For what it's worth, Burak, I don't think there's a strong consensus on terms even among the most engaged in the methods reform movement. Your use isn't so uncommon (though it may have a somewhat ambiguous English meaning)
-
-
They aid communication if they are clear, but the reproducibility/replicability distinction goes against common usage of common terms; it actually creates, rather than eliminates, communication issues. OTOH, "computational reproducibility" is clarifying.
-
I agree completely, IF clear and also dare I say IF the actual semantics have been figured out/formalised.
-
Why do you think it's more clear in computational work? I mean I feel like there was a sea of possible meanings when I and others wrote this in response to the title/question: "What is Computational Reproducibility?"...https://twitter.com/o_guest/status/1114564595832754176 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There is a world between normative behavior and consensus about terminology that facilitates efficient communication. I wrote norms, as in general consensus. People can use what they want as long as it is clear. There have been good attempts at conceptual definitions since 2011.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
And many do, and I can't blame them TBH. It's an appealing and simplifying way of speaking which can in many cases aid communication.