What is Reddit's opinion of Scinapse?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

I guess these datas are all for Late Pleistocene. Here's the source for more clear informations.

​

>makes sense that as the climate warmed and trees took over, mammoths and rhinos would go extinct

During interglacial periods, mammoth steppe tend always step back, but it never disappear (mamoth steppe exist even now, but without ungulate grazing is slowly deteriorating). So climate warming can explain mammoth/rhino/bison reduction, but can't explain their disappearence.

Also, reindeers, muskox and horses were less grass reliant, but they all lived in the mammoth steppe, they didn't lived strictly in forests.

Researching online a lot of sources state that ants do pass the test, although the actual papers I all found were behind a paywall so I can only offer this link, because even though I am willing to believe the other sources but I know reddit is picky. Who knows though, maybe I'm being gullible

I quite like the argument in this paper about what to finally do about gender and sex differentiation.

It's not entirely about this topic but it shines light on it.

The author essentially argues that gender and sex aren't actually unified concepts whatsoever, but rather a huge series of unrelated characteristics which have been mistakenly lumped together. She uses this as a tool to talk about transgenderism, but I think it's applicable to other topics.

Like if we decided to sort every person on Earth into Type 1 people and Type 2 people and said that: Type 1 people are above 6 feet tall, like the color green, are left handed, and introverted - Type 2 people are shorter than 6 feet tall, like the color blue, are right handed, and are extroverted.

Its kind of obvious why this is illogical.

Instead of talking about traits as being Type 1 or Type 2 it would be better to just remove these groups of unrelated characteristics from each other and talk about them independently from their archetype.

Just a heads up, my understanding is that trait theory, such as those used in the Big 5, have been proven to be false. Instead, personality traits have been proven to be highly contextual based on the perception of the self, others, and the scenario at hand. In my opinion, this also makes logical sense because we aren't always introverted/extroverted and the different settings we are in play a big role in that. Even someone such as myself, who is asocial to a disordered level, can be quite extroverted when talking about a handful of topics in the right setting. I don't mean to attack you, as this is something I learned myself relatively recently.

If you're trying to browse through academic pieces, apart from actual profit, you could use Scinapse.io, use the filters on the right either Fields of Study or Journals to confine the results to your own interest. (investment doesn't always mean financial investments)

I've been noticing some phds and students on Twitter saying they're banned as robots from Scholar. Possibly Google didn't ban the whole university IP cuz normally they have known IP addressed in campuses. I've experienced similar events on some of Google services but usually resolved by cache refreshing (ctrl+shift+R, command instead of ctrl for Mac), using incognito mode on your browser, or maybe some hours of coffee break (tho I'd normally use other PCs to access if urgent).

While Scholar's not working for you, would you consider trying out Scinapse? I've been working with some of my friends developing it since 2017, and we're still putting days and nights to integrate more features that would help academics more seamlessly manage their research-related activities (mostly information centric ones) on their electric devices, specifically those that involve communicating with others. We've recently improved the search algorithm and my colleagues are confident that its search results should be better than those from Scholar.

I hope your problem with GS solved quickly, and please let me know if anything you don't like with Scinapse.

Your conclusion is reaching. We don't know what cats think of as self, if anything, and it's obviously really hard to design experiments around.

Not passing a human-centric test doesn't prove lack of awareness of self, though it is evidence of it. For dogs specifically, check this out: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/can-dogs-smell-their-reflections/537219/

A creature that isn't primarily visual wouldn't necessarily respond to a mirror or care about a visual mark. I mean, ants pass the mirror test, and I kinda doubt that ants are more self aware than dogs. https://scinapse.io/papers/2180773430

Moreover, do you have a source for the pointing behavior? All I could find was research indicating the opposite, cats could recognize pointing, but also that cats lost interest when the object wasn't already visible.

Exactly, it's not. So why bring it up in a discussion about conscious awareness when it's pretty apparent that's what's being discussed? And how is it consistent when only a portion of a species can do it? From the abstract of the ant study:

"In front of a mirror, they rapidly moved their head and antennae, to the right and the left, touched the mirror, went away from it and stopped, cleaning then sometimes their legs and antennae.... Our observations suggest that some ants can recognize themselves when confronted with their reflection view, this potential ability not necessary implicating some self awareness."

So it wasn't found to be consistent between individuals since they wrote "Some ants", and they didn't even satisfy their own criteria which is why a disclaimer at the end was necessary in the first place.

> scientific consensus

is not a thing.

​

https://scinapse.io/papers/2127050758

> Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain.

