-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
/
orc-reprohack.html