We made this argument here ourselves a few years ago: Cooper, R. P. & Guest, O. (2014). Implementations are not specifications: specification, replication and experimentation in computational cognitive modeling. Cognitive Systems Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2013.05.001 …
-
-
of the model’s behavior that is a consequence of a minor implementation decision rather than a theoretically critical element." p. 43
-
I agree with all of this, but I also think that I'd rather have non-modellers making inappropriate inferences from my model, if it means they actually get to work with it in some way. Modelling builds an intuition, and I think getting people on board with that is a first step 1/
-
that I would like to see more people take, even at the risk of getting it wrong on their first attempts. The goal of publishing an easily-interactive model is, IMO, more about methods education than about communicating the model itself.
-
Thanks for the Cooper & Guest paper btw, It's a great read.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

"Providing computationally naïve researchers with an implementation without also providing them with the means to discriminate between the consequences of theory-relevant or theory-irrelevant assumptions raises the possibility that such...