​

ps this is referring to climate change, which we can move to when we wrap up w/ bad data from CDC/WHO

True, though your quote left out this part: "The reaction depends on a number of factors, including the size of the animal, the amount of plant consumed, and the type of plant."

There are a lot of chrysanthemum species, and different species (along with different cultivars) vary in their levels of toxic compounds.

Chrysanthemum cinerariaefolium and C. coccineum are two species used to make insecticides, since these species can have very high levels of toxic pyrethrins.

The species grown in Asia for chrysanthemum tea are C. morifolium and C. indicum - according to this paper C. morifolium doesn't contain pyrethrins. I didn't find anything on C. indicum, but it's a very close relative to C. morifolium (compared to other chrysanthemum species), so I'd expect it to be similar.

IMO, commercially-packaged chrysanthemums that are specifically sold for drinking as a tea are gonna be low-risk.

I wouldn't waste your breath. This person's mind is made up and is incapable of applying science and logic. Wouldn't even read your references

>Well you didnt read the first one as only the abstract is available so I have no choice but to dismiss it.

Lol. See? Good on you for trying, mate.

If you mean "what purpose does it serve" there are a number of them. We wouldn't do it if it just made us unconscious for 8 hours while predators are active. Here's one: during sleep, the glymphatic system dilates, allowing toxins to be flushed out.

Take a crawl through Scinapse and search for "during sleep" and "sleep and memory" and similar. You'll find that there are many operations that humans (and many other animals) can only complete with adequate sleep. I think the collection of those things may provide the "why" you are looking for.

An appropriately titled summary that answers your question, and is written for anyone to understand, is Why We Sleep by Matthew Walker, Ph. D.

Sadly the mirror test has proven over years to be not as conclusive in regards to intelligence as you might think. Three species of ants are known to have "passed" the mirror test after displaying self recognition (abnormal behavior in front of or on the mirror, cleaning only after seeing marked spots on their bodies through the mirror etc) but admit that self recognition is not unanimous with self awareness which is the true holy grail.

Source

While this science paper doesn't give an excact date for when the climat change would be irreversible it stills shows a lot of information. The paper ist from 2008, but is still referenced in our current year and you can find it on a lot of different sites. It shows how the damage grows exponentially to a point where it can probably only be reversed at year 3000, while destruction already peaks in 2200. https://scinapse.io/papers/2166941621

I don't know what the wakeup call for donations is referencing but maybe these infos still proof usefull for some.

> https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

What I asked for: to see the thousands of climate scientists saying that climate change is driving the conditions fuelling catastrophic fires.

What you gave me: some questionable figure about scientific consensus on man-made climate change.

You didn't even come close to giving me what I asked for.

Regarding Cook's questionable study which NASA cites in your link and is generally heavily relied on for this 97% consensus: https://scinapse.io/papers/2127050758

>If you think otherwise, please provide a source in which a ketogenic diet results in an increase in intramuscular fat.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5826234/

"High-fat diets increased IMF proportions...Diets with an increased proportion of carbohydrates decreased IMF proportions; however, increasing caloric intake with carbohydrates increased IMF”

>Controlling blood glucose is the primary way to control insulin level

Yes,but contrary to popular belief, that is not done by limiting dietary carbohydrates.

https://scinapse.io/papers/2102594569

"All 13 men were fed weight maintaining American Diabetic Association diets contining 43% of calories as carbohydrate for I week and then were fed 75% carbohydrate diets with 5 g of crude dietary fiber for approximately 2 weeks. After 2 weeks on the 75% carbohydrate diet, sulfonylureas were discontinued in all five men, insulin was discontinued in four men and decreased from 28 to 15 units in I man from the group requiring less than 30 units pen day"

ah yes, sciences! The ones that produce scientific research! Stuff like this gem right here:

Glaciers, gender, and science A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research

You may find this feed interesting to look at. As "predicting tsunami" comes as relatively vague in terms of academic study, I just typed Tsunami (even more vague). Because... you may find relevant articles by looking at the "Cited By" or "Reference" from the feed. I wish this helps. You can also do you own keyword searches and customize by filtering them with Field of Study or Journal titles. (on the right of the screen)

I just saw on reddit that AQR publishes their researches, but not in peer-reviewed journals. If you're interested more in academic pieces, this feed may help. You can further search for other keywords tho.

regarding 20 and 22, please consider using Scinapse as well. Smaller coverage than Google Scholar, but we try to give most relevant results for search queries. We also have citation generators, you can easily hit the "cite this" button to generate diverse citation forms including the APA styles.

