# [Sandro Hawke] Agenda https://credweb.org/agenda/20180716.html
# [An Xiao Mina] https://credweb.org/cciv/#outbound-references
# [Sandro Hawke] recording to cloud, all agreed
# .. footnotes, endnotes, links
# .. reputation of the things you’re linking to
# .. credco started with indicators for health & climate – science topics
# .. in breaking news this might be completely different or not apply
# .. esp when tweet is deleted, then what to trust
# .. the ones we tests in CredCo
# .. we looked at the articles cited, how Representative are they of the science article being references
# .. are you quoting an outside expert in the field? a best practice in journalism
# .. looking at Impact Factor of journal linked-to
# .. IF is very roughly measure of value/influence in the field
# .. Sentiment
# .. So yes, Tone of Citation would be good
# .. but we need to look at when there is disagreement in the field
# .. gets back to question about relational indicators
# .. and emotion indicators
# .. tying that together would be good
# [Sandro Hawke] now going one at a time.
# .. 1 Source Types
# .. could be built out more for more nuance
# .. per citation – we asked them to look at 3
# .. didnt correlate
# .. not in WebConf paper
# .. not sophisitcated yet
# .. Like good practice in science reporting, to quote people from outside
# .. Obviously quotes could be fabricated
# .. ideally the conversation happens EG on Twitter
# .. you want to link to the quote In Context and Endorsed by quoted person
# .. ideally
# .. I think it was a group in Canada
# .. Number of quoted sources, Number of links
# .. just seeing if sheer number is interesting
# .. like Number of ads.
# .. I don’t recall the story here
# .. 9.7 Contains original quotes
# .. Not in WebConf, although it seemed promising.
# .. not from the study
# .. related/overlapping with 9.2 and 9.3
# .. not necessarily a quote
# .. like a statement they refused to comment :-)
# .. 9.8 Contains Video Embeds
# .. 9.10 Contains Image Macros
# .. 9.11 Contains Attributed images
# .. 9.12 Contain Original Images
# .. all about embedding visual content
# .. intuition is that these will be positively correlated, but we didn’t study this yet
# .. might be different if embed is extract from study, or something else
# .. 9.9 Contains Link to Scientific Journals
# .. we did study this
# .. (not sure offhand the result)
# .. but related to 9.14 Represtation, which we did
# .. 9.13 Agencies for Authority
# .. not sure who the “I” is, probably folks into 9.1 source types
# .. eg CDC is authoritatinve agency
# .. related to eg IFCN inbound links
# .. Idea is - you have reputable agencies that are not eg IFCN members
# .. contains (embedded) content
# .. 9.14 Accuracy of representation of source article
# .. more in detail
# Sandro Hawke says: : Citations - this whole topic - in general, negative references are different. But mostly we’re talking about borrowing authority. YOu want to say something credible so you point to someone else saying the same thing.
# .. all of these seem to have some reputation element – your reputation depends a bit on the reputation of who you cite
# .. 9.15 Academic Journal Impact Factor
# .. this was an explicit reputation representation
# .. Mike Caulfield has his students do something like this, checking on Google Scholar
# .. I.F. isn’t perfect, but something like this seems machine-doable
# .. that works for your outside metrics
# [Sandro Hawke] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=3iUAjSsAAAAJ
# [An Xiao Mina] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=z2UUZSkAAAAJ&hl=en
# .. so calling someone an expert in the field without an h-index at least 10 would be silly
# .. you can look at the top 1% by hIndex in each field
# .. but cancel next week given F2F