Figure - available from: Synthese
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Original versus replicated functional interpretations. Relative frequencies at which each of the four types of functional interpretation were assigned to abstracts across four disciplines in two studies. Assignments in the original study (Linquist & Fullerton, 2021) (blue diamonds) were strongly correlated with those in the current replication study (orange rectangles), (Pearson’s r = 0.66). Most of the divergence was due to a much higher tendency in the replication study to judge biomedical and proximal biology abstracts as “regulatory” instead of “disease” (outlined in red). (Color figure online)

Original versus replicated functional interpretations. Relative frequencies at which each of the four types of functional interpretation were assigned to abstracts across four disciplines in two studies. Assignments in the original study (Linquist & Fullerton, 2021) (blue diamonds) were strongly correlated with those in the current replication study (orange rectangles), (Pearson’s r = 0.66). Most of the divergence was due to a much higher tendency in the replication study to judge biomedical and proximal biology abstracts as “regulatory” instead of “disease” (outlined in red). (Color figure online)

Source publication
Article
Full-text available
We compared two digital humanities methods in the analysis of a contested scientific term. “Epigenetics” is as enigmatic as it is popular. Some authors argue that its meaning has diluted over time as this term has come to describe a widening range of entities and mechanisms (Haig, International Journal of Epidemiology 41:13–16, 2012). Others propos...