Good luck with your school days all!! And thanks to OP for great list.

So this is more like "flicker fusion" effect, where they discuss the criterion above which we can't detect the entirety difference of images.

What gamers say with "144hz monitor needed" is something different from flicker fusion. It has something to do with "Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem" where it's more related with the movements of the images, frequency of the signals, and sampling rates of those signals. When the sampling rates are lower than a specific threshold (Nyquist), there happens the Alias (distortions or errors in the representation of the signals, yes you probably seen the "Anti-Aliasing" feature if you're a gamer). So probably recently gamers are ever insisting that 144HZ monitor is a must because i) 144hz monitors are actually out there more than before, and ii) some video games are beginning to depict even faster movements of images than games in the past (like those FPSs recently)

If you're more into genuine sciences of those topics, see this for flicker fusions or this for Nyquist.

Or this interesting study from 2006 says that gamers had serious change in score when display frequencies were below 30hz, but not much differences around 60hz. Maybe doing this again in 2019 for much skilled players might show different results.

As others mentioned, using Google Scholar or consulting your school's librarians for help is a must if you're delving into the academic literature. Meanwhile, consider using Scinapse if you are trying to look up for peer reviewed academic papers.

As Vaporware has said, Google Scholar is great in terms of "surfing" through citations back and forth. The major reason for that I guess is because it has most comprehensive coverage. cuz they crawl (almost) whole web.

​

And that's probably the very same reason why you get irrelevant results from keyword searching. Because they crawled the whole web, they might give you less relevant things. Thus a decent strategy to use Scholar would be when you are quite knowledgeable about what you're trying to find. (e.g. you know some of the "classics" in your subdiscipline, you know the exact journals you'd be looking at, some authors are known to be pioneers, etc.)

​

Me and some of my friends had been developing this service called Scinapse, where it's free and fast to search for peer-reviewed papers. (also contains books, and non-peer-reviewed materials from peer-reviewed journals and conferences as well tho) I'd had hard time convincing people why scinapse should be used over Google Scholar, but recently some of my teammates have consulted with their friends in course of grad school or postdocs and they've been saying that the search performance should be much better than Scholar now. (the boosting algorithm used to focus on text matches, but now has improved to look at other metrics)

​

So please take some time to look at scinapse and see if that holds for your case as well. As another note that makes Scinapse more friendly than Scholar, if there'd be anything you want in Scinapse, I'd be more than happy to discuss them with my team and make happen.

Hey! I recommend Scinapse :)

Scinapse is a free search engine for academic papers works as a building block to establish such better research environment. Though currently merely an index of metadata, Scinapse will be integrated with more features and functions for research communication to evolve into a fair, transparent, and powerful communication platform for researchers.

FYI, their catchphrase, Do Research, Never Re-search is very cool. lol

Try Scinapse!

Scinapse is a free search engine for academic papers works as a building block to establish such better research environment. It has great search results and many features for finding and organizing papers.

Could you take time to use Scinapse.io a little bit? The coverage's somewhat similar to that of SCOPUS or WoS, and much smaller than that of Google Scholar, but I guarantee that its search performance is great.

And if you're going to make a curated list of papers, using the Collection in Scinapse would be great. This is an exemplary one by me, you can take notes on each paper in the Collection.

You do you man. Take gabapentin if you want to.

"Gephyrin is a key scaffold molecule of the postsynaptic membrane at inhibitory synapses. Gephyrin can interact with glycine receptor and alpha and beta subunits of the gamma-aminobutyric acid A (GABAA) receptor to mediate inhibition of synapse formation and function"

Autistics have no gephyrin. I do not stop creating synapses. https://scinapse.io/papers/2144381137

Sucks that you do, you muggle, but that's life ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

To be honest, I couldn't even find 5, from what I remember. I tried Googling, I used Google Scholar, WoS, my university's online journal collection, even trawled through a ton of books in the library on the off chance. I asked friends and my tutor. If I did find websites with more than one ethogram, they were always focusing on one species only, which was no use to me. In the end, I found several studies surrounding the animals I was using in my study and used their ethograms as a guide to compile my own, which worked okay. Having said all of this, I just googled and found this for you, which might be useful (and which is annoying because WHY DIDN'T IT COME UP WHEN I NEEDED IT): https://scinapse.io/search?filter=year%3D%3A%2Cif%3D%3A%2Cfos%3D%2Cjournal%3D&page=1&sort=RELEVANCE&query=Ethogram