26 | \nDate (YYYY/MM/DD). | \n
citation_doi | \n10.59348/kv1zh-wn208 | \nDOI (bare, not a URL). | \n
citation_public_url | \nhttps://eve.gd/2022/07/26/.../ | \nURL (absolute). | \n
citation_language | \nen | \nLanguage. | \n
| Tag | \nPurpose | \n
|---|---|
prism.genre = blogentry | \nSecondary type hint (kept in case zotero:itemType is ever ignored). | \n
dc.title / dc.creator / dc.date / dc.language | \nDublin Core fallbacks for other reference tools. | \n
| Tag | \nProblem | \n
|---|---|
citation_journal_title | \nForces the journalArticle type. | \n
citation_title | \nMakes the translator guess journalArticle. Supply the title via og:title / dc.title instead. | \n
og:site_name stays clean (eve.gd: Martin Paul Eve, no markup) because it also drives social-card previews; the case-protected title rides in prism.publicationName, which Zotero reads first.<span class=\"nocase\">\u2026</span> is one of Zotero's allowed rich-text tags, so it survives import; Zotero's item pane may show the raw markup in the field even though citations render correctly.So this should now work!
\nI must also add my thanks to Tom Elliott, whose own blog post on this subject gave me the information I needed to get the Blog Post type working. It is a shame that he stopped posting on his blog in 2020. I hope all is OK with him, but there are lots of interesting digital humanities posts on his site, on eclectic topics.
\nMaking blog posts harvestable by Zotero and preserving case in citation fields was originally published by Martin Paul Eve at Martin Paul Eve on June 23, 2026.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59348/vrt01-f3b49","guid":"https://doi.org/10.59348/vrt01-f3b49","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1782172800,"rid":"11809-0cg45","summary":"This is a quick \"how-to\" post because I learned something about Zotero. I want the posts on this site to be easily citeable. The name of the site that I would like in citations is \"eve.gd: Martin Paul Eve\". But here's the problem: when you put that as a Blog Title (or Website Title) and then go to cite it in a document, the CSL reformats it to the ugly \"Eve.Gd: Martin Paul Eve\". Anyway, I found how to fix this!","title":"Making blog posts harvestable by Zotero and preserving case in citation fields","updated_at":1782413221,"url":"https://eve.gd/2026/06/23/making-blog-posts-harvestable-by-zotero-and-preserving-case-in-citation-fields/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"name":"Research Software Alliance"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Research Software Alliance"}],"community_id":"79c5ab82-d540-413c-a8cf-3e55d0135a40","created":1780876800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Recent content on Research Software Alliance","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/79c5ab82-d540-413c-a8cf-3e55d0135a40/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://www.researchsoft.org/feed.xml","filter":null,"generator":"Hugo","home_page_url":"https://www.researchsoft.org/","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"researchsoft","status":"active","subfield":"1802","title":"Research Software Alliance","updated":1782399472,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Research Software Alliance","blog_slug":"researchsoft","content_html":"This month's news includes:
\nRegistrierung unter folgendem Link: https://fu-berlin.webex.com/weblink/register/r9fe0ce62cb9536e2356e0be01b26d909
\n\nHintergrund: Im Februar 2024 wurde der europ\u00e4ische Digital Services Act (kurz DSA, deutsch: Gesetz \u00fcber digitale Dienste) innerhalb der EU und damit auch in Deutschland vollst\u00e4ndig anwendbar. Mit dem DSA legt die EU ein Regelwerk vor, um digitale Plattformen, Dienste und Produkte wirkungsvoller und einheitlicher zu regulieren. Der DSA richtet sich unter anderem an Akteure wie X, Meta, TikTok oder Google. In dem Gesetz sind etwa Regeln festgelegt, nach denen digitale Online-Plattformen Inhalte entfernen oder auch wieder freischalten m\u00fcssen, sowie wie sie dar\u00fcber mehr Transparenz verschaffen sollen. Zur Bemessung und Eind\u00e4mmung von sogenannten systemischen Risiken h\u00e4lt der DSA Regelungen bereit, die dem Schutz Minderj\u00e4hriger dienen oder die Transparenz von Werbung erm\u00f6glichen sollen, etwa in Bezug auf suchtf\u00f6rderndes Design oder illegale beziehungsweise gef\u00e4hrliche Inhalte.
