It’s been a few years in the making. With ongoing collaborations with IHTM alumni on projects in Liberia and Seychelles and having initiated the Open and Reproducible Science in R module 4 years ago, we’ve finally been able to formalise our vision of global health partnerships and collaboration.
At work I’ve been using Quarto quite a bit for website and books for work projects.
Last month I published a paper and an R package for summarizing preprints from bioRxiv using a local LLM. I wrote about it here: Llama 3.2 was just released today (announcement). The biggest news is the addition of a multimodal vision model, but I was intrigued by the reasonably good performance of the tiny 3B text model. I used this as an excuse to update the biorecap R package.
Looking back at my career thus far, I see four things that helped me advance in academia: freedom, help from others, coincidence, and quirkiness. Plus privilege, health, naive optimism, and openness.
This blog post is the first of a series which will highlight some of the ways OpenCitations is currently adopted and used by the community. This series also gives us the chance to thank our users for trusting OpenCitations and for giving us the opportunity to improve our services through their feedback.
Transforming the Future of Film and Music
English version below . Vorige week werd in de Rijksbegroting een halvering van het budget van Open Science NL aangekondigd. Open Science NL, een zogeheten regieorgaan van NWO, heeft als opdracht om de transitie naar open science in Nederland te stimuleren en versnellen, met als doel dat open science de norm wordt.
Image credit: Viri Gutiérrez, Lummi By Michelle Barker, Sandra Gesing, Rowland Mosbergen, Uwe Schmitt, Carlos Martinez-Ortiz September 2024 The RSE Worldwide sessions at this year’s Research Software Engineering Conference (RSECon) in the UK continue to address the importance of connecting these emerging communities with the global research software community.
If you’re getting a sense of déjà vu from this blog post title it is probably because we’ve been here before e.g. in 2017, in 2016, in 2015, in 2014. These profitable ‘errors’ seem to keep occurring… Today, Elsevier sold me 48-hours of access to an article in the journal Computational Toxicology , with the title: “Ab initio chemical safety assessment: A workflow based on exposure considerations and non-animal methods“. The price?
How Perplexity AI Transforms Search and Knowledge Exploration
One of the joys of posting a preprint is seeing that people are viewing, downloading and (hopefully) reading your paper. On bioRxiv you can check out the statistics for your paper in the metrics tab. We posted a preprint recently and it clocked up over 1,000 views in the first day or so. This made me wonder: is that a lot of views or not? How does it compare to other preprints in our category?