@alberto @amelia @markomanka @jason_vallet
Following what we agreed on, I edited section 2.2 and was able to compress it by 23% (target was 25%).
Note: before editing I went through the version history and added a label (I edited using an external editor).
I’ll keep working on the other sections.
Hope you all enjoy sharing capitalistic XMas and eating too much with your family just as I do here in Montreal.
We are still at 7,217… happy Xmas to you!
Hi all— the submission guidelines for the paper instruct us to use the American Sociological Association’s style guide. This means we need parenthetical citations. For example:
Responding to Murthy’s (2008) call for ‘multimodal ethnography’ which integrates anthropological participant-observation with digital research methods, our method is an ethnographic method which maps online conversations around a specific topic to better understand and visualise what communities collectively think about and find important (Dicks et al 2006).
Can we instruct Overleaf to format like this, or do we need to do it by hand?
Def possible with LATEX. It looks like Overleaf uses a package called Natbib: Natbib citation styles - Overleaf, Online LaTeX Editor
However, I tried
\usepackage{natbib}
\bibliographystyle{apastyle}
\setcitestyle{authoryear,open={(},close={)}}
But it does not work, it tells me that there is a natbib error.
In theory, you could also use the \citep{} command with natbib, but in practice I cannot make it work.
@melancon, can you help? You are the LATEX expert.
Also, what’s the most effective/accurate way to do a word count?
I am trusting the word counter of Overleaf. Click on “project”, then select the “Word count” tab.
We are now at 6,724.
Ace! I just finished my first cut. 720 left is not bad at all.
But @markomanka , is the ethics in yet?
Reminder also that the journal explicitly requests limiting the passive voice — so use those active voices and use “we”!
NO: Coding was done on the dataset
YES: We coded the dataset
Welcome to the anthro side, where all knowledge comes from somewhere 
Now at 6500 words!
Ok, so I succeeded with natbib. However, now we do need to re-read the whole thing, because I am used to citing with no punctuation at all. Example:
Treating conversation platforms as virtual communities in which humans are engaged in
communication and meaning-making \cite{Rheingold2000}, we demonstrate how to
perform ethnography which generates codes that can be analyzed in network form
\cite{Burrell2009}.
Used to become:
Treating conversation platforms as virtual communities in which humans are engaged in communication and meaning-making [1], we demonstrate how to perform ethnography which generates codes that can be analyzed in network form [2].
But now, using the authoryear citation style with natbib, it becomes:
Treating conversation platforms as virtual communities in which humans are engaged in communication and meaning-making Rheingold (2000), we demonstrate how to perform ethnography which generates codes that can be analyzed in network form Burrell (2009).
Which makes no sense. To correct for this, we have to cite using the \citep{} command. Like this:
Treating conversation platforms as virtual communities in which humans are engaged in communication
and meaning-making \citep{Rheingold2000}, we demonstrate how to perform ethnography which generates
codes that can be analyzed in network form \citep{Burrell2009}.
Sounds good-- thanks for taking care of that! We’ll have to go through and reformat slightly then, but that’s much preferable than having to do it by hand. Do I have the time for the call right? I’m on zoom.
Guy and I have disbanded for the moment after a half an hour chat with some homework— he is free for the next hour and a half if you guys are, otherwise tomorrow morning also works. Let us know 
@amelia @melancon @markomanka really sorry, I lost myself. I am free and on Zoom in case you come back. If not, what are my marching orders?
Ok, guys, I have made a final pass cutting and trying to harden everything. It’s starting to look good. The main change I made was to merge subsection 6.1 into section 6: it does not make sense to have a section with only one subsection! I also added some sentences on ethics (section 3.1).
We are now at 5,846 words. Still missing:
@markomanka’s review of section 5.3. To be honest, I do not understand it completely , because I am not sure I understand the way in which Marco uses the concept of tree. @melancon, do you get it? In particular, the following sentence might need a reference:
Different threads should then be handled as having different dictionaries of code associated to each. These automatically generated classifiers could produce trees of conversations, on whose basis it would be possible to propose semi-automatic clustering, both to optimize the tree-cutting/merging in threads, and as a feedback for ethnographers should they discover that candidates for merging according to dictionaries look subjectively very different, which could suggest reflection and tweaks to the coding.
@amelia’s citations and bibliography.
More hardening and smoothing, making sure that the text “flows” after all this cutting.
Works?
Citations and bibliography done. This brings us up to 6,190 words. I’ll do some cutting tonight – so that when you Europeans are up, I have us at 6,000 or below.
Do we need ISBNs in the bibliography? It doesn’t seem necessary (and would save us some word count).
5,974. Clocking out