On the subject in the title: Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed Working notes rather than a conclusion.
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.
The reason citation sweep results is hard to answer is that the obvious measurement and the relevant quantity are not the same thing, and substituting one for the other is silent.
Post #2 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
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.
Two people can read the same figure differently here and both be reasonable.
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
Filing this under things that are true until someone shows me otherwise.
Post #4 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
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 balance I think that is right, and I would not bet much on it.
Post #6 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
Genuinely open to being wrong about this one.
Nothing to add, except that this is the answer I would give if asked.
I would be cautious about generalising from the citation sweep results example above. It is a good example. It is one example.
Two sentences on citation sweep results and then I will stop, because the rest is speculation and the thread is better without mine.
What is documented is narrow. What is inferred from it is broad. The gap between them is where every argument here lives.
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
Post #12 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.
That holds for the case as described. Change the assumptions and it may not.
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
Confirming post #15 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
A definition problem is doing most of the work in this citation sweep results discussion. Once the term is pinned down I suspect the disagreement mostly goes away and what is left is small.
Taking post #18 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.
If it helps: the failure mode here is usually boring rather than dramatic.
The strongest argument against my own position on citation sweep results, stated as well as I can state it, since nobody else has yet.
Building on post #20 rather than restating 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.
It cost nothing to check and would have cost something not to.
Post #22 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Distinguishing three things in the citation sweep results discussion that keep getting used interchangeably: the observation, the proposed mechanism, and the recommendation that gets attached to both.
I think the citation sweep results question is answerable and has not been answered, which is a more optimistic position than most of this thread.
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.
Happy to be corrected if someone holds better data than mine.
Post #28 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
The claim is narrower than it sounds, and deliberately so.
Having read the whole citation sweep results thread before replying: the question in the first post has not actually been answered yet, and three of us have answered a nearby one instead.