Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.
What changes if the standard account of Citation sweep results is wrong? I ask because I have been treating it as settled and I noticed this week that I could not say why.
Working through the consequences rather than the evidence, since others here are better placed on the evidence.
Before the thread moves on from Citation sweep results — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred.
The opening post describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
A partial answer, offered because a partial answer beats none.
Seconded. It reads as careful rather than confident, which is the right register.
Post #3 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.
Posted with less confidence than the sentence structure implies.
Two things can be true about Citation sweep results at once: the mechanism is plausible and the evidence for the size of the effect is thin. Most of the argument here is people defending the first against attacks on the second.
I keep a log for Citation sweep results specifically because my memory of it turned out to be systematically wrong in one direction. Six weeks of notes cost nothing and settled it.
Wiki hygiene point: every edit here should say what changed and why in the note, not what section it touched. "Fixed typo" and "corrected the concentration in example two" are very different entries to read back.
Old habit: I write down the expected answer before I calculate it.
Worth separating two things that post #8 runs together.
On Citation sweep results: the maintained page in the documentation commons covers the general case with citations and a review date, which is more reliable than any reply here including this one.
Answering the Citation sweep results question as asked, then the question I think is meant. As asked: yes, with the qualification below. As meant: it depends on how the first measurement was taken.
Question for the editors: what is the standard for adding a citation to a claim that is community practice rather than published? At the moment those sentences are unmarked and read as though they were sourced.
On post #12 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Worth separating Citation sweep results as a question about the compound from Citation sweep results as a question about the documentation. They get answered by different people and only one of them is answerable here.
Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.
I have separated what I observed from what I concluded, which does not always happen.
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
No disagreement from me. Posting only so the question does not look ignored.
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
Citation sweep results sits at the boundary between what this community can usefully discuss and what it cannot, and I think it falls on the discussable side, narrowly.
Following this. I have the same question and no better information than the first post.
Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.
Adding the caveat now so it does not have to be extracted later.
Post #25 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Question for the editors: what is the standard for adding a citation to a claim that is community practice rather than published? At the moment those sentences are unmarked and read as though they were sourced.
That is where I would start, not where I would stop.
The version of Citation sweep results that circulates here is a simplification of a simplification. It is not wrong, but it has lost the conditions under which it holds, and those conditions are where the interesting cases live.
Taking post #29 at face value and following it one step further.
Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.
The general answer and the answer for your case may diverge here.