\nAuch enth\u00e4lt der DSA in Artikel 40 ein Recht auf Forschungszugang: Forschende haben seit Oktober 2025 die M\u00f6glichkeit, \u00fcber eine Registrierung auf dem Data Access Portal Daten von sehr gro\u00dfen Online-Plattformen und -Suchmaschinen zu bekommen und zu analysieren (weitere Informationen dazu beispielsweise bei der Bundesnetzagentur). Die Veranstaltung am 30. Juni bietet eine Einf\u00fchrung in diese neue und f\u00fcr viele Forschende noch unbekannte Thematik. Wir wollen die Regelungen des DSA insbesondere im Zusammenhang mit den Ma\u00dfgaben von Open Research, Forschungsdaten bzw. Open Data diskutieren.
\n\u00dcber die Referentin: Die Juristin Simone Ruf von der Gesellschaft f\u00fcr Freiheitsrechte (GFF) begleitet die Einf\u00fchrung des DSA in die Praxis seit langem, setzt sich kritisch mit dem Regelwerk sowie mit den Reaktionen der Plattformen darauf auseinander. In ihrem Input wird die juristische Expertin die Hintergr\u00fcnde des DSA erl\u00e4utern, die Potentiale des darin enthaltenen Forschungszugangs ausloten sowie die Chancen und Herausforderungen des Rechtsinstruments f\u00fcr die offene Forschung diskutieren. Anschlie\u00dfend wird es Gelegenheit f\u00fcr Fragen und gemeinsame Diskussion geben.
\nDie Veranstaltung richtet sich an Forschende mit Schwerpunkt digitale Plattformen insbesondere aus der Medien- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, aus den Sozial- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften, aus den Rechtswissenschaften und weiteren Forschungsfeldern, sowie an Mitarbeitende aus Bibliotheken, Archiven und anderen Infrastruktureinrichtungen. Auch Studierende und andere Interessierte sind selbstverst\u00e4ndlich willkommen. Juristische Kenntnisse sind nicht erforderlich.
\nF\u00fcr die Teilnahme ist eine Registrierung unter folgendem Link erforderlich: https://fu-berlin.webex.com/weblink/register/r9fe0ce62cb9536e2356e0be01b26d909\nDer Link zur Teilnahme wird nach Registrierung per Mail zugesandt.","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/xc1cy-31210","guid":"https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-research-berlin/?p=4098","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1780272000,"rid":"9cg1z-m8p86","summary":"Chancen und Herausforderungen f\u00fcr die (offene) Erforschung von gro\u00dfen Online-Plattformen Online-Veranstaltung am 30. Juni (13:15 bis 14:45 Uhr) mit Simone Ruf, Gesellschaft f\u00fcr Freiheitsrechte (GFF) Registrierung unter folgendem Link: https://fu-berlin.webex.com/weblink/register/r9fe0ce62cb9536e2356e0be01b26d909","tags":["Allgemein","Veranstaltungshinweise","Legal Helpdesk Berlin","Digital Services Act","Forschungszugang"],"title":"Der Forschungszugang nach Digital Services Act (DSA), 30. Juni, online","updated_at":1782389625,"url":"https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/open-research-berlin/2026/06/01/der-forschungszugang-nach-digital-services-act-dsa-30-juni-online/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/02dpqcy73","name":"Centre de biophysique mol\u00e9culaire"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Hinsen","given":"Konrad","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0330-9428"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"2488dc7f-4f82-4051-8490-22d2cd8d472d","created":1719792000,"current_feed_url":null,"description":null,"favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/2488dc7f-4f82-4051-8490-22d2cd8d472d/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://blog.khinsen.net/feeds/all.atom.xml","filter":null,"generator":"Other","home_page_url":"https://blog.khinsen.net/","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"khinsen","status":"active","subfield":"1802","title":"Konrad Hinsen's blog","updated":1782376251,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Konrad Hinsen's blog","blog_slug":"khinsen","content_html":"
Cultures of Programming - The Development of Programming Concepts and Methodologies is a recent book by Tom\u00e1\u0161 Pet\u0159\u00ed\u010dek that analyses the history of programming from the perspective of five interwoven cultures. It contains a lot of interesting insight, so I encourage you to read it. At the very least, read the first chapter. In this post, I try to relate these five cultures to the wider world of technology, and to the practices of scientific research.
