#scientific papers

[local-hellhound-steals-spaghetti]

Just wanted to say I love your blog!! I’ve learned so much valuable insight about cetacean welfare and SeaWorld from it and have actually changed my view on some things. But I don’t want to rely solely on Tumblr blogs for my knowledge yknow? I’m not really sure how to start finding reliable sources.. is google scholar any good? Do you have any recommendations? Thank you for for what you do :) <3

Hi there! I'm really glad you've found my blog helpful and I commend you on wanting multiple sources, especially for such a complex topic.

Google scholar does work, I just looked up "orca welfare" and "cetacean welfare" and it looks like actual welfare papers are available. There's still some lobbyist white papers floating around in there and The Jett and Ventre longevity paper still persists - but I'd recommend looking at Dr. Kelly Jaakkola and Dr Grey Staffor's rebuttal of it.

When looking into journal articles, I recommend assessing the journal its published in and whether it makes sense for the paper to be published there - is it a legal journal? Zoological? Nature?. I want solid welfare data, not opinion pieces. So I'm going to look for studies that have been conducted with the animals themselves. I'll also read the methodology of the study. For example, if a study is discussing findings in welfare, they should be using previously established welfare assessments.

The most well-known is Dr. Isabella Clegg's C-Well Assessment for cetaceans. Dr. Isabella Clegg is also a good resource for general cetacean welfare work.

This paper is a good case study example of how to assess apparent "welfare" studies. All of these authors are actively involved in both wild and captive cetacean research.

If a paper is using inflammatory and emotive language, claiming a source supports them when it does the opposite and/or makes widespread blanket claims about entire populations from a small data set or no data set... it's probably not a very reliable source.

I also recommend checking out this letter to the editor. This letter was directed towards the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour, who published what amounted to an opinion piece about orca welfare and refused to accept any criticism towards Marino et. al. 2019, despite egregious errors.

Be wary of review papers that are trying to push a specific belief system without any citations or data. Just talking about the existence of the HPA axis and terrestrial animal studies are not enough to say chronic stress is happening in an unrelated species.

Most papers are going to be reviews of existing data, testing of methodology in measuring welfare and using those methologies to collect data and make conclusions based on that data.

It's a little bit of a minefield out there when it comes to cetacean welfare science but hopefully that helps to get an idea of how to assess papers for legitmacy and go "do your own research" while being aware of these potential traps.

[that-disabled-girl]

Alright I'm out of better ideas so it's time to ask tumblr, does anybody have an unabridged copy of The Language of Homosexuality: an American Glossary by Gershon Legman, 1941? So far I've tried:

-Google Scholar -My general science mentor -all the major science "piracy" websites -The Language and Sexuality Reader (this one has the abridged version) -Two linguists -4 library assistants -1 regular librarian -2 research librarians

and I've found nothing, but this is a foundational text of queer linguistics and it's cited EVERYWHERE, so surely there is an unabridged copy of it somewhere???? Please, I've been looking for over a year, someone help me find this paper before I lose my last marble.

[reading-neuro]

okay, so the plan was to write a summary of a neuroscience paper every day this summer, starting today. I wrote up some code and made a folder of papers, one of which will be randomly delivered to me each morning.

However.

This morning's paper was very focused on describing the details of the anatomy of the vestibular organs of the little brown bat, a project that does not lend itself easily to Quick Tumblr Summarization. It's neat, but not something I really want to write about. So I'll start tomorrow.

If you're interested in anatomy papers from the 1980s though, give this one a shot!

Ramprashad, F., Landolt, J.P., Money, K.E., & Laufer, J. (1980). Neuromorphometric features and dimensional analysis of the vestibular end organ in the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus). The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 192:883-902.

doi: 10.1002/cne.901920415

[eddieintheocean]

so update from this post i have found a few good replies and i am going to list a few out of context sentences

first of all, big fan of this title

i love a good reply basically bitching about one guy calling whales fish

this one isn't technically a reply, but it is a comment, and it is a classic

goblin shark gate

i hope other people can interpret when someone in a paper is saying something rude disguised as fancy science talk, because this paper feels like a youtuber drama debunk video or something

[k1ngtok1]

I conducted a social experiment where I went to a concert and handed out a tiny plastic baby to everyone I interacted with + anyone who seemed like they would appreciate it. I have come to the conclusion that there are a standard three responses a person could have upon receiving a baby:

1: Confusion and Disgust

This person is one to outright reject the baby and look at me in concern or horror. They usually stare at me in trepidation for some time afterwards.

2: Confusion and Acceptance

More often than not these people will take the baby, though not without a healthy dose of bewilderment. When I leave they will often start discussing the baby with their companions, most of which are also bewildered.

3: Unadulterated Enthusiasm

This category belongs to the queers and the drunks, all of whom smile and take the baby with glee. They are enamored with said baby, and I am certain that they will treasure their new addition to the family.

I documented my experiences at said concert in my group chat. Documentations include:

This concludes my baby-based social experiment. Thank you for reading.

[miss-biophys]

Researcher’s dream come true vol.02! 🥳🥂🍾

My research papers were already cited in 200 scientific studies!

My first paper was out in 2012. It took 8 years for my work to be recognized in the form of 100 citations: researchers-dream-come-true-01

It took 1.5 years to get the second hundred. So guys, it takes time! Scientific recognition as any other form of work recognition just does not appear in a few months. My work was cited in 200 scientific studies, but still I do not believe that many people in my work area recognize my name. This will take even more time and efforts. But I believe I will get there.

This achievement assures me that the science I do is good and useful and motivates me to keep going, be positive, and work for it.

[wormautopsy]

i just infodumped for like. a ., an hour and ,a half

[melanie-studies13]

August 4th, 2021

It’s been a month since I’ve started my very first internship at the cognitive neuroscience department and so far I’m really enjoying it!

I did have to give up my summer holidays for this project but so be it 🤷🏻‍♀️

Hopefully I’ll be able to graduate early🙌🏻