ACRL Trust in Science Talk

  • 1,401 views
Uploaded on

Jean-Claude Bradley presents at the Association of College and Research Libraries on March 31, 2011 on "Is there a role for Trust in Science".

Jean-Claude Bradley presents at the Association of College and Research Libraries on March 31, 2011 on "Is there a role for Trust in Science".

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • This was an excellent presentation I had the opportunity to see in person.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,401
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
1
Likes
3

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Is there a role for trust in science?
    Association of College and Research Libraries
    Jean-Claude Bradley
    Department of Chemistry
    Drexel University
    March 31, 2011
  • 2. The Chemical Information Validation Sheet
    567 curated and referenced measurements from
    Fall 2010 Chemical Information Retrieval course
  • 3. The Chemical Information Validation Explorer
    (Andrew Lang)
  • 4. Discovering outliers for melting points (stdev/average)
  • 5. Investigating the m.p. inconsistencies of EGCG
  • 6. Investigating the m.p. inconsistencies of cyclohexanone
  • 7. Sigma-Aldrich, Acros and Wolfram Alpha apparently use the same sources for melting points
  • 8. Sigma-Aldrich, Acros and Wolfram Alpha apparently use the same sources for boiling points
  • 9. Sigma-Aldrich, Acros and Wolfram Alpha apparently
    DO NOT use the same sources for flash points
  • 10. Most popular data sources
  • 11. Alfa Aesar donates melting points to the public
  • 12. Open Melting Point Explorer
  • 13. Outliers
    MDPI
    dataset
    EPI (via ChemSpider)
  • 14. Outliers
    Alfa Aesar
  • 15. Inconsistencies and SMILES problems within MDPI dataset
  • 16. MDPI Dataset labeled with High Trust Level
  • 17. Open Melting Point Datasets
  • 18. Open Random Forest modeling of Open Melting Point data using CDK descriptors
    (Andrew Lang)
    R2 = 0.78, TPSA and nHdon most important
  • 19. Melting point prediction service
  • 20. Using melting point for temperature dependent solubility prediction
  • 21. Motivation: Faster Science,Better Science
  • 22. There are NO FACTS,
    only measurements embedded within assumptions
    Open Notebook Science maintains the integrity of data provenance by making assumptions explicit
  • 23. TRUST
    PROOF
  • 24. Strategy for an Open Notebook:
    First record then abstract structure
    In order to be discoverable use Google friendly formats (simple HTML, no login)
    In order to be replicable use free hosted tools (Wikispaces, Google Spreadsheets)
  • 25. Crowdsourcing Solubility Data
  • 26. Data provenance:
    From Wikipedia to…
  • 27. …the lab notebook and raw data
  • 28. The importance of raw data availability
    Missed in a prior publication on solubility for this compound
  • 29. Solubilities collected in a Google Spreadsheet
  • 30. Rajarshi Guha’s Live Web Query using Google Viz API
  • 31. Web services for summary data
    (Andrew Lang)
  • 32. Web service calls from within a Google Spreadsheet for solubility measurement and prediction
    (Andrew Lang)
  • 33. Integration of Multiple Web Services to Recommend Solvents for Reactions
    (Andrew Lang)
  • 34.
  • 35.
  • 36.
  • 37. Reaction Attempts Book
  • 38. Reaction Attempts Book: Reactants listed Alphabetically
  • 39. ONS Challenge Solubility Book cited for nanotechnology application
  • 40. Lulu.com Data Disks
  • 41. All ONS web services
  • 42. Dynamic links to private tagged
    Mendeley collections
    (Andrew Lang)
  • 43. For all Formats of ONS Projects
  • 44. Conclusions
    • Trust has no role in science and is unnecessary if sufficient proof is provided
    • 45. The peer-reviewed system is critical but insufficient to communicate all available actionable scientific information