\n\nThe five cultures identified in the book are the following (my summaries):
\nMathematical culture sees computer programs as mathematical entities whose properties are amenable to proof.
Hacker culture sees programming as a conversation with a machine as it runs.
Engineering culture sees programs as technical artifacts whose construction according to established best practices is a trade-off between desirable properties and economic constraints.
Management culture sees software as an industrial product whose qualities depend on suitable organisation structures.
Humanist culture sees computation and programs as extensions and externalisations of human thought and notations.
Individuals typically adopt a primary culture that defines their main attitude towards programming, but also take the points of view of other cultures depending on context.
\nMy first observation is that these five cultures fall into two categories:
\nHacker, engineering, and management culture are about making software.
Mathematical and humanist culture are about relating to software.
These two categories are not completely independent. If you care about software having certain formally provable properties, for example, you better take into account that requirement during all stages of software construction.
\nMy second observation is that these cultures are not specific to programming. This is perhaps easiest to see for engineering and management, the duo that has been piloting manufacturing industries for quite a while, with engineering focusing on the technical aspects and management on the coordination of human efforts. As for hackers, I see them as a reincarnation of craftspeople. They have the same approach of making something with their hands while constantly integrating feedback from their senses. They also work alone or in small self-organizing teams, and favor learning-by-doing over formal education. The trade-offs between bespoke artisanal software as made by hackers, and industrial mass-market software as made by a cooperation of engineers and managers, is very similar to the trade-offs between a tailor-made wardrobe and Ikea furniture.
\nMathematical culture is not so much about the academic discipline of mathematics, but about applying the formal associated with mathematics to software. In contrast, humanist culture emphasizes contextual reasoning about software. Formalization requires decontextualisation, which creates a tension between formally provable properties on one hand, and contextually relevant properties on the other hand. In simpler terms, formal methods can provide rigorous proofs of some properties, but those properties are often not the most relevant ones in your application context. Similar tensions between formal and informal reasoning exist in other intellectual disciplines. For example, many fields of science use both qualitative (informal) and quantitative (formal) approaches in research, and have subcultures that favor one or the other.
\nEarly scientists worked in the same spirit as craftspeople and hackers: alone or in small teams, alternating between making things (instruments, experimental setups) and observing, and organizing in non-hierarchical institutions (learned societies) that support research while respecting individual autonomy. More recently, some scientific activities have been industrialized (see this earlier post), and organized according to management principles. Science thus has its own analogue of the tensions between hacker culture on one hand and engineering plus management culture on the other hand. Management culture is mostly seen as imposed from the outside, by funders, and it is a particularly serious mismatch for the inherently exploratory nature of research.
\nScientific software inherits both the cultures of programming and the cultures of scientific research. In its early decades, from the 1950s to the 1970s, science was still dominantly a craft, and its practitioners adopted hacker culture in the creation of their software, which was typically small to medium-sized Fortran programs with no dependencies other than a Fortran compiler. A minority of researchers adopted humanist culture in publishing and reviewing this software much like a journal article - see my article on reviewing research software. With increasing software size and complexity, reusable libraries grew in importance, an early example being LINPACK in the 1970s. Software development started to become an activity distinct from research itself, dominated by engineering culture, and ultimately leading to the establishment of the research software engineer as a distinct profession. However, hacker culture continues to prevail for software produced as part of a research project, nowadays often taking the form of computational notebooks or workflows.
