Add some notes on module 2.

journal/logbook.md

+---
+title: MOOC, Reproducible Research
+author: Thomas Rushton
+---
+
 # MOOC: Reproducible Research
 
+- [22/03/2024](#22/03/2024)
+- [26/03/2024](#26/03/2024)
+
+
 # 22/03/2024
 
 I started this MOOC a few days ago (18/03) and this is my first day tackling
@@ -25,7 +34,9 @@ perspectives on otherwise familiar tools.
     - [Apparently](https://stackoverflow.com/a/4829998) Pandoc prefers the 
       triple-hyphen;
     - I thought markdown comments had to be some awful thing like 
-      `[//] # (this is a comment)`.
+      `[//] # (this is a comment)`;
+  - Anyway, here's an example: `<!--- :mylabel: --->`​;
+    - And now there's a(n invisible) tag against which to search this document.
 
 ## Interesting links
 
@@ -93,5 +104,62 @@ painful.
 ### ExifTool
 
 Perhaps I *should* be adding metadata to my images and audio files.
+
+
+```shell
+exiftool -[comment|notes]=":mylabel:" img.jpg
+```
+
 Worth remembering that, in addition to EXIF, 
 [XMP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Metadata_Platform) exists.
+
+# 26/03/2024
+
+Working my way through Module 2.
+
+## Reproducibility Problems
+
+- [Reinhart & Rogoff](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt): 
+  Growth in a Time of Debt
+
+In short, the basis for the economic orthodoxy with regard to _austerity_ in the
+wake of the 2008/9 financial crisis. 
+Ultimately based the insubstantiable assertion that national debt exceeding 90% 
+of GDP has "[dramatic consequences for growth]".
+By the time their dubious data-handling and slipshod statistical practice had 
+been discovered, their conclusions were already in the hands of conservative 
+economic policymakers. 
+
+- Chang et al. and the database column-swap
+  [debacle](https://people.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~michael.landry/calibration/S5/getsignright.pdf)
+
+Papers had to be retracted.
+Sure, methodological problems, but driven by _sociological/cultural_ ones;
+high productivist pressure &mdash; _publish or perish_.
+
+The real problem is the risk of a lack of rigour and transparency...
+
+## Why is reproducibility difficult?
+
+- Lack of info leading to inability to replicate decisions made by original 
+  researchers.
+- Profusion of errors caused by the user of computers;
+  - computers permit us to go further and faster, but also to make errors more 
+    readily and rapidly;
+  - there's also the black-box effect of proprietary software, and the daftness
+    of opinionated design decisions being confused for helpful ones, e.g. 
+    "MARCH1" and "2310009E13" being interpreted by Excel as a date and a very
+    large number respectively.
+- Lack of rigour and organisation;
+  - no VCS, manual file-naming conventions, etc.;
+  - no code-review or continuous integration.
+- And, as ever, cultural/social issues;
+  - an article can be (uncharitably) described as an advert for the _real_ work 
+    of research and result-gathering, but why?;
+  - well, perhaps we feel like we could have been more rigorous, so we take a 
+    few liberties with documenting our work, we get selective with our results, 
+    etc.;
+  - ultimately we don't wish to suffer embarrassment or humiliation, or (worse 
+    still!) miss an opportunity to publish;
+  - the irony being that we'd be better-placed to publish if we were open, 
+    transparent, etc.; but we're far from alone in all this.