Hence the devil in the details — I want to see the details!
thanks it works now
Notes from October 23 Call (also in google doc form)
Outline of Related Literature
Suggestion: start with a paragraph and bullet point list saying more or less the following:
Our method is an ethnographic method.
It is social because it uses as data online conversations.
It is interested in knowledge extraction (what people think) rather than structural issues.
Next, we lay out the details of the adjacent fields and try to place our paper in relationship to each of them.
Section on ethnographic methodology and ethics (AH)
Section on digital ethnography/mixed-methods online ethnographic work (AH)
-
How it is different from studying online spaces
-
How it is different from doing social research using digital methods
Distinguish what we do from “semantic network analysis” (GM)
- SSNs as described in this paper differ from semantic networks described in computer science literature (later to evolve into the concept of the semantic web [Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification]) in several ways. First, SSNs are meant for human consumption, and not as a system for computers to efficiently store and retrieve information. Second, and as a consequence, they are underpinned by a simple ontology, that can easily fit in human short term memory. Our chosen representation has only two types of nodes, participants to the conversation and ethnographic codes, and only three types of edges, comments (participant-to-participant), references (participant-to-code), co-occurs-with (code-to-code). By contrast, graph databases (proposed as early as 1971 [Shapiro, 1971]) can and do encode many types of relationships
Method is related but is not that
Distinguish what we are doing and how it differs from “semantic social network” as it is used
-
Basically co-occurrences network building from documents
-
They look like social networks built like social interactions between people, but they are not
-
Not just fact that words happen in the same document
-
Social and Semantic Coevolution in Knowledge Networks by Roth and Cointet. Analysis looks similar to what we do, but:
MAJOR difference: their data are built using NLP + a reduction of what they call “concepts” done by domain experts. So, it is not an ethnographic method.
MAJOR difference: the focus of the paper is structural, in the NetSci tradition. They don’t care what scientists are actually saying in the network of co-authorship on zebrafish embryology. They are interested in figuring out how individual behavior produces network structure. Our focus is on the effectiveness of SSNA to help us interpret large-scale ethno corpora, i.e. what they actually mean. It is semantic, not structural.
Less major difference: they keep the graph as bipartite instead of projecting.
You cannot actually use this method to distill what people are trying to say-- you can only use it as a way to understand how these two dimensions (social and semantic) interact. In our work we use this kind of thing to drive conversation
Clearer about what we call “primary” and “secondary” data
@alberto, during the call yesterday, you talked about a try of topic modelling with the dataset of OpenCare during a hackathon. I wanted to have more details and understand why it has failed, as I also worked with topic modelling recently. But I don’t remember the name of the person who worked on it… Can you give more information about this? thanks 
The person is called Raquel Urena, at University of Granada. Sorry, that’s all I know. It was Guy who brought her in.
ok 
thank you
@alberto
I tried myself putting down into words ideas to explain how our approach differs from what others have done, that they also call semantic social network. My text is certainly too long, but I thought it useful to ground our ideas, we’ll have to figure out how we use it in our revision. (See the document on the drive.)
Any comments welcome.
1 Like
Ok, I have made a pass on @melancon’s work (see the google doc) We might be still missing one strand of literature, the one calling itself “collective intelligence”. This is again CompSci, and a lot of it is argument mapping; still networks, but… not our networks. Guy, we have a section on that in our Applied Network Science paper (Levy, Klein, De Liddo et. al).
Can you confirm whether our meeting is at 10.30 or 11.00 on Wednesday? @amelia @markomanka @tah.
My agenda says 10:30
Hi, is it this morning ? It seems there is nobody in the zoom meeting 
Should have been, but Amelia had to cancel at the last minute. You did not know because you were not attached to the calendar invitation. Sorry! We moved it to today, 10.30 Brussels time, at Launch Meeting - Zoom
oups, I had no possibility to attend this one
I don’t know if there will be a summary
Summary of our call:
- We migrate our paper back to Overleaf.
- Careful, we are approaching the limit of 6,000 words. LATEX does not have a native word count facility, but there are workarounds.
- We make the necessary edits to it. Tasks are allocated here. @melancon to take care of drafting section 2 based on the Google Doc. Instructions on the doc itself.
- Alberto to initiate a LATEX doc for the response to reviewers.
- Deadline: November 26th. A third call is scheduled for that day at 17.00 Brussels time, on Launch Meeting - Zoom
1 Like
@amelia @melancon @markomanka I am now done with the first round of corrections. I also started the Overleaf document for the letter to the reviewers. It already contains discussion of the changes I made to the new version of the paper.
1 Like
Forgot to say: there are some fundamental issues from reviewer 3 that are not assigned to anyone! I made some edits to the original reviewers annotated wiki.
Hey everyone, are we on for the call tomorrow? @alberto @markomanka @melancon (and @tah)
I’m ill but in the interests of keeping this ball rolling I’m happy to keep the time. I’m still working on my stuff but should have content for you to read and edit by Tuesday night (I literally don’t have time to be ill right now! It’s the last week of term crazies here…).
Yes. Barring flight delays, I should be able to make it with ease.
1 Like
Update from me (and a way for me to keep track of what still needs to be done):
I have written my sections and resolved the edits assigned to me alone.
To be worked on:
- Look closer at the Bernard and Wutich handbook (if accessible) to make sure coverage is total
- format citations
- Go over the walkthrough and make sure explanations are clear and thorough (And potentially add the explanations of the unconnected nodes requested by one of the reviewers. If adding that, keep it short.)
1 Like