\nGiven the importance of mathematics in the quantitative sciences, it is surprising that mathematical culture only plays a minor role for research software. My guess is that this is due to the dearth of mature formal methods for software. Quantitative sciences mostly rely on decades-old and well-understood mathematics, rather than on cutting-edge mathematical research. Applying this principle to formal methods for software, this leaves static type checking by compilers as the only formal method that is widely available in standard software development tools. Scientists are no different from software developers in embracing or despising static type checking. This is perhaps the most visible expression of the tension between engineering and hacker culture.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/2cn03-3kv74","guid":"https://blog.khinsen.net/posts/2026/06/25/cultures.html","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1782345600,"rid":"zqfvm-03889","summary":"Cultures of Programming - The Development of Programming Concepts and Methodologies is a recent book by Tom\u00e1\u0161 Pet\u0159\u00ed\u010dek that analyses the history of programming from the perspective of five interwoven cultures. It contains a lot of interesting insight, so I encourage you to read it. At the very least, read the first chapter.","title":"Cultures of making and relating","updated_at":1782376461,"url":"https://blog.khinsen.net/posts/2026/06/25/cultures.html","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/02hpadn98","name":"Bielefeld University"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Friederichs","given":"Hendrik","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9671-5235"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"304adf51-cbb7-4ff1-a505-1dc06082fbad","created":1776988800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Aktuelle Einblicke aus der medizinischen Bildungsforschung \u2014 evidenzbasiert, verst\u00e4ndlich, mit gelegentlichem Augenzwinkern.","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/304adf51-cbb7-4ff1-a505-1dc06082fbad/logo","feed_format":"application/rss+xml","feed_url":"https://medical-education.pages.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/research/mes-blog/blog.xml","filter":null,"generator":"Quarto","home_page_url":"https://medical-education.pages.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/research/mes-blog/blog.html","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"medical_education","status":"active","subfield":"2739","title":"Entscheiden(d) lernen","updated":1782338400,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Entscheiden(d) lernen","blog_slug":"medical_education","content_html":"
\"KI \u2013 mit Ihrem guten Namen?\" Das, was bleibt \u2026
\nEs war einer meiner ersten Eins\u00e4tze als Notarzt. Ein Auto war bei Rot \u00fcber die Kreuzung gefahren und auf der anderen Seite gegen einen Ampelmast geprallt, mit voller Wucht. Im Wagen sa\u00df ein \u00e4lteres Ehepaar, er am Steuer, sie daneben.
\nAls wir ankamen, war der Aufprall deutlich zu sehen. Die Beifahrerin war eingeklemmt, ich kam kaum an sie heran. Ich fand keinen Puls, sie reagierte nicht, aber sie war noch warm. Auch mit der vielen Technik konnten wir nicht sicher feststellen, ob sie schon tot war. Ihr Mann sprach zuerst mit uns, dann wurde er immer benommener.
\nIch musste mich entscheiden. Um ihn zu versorgen, h\u00e4tte ich mit den Notfallsanit\u00e4tern losfahren und seine Frau zur\u00fccklassen m\u00fcssen. Ich bin viermal um das Auto gegangen und habe sie immer wieder untersucht. Kein Puls, sie war immer noch warm.
\nDann sind wir gefahren. Der Mann hatte eine Hirnblutung. Er wurde operiert und \u00fcberlebte.
\nDer Dienst war lang und aufreibend. Sp\u00e4t am Abend habe ich dann beim Bestattungsinstitut angerufen, um sicher zu sein, dass die Frau wirklich tot war. Meine Hand hat dabei gezittert.
\nDas ist Verantwortung. Nicht das Wort, sondern das, was bleibt. Sicher sein konnte ich nicht, kein Puls und doch noch diese W\u00e4rme. Entscheiden musste ich trotzdem, und ich habe die Entscheidung damals getragen, bis zu jenem Anruf und eigentlich bis heute.
\n(Im Nachhinein h\u00e4tte ich einen zus\u00e4tzlichen Notarzt rufen sollen. Hinterher ist man kl\u00fcger. Auch das geh\u00f6rt dazu.)
\nWas hat diese Szene mit K\u00fcnstlicher Intelligenz zu tun? Mehr, als es auf den ersten Blick scheint. Im ersten Teil stand eine Frage im Raum. Wer spricht da eigentlich, wenn nachts um halb zwei eine Antwort aus dem Chatfenster kommt? Die Antwort fiel beruhigend und ern\u00fcchternd zugleich aus. Niemand. Ein Sprachmodell denkt nicht, es verdichtet (Lanier, 2023). Es ist die j\u00fcngste in einer langen Reihe von Maschinen, die menschliches Wissen ordnen und zug\u00e4nglich machen.
