Anonymous asked:
When discussing once you told me to go for primary sources when collecting data, aka I have to look if a statistic/claim is empirical to a paper or if they are citing some other paper as the source of that claim.
But I come across really good awareness organization's websites, they will have verified before using a statistic right? Why can we not cite them?
We have a lot of respect for these organisations and the work they do. The reason they are not citable here is not about credibility — it is about purpose and audience. Awareness organisations write for the public. Their goal is to persuade, engage, and spread awareness. That is exactly what they should be doing, and it is valuable. But it means the documents are written to be accessible and compelling, not to be neutral sources of truth in the way a regulation or a peer-reviewed epidemiological study is.
Let's take an example of allergen awareness organization
If an awareness organization cites that X percent of a population in Country Y is affected by a particular allergen — that is a useful find. Do not cite the awareness site. Look at what they are citing, find that original source, check whether it is a peer-reviewed paper or a WHO/FAO report, and if it is, cite that directly. The awareness site just pointed you to the right door.
Anonymous asked:
I am working on research where I am reading a lot of different country's law on a particular topic. But I am struck - how will I know whether what I find is the most recent updated law? I tried using the most recent once as available on the site but turns out there was an amendment just few weeks back that wasn't updated in the page but was available in the news and a court case, I almost missed it.
First, go to the official regulatory body's website directly — not a third party that hosts the document. If we are talking of Indian Food safety, it is fssai.gov.in, for the EU it is eur-lex.europa.eu, for FSANZ it is foodstandards.gov.au… View more
Anonymous asked:
We’re considering moving away from Webflow for something more AI-friendly. Any recommendations?
Our biggest pain point today is the MCP experience: Slow, Browser-dependent, Token-hungry.
What I’m looking for is pretty simple: Have an excellent building and editing experience with AI. For me or any person of the team.
But I don’t want to spend any time thinking about Core Web Vitals, technical SEO, or infrastructure.
Curious to hear what you’re using and what you’d recommend 🙏
A mix of custom and switching to Quarto for documentation/static sites? But that wouldn't do without thinking of technical stuff, yes. Maybe try to map out core stuff you keep altering, any patterns? If you notice any patterns, it can be a… View more
Anonymous asked:
My background is quite different from many researchers here. I have spent over 30 years in industrial biotechnology, focusing on fermentation, bioprocess development, manufacturing, and process scale-up. I'm now exploring how AI can support scientific decision-making in industrial R&D.
One thing I've found particularly valuable is using Claude not only for literature review, but also for:
Comparing experimental results across multiple studies
Identifying conflicting conclusions in the literature
Designing experiments and DOE plans
Reviewing SOPs and suggesting improvements
Brainstorming hypotheses before moving to laboratory validation
I'm still learning the best ways to integrate Claude Science into an industrial research workflow, so I appreciate posts like yours.
I'm curious—have you found any prompting techniques or workflows that significantly improve the quality of scientific reasoning, beyond standard literature summarization?
Thank you :> I haven’t tested Claude Science extensively. Incase of general Claude, here are some things that work really well, - If you are indeed using it to find literatures and approaches, tell it to maintain something I call the papert… View more