Re: [Heartlogic-dev] the plan

[Joshua N Pritikin]

On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 00:34 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> I'm still feeling very unclear about what this is all about.
> 
> What is the structure of each item?  Is there a scenario cue
> (i.e. an explicitly overriding goal plus an outcome)?  Is their
> an emotion?

Shessh, just look at level 'g'.  Imagine level 'g' with items which are
contributed by participants.

Let's discuss things in more detail after I add some more web pages.  I
think this is a case of a picture being worth a thousand words (or a web
page being worth a thousand emails).

> > However, it seems like a useful thing to start exploring and we
> > can do it in a Hot-or-Not style format without any registration
> > requirement.
> 
> Okay fine.  Well, if you want to keep going on this, can I see like 3 to 5 
> proposed items...But if it is an informal, pilot kind of thing, I might
> want to run, oh, 20 - 30 subjects on it.  Not hundreds.  Hundreds of 
> subjects are valuable things to be used on well thought out research 
> studies.

Actually we won't even know how many subjects are rating the items
because we haven't asked them for registration.

> Maybe I am loosing the fun spirit of Josh White's turning challenge idea. 
> But we need a working AI model before we do that.  Making the AI model
> live again is a top priority.  BTW, I want to try to get Peter Yeh's 
> matcher in on the action too.

Sure, but those things could be part of real studies.

I am talking about something which is not a real study which can be
operated without registration, with a single click in Hot-or-Not style.

Also, the level 'g' idea is just one proposal.  We can add more
single-click, Hot-or-Not style things later on a rotation basis.

> > Don't we need a valid email address to allow participation in a study?
> > The requirement for an email address (and informed consent) has been my
> > assumption.  Is it wrong?
> 
> I don't know.
> 
> I think we'd really want an email addresss to content them latter.  E.g. 
> "Dude!!! Thanks so much for your participation in our study.  We are 
> getting ready to party hard on the beach now that Joshua and Bill are all 
> millionaires.   You're invited."  No, seriously, we could thank them and
> debrief them (a ha!  debriefing subjects is an important, probably a 
> necessary component of what the psych biz calls "informed consent") and 
> maybe recruit them for other studies.
> 
> One of us, (hint hint, nudge nudge, (-;) should search the web, maybe the 
> apa.org website for guidelines RE doing human subjects work on the WWW.
> I remember you at least sorta already did this.

It sounds like you are leaning towards requiring registration for real
studies.  Let's just decide to do that.  It's not an onorous requirement
and it substantially increases confidence with the integrity of our data
collection.

> >> Get clear on the terms/constructs, research questions and hypotheses.
> >> Develop the experimental method.  Probably write it up to prove we know
> >> what we are doing.  Plan the statistical analysis -- e.g. seek input from
> >> UT Statistical Services as necessary.  Pilot he items on 1 - 20 friends
> >> and tweak based on their feedback.  Run study.  Analyze results.  Write
> >> up.  Publish.
> >
> > OK, and I want to do something like WLJ 2003 modified into a tree /
> > flowchart.
> 
> Okay, again, planning this will be a major undertaking.  As I have said 
> before, it would be *very* interesting to use the flowchart technique to 
> address some of the puzzling bits of the data.  I.e. the items that did 
> not live up to the hypothesis.

Heh, then let's get to work!

> > To review, our front page is:
> >
> > 1. Hot-or-not style single-click goal status
> 
> Yes.

OK Good

> > After registration & informed consent then we offer a choice of:
> 
> Well, to be sure, my druthers is that this is the computer's random 
> choice.   Poor Joe User will have no idea that a choice is even being 
> made.  Else, choice that Joe User makes is an independent variable that
> needs to be part of the research design.

Well, OK.  From an implementation point of view, this is a minor change
so I'm going to postpone it since testing the web site is easier if the
choice is available.

> > 2. WLJ 2003 replication
> > 3. WLJ 2003 modified into a flow-chart format
> > 4. Adding cues and exploring the statistical results of #1

OK, I expect/assume you are more or less in agreement with this
plan.  ;-)

> By the way, the other day, I tried out your ohl.nirmalvihar.info website
> and it was just after midnight here and it worked.  I thought you had 
> regular power outages 12 to 3, no?  Maybe you've got those generators
> hooked up to the school playground equipment!!?!!??!!

There is a lot of variance in the exact timing of outages.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part