\nDas hat eine Folge, die uns als Lehrende angeht. Wenn die Maschine das abrufbare Wissen \u00fcbernimmt, rund um die Uhr und fast umsonst, verliert ein Teil unserer Lehre seinen alten Wert. Nicht das Wissen selbst, aber seine Exklusivit\u00e4t. Und wo niemand spricht, haftet auch niemand. Was bleibt dann eigentlich dem Menschen?
\nDer Wirtschaftsinformatiker Detlef Schoder hat das in einem lesenswerten FAZ-Beitrag zugespitzt. Die Maschine liefere \u00abAuskunft, nicht Einsicht\u00bb (Schoder, Detlef, 2026). Was sie nicht ersetze, sei das Deuten, das Verbinden, das Abw\u00e4gen, das Urteilen \u2014 und das Verantworten.
\nIn einem Punkt m\u00f6chte ich Schoder erg\u00e4nzen, eventuell sogar widersprechen. Die ersten vier dieser T\u00e4tigkeiten kann KI inzwischen erstaunlich gut. Sie deutet, sie verkn\u00fcpft entfernte Felder, sie w\u00e4gt ab und legt am Ende sogar ein Urteil vor. Wer das einmal richtig mit leistungsf\u00e4higen Modellen ausprobiert, kommt aus dem Staunen kaum heraus. Ein Bildungsverst\u00e4ndnis, das den Menschen vor allem dar\u00fcber definiert, dass er besser deutet als die Maschine, d\u00fcrfte deshalb bald in Erkl\u00e4rungsnot geraten.
\nDamit sind wir beim Kern. Eine T\u00e4tigkeit f\u00e4llt aus der Reihe, und das grunds\u00e4tzlich, nicht nur graduell. Es ist das Verantworten. Wer verantwortet, pr\u00fcft das Erzeugte am Fall, legt sich auf eine Antwort fest und steht f\u00fcr sie gerade. Das setzt jemanden voraus, der zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden kann, der etwas zu verlieren hat und die Folgen tr\u00e4gt (\"Skin in the game\", siehe Taleb, 2018). Ein Modell hat davon nichts. Es kann ein Urteil erzeugen, aber es nicht zu seinem eigenen machen und nicht daf\u00fcr einstehen. Diese L\u00fccke schlie\u00dft auch das n\u00e4chste, gr\u00f6\u00dfere Modell nicht, denn sie ist keine Frage des K\u00f6nnens, sondern der Stellung. Schoder bringt es sch\u00f6n auf den Punkt. Eine Maschine kann Optionen erzeugen, einstehen f\u00fcr die gew\u00e4hlte L\u00f6sung kann nur der Mensch.
\nUnd es hei\u00dft mehr, als ein Ergebnis abzuliefern. Es hei\u00dft, f\u00fcr das Warum geradezustehen, nachpr\u00fcfbar und nachvollziehbar. In Medizin und Recht nennt man das die Begr\u00fcndungspflicht. Man muss sagen k\u00f6nnen, warum man so gehandelt hat und nicht anders. Genau das liefert ein Sprachmodell nicht mit.
\nAber kann sich ein Modell nicht selbst begr\u00fcnden? Man muss es doch nur fragen, warum es so geantwortet hat, und schon erkl\u00e4rt es sich, oft erstaunlich \u00fcberzeugend.
\nNur zeigt diese Erkl\u00e4rung nicht, wie die Antwort wirklich zustande kam. Das Modell rechnet seine Begr\u00fcndung in dem Moment neu aus, in dem wir danach fragen. Es erz\u00e4hlt uns also eine plausible Geschichte, die zur Antwort passt, und nicht den tats\u00e4chlichen Weg dorthin. Und genau das ist heikler als ein ehrliches Schweigen. Ein System, dem man ansieht, dass man nicht hineinschauen kann, l\u00e4dt zum Pr\u00fcfen ein. Ein System, das glatte Gr\u00fcnde nachreicht, l\u00e4dt zum Vertrauen ein. Das ist die eigentliche Stolperfalle.
\nEin Einwand bleibt, und er ist berechtigt. Auch wir Menschen handeln aus Wissen, das wir nicht restlos in Worte fassen k\u00f6nnen. Die erfahrene \u00c4rztin sp\u00fcrt, dass etwas nicht stimmt, bevor sie es benennen kann. Michael Polanyi hat das in eine sch\u00f6ne Formel gefasst. Wir wissen mehr, als wir sagen k\u00f6nnen (Polanyi, 2009). Wer also l\u00fcckenlose Erkl\u00e4rbarkeit verlangt, trifft damit auch die \u00e4rztliche Intuition.
\nDas stimmt. Der Unterschied liegt aber nicht darin, wie undurchsichtig dieses Wissen ist, sondern darin, wo es verankert ist. Das stille Wissen der \u00c4rztin steckt in einem Menschen, in einer, die haftet, die \u00fcber Jahre und auch durch Fehler gelernt hat und die zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden kann. Hinter der Undurchsichtigkeit des Modells steht nichts davon. Da ist niemand.
\nDie Pflicht ist also nicht, jeden Gedankenschritt auszusprechen. Das k\u00f6nnten wir bei uns selbst nicht. Die Pflicht ist, daf\u00fcr zu sorgen, dass am Ende ein verantwortlicher Mensch hinter der Aussage steht. Und das kann das Modell nicht sein.
\nDas dreht die anf\u00e4ngliche Sorge um. Gerade weil Wissen, Deuten und Abw\u00e4gen billig und reichlich werden, wird etwas anderes kostbar. N\u00e4mlich jemand, der bereit und befugt ist, f\u00fcr eine Entscheidung geradezustehen. Je besser die Maschine urteilt, desto wichtiger wird der Mensch, der dieses Urteil zu seinem eigenen macht.
\nF\u00fcr das, was hier \u00fcbrig bleibt, gibt es einen alten Namen. Die Griechen nannten es Phronesis, die praktische Klugheit. Aristoteles hat sie vom reinen Wissen und vom blo\u00dfen K\u00f6nnen unterschieden. Sie ist nicht die F\u00e4higkeit, ein Urteil zu erzeugen, sondern die F\u00e4higkeit, im einzelnen Fall das Richtige zu sehen und daf\u00fcr einzustehen. Sie w\u00e4chst nur mit der Erfahrung, dadurch, dass man eigene Entscheidungen immer wieder tr\u00e4gt. Herunterladen l\u00e4sst sie sich deshalb nicht. Ein Modell kann den kl\u00fcgsten Rat formulieren. Phronesis hat es nicht, weil ihm das Leben fehlt, das gelingen oder scheitern kann. In der Medizin ist dieser Gedanke \u00fcbrigens alt. Die Urteilskraft am Krankenbett galt immer als Musterbeispiel praktischer Klugheit, nie als blo\u00dfe Anwendung einer Formel.
\nDer Unterschied zwischen Mensch und Maschine liegt also nicht im Deuten, Verbinden, Abw\u00e4gen oder Urteilen. Das kann KI zunehmend gut, und das d\u00fcrfen wir ruhig anerkennen. Er liegt im Verantworten. Nur wer zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden kann, kann f\u00fcr eine Entscheidung einstehen, und das l\u00e4sst sich an kein System abgeben. Je selbstverst\u00e4ndlicher die Maschine uns das Denken abnimmt, desto mehr kommt es auf jene an, die am Ende daf\u00fcr nachvollziehbar und nachpr\u00fcfbar geradestehen. Was das f\u00fcr unsere Ausbildung und unsere Pr\u00fcfungen hei\u00dft, schauen wir uns im letzten Teil an.
\n@misc{friederichs2026,\n author = {Friederichs, Hendrik},\n title = {KI -\\/- mit Ihrem guten Namen?},\n date = {2026-06-25},\n url = {https://medical-education.pages.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/research/mes-blog/posts/2026-06-25-KI-verantworten/},\n langid = {de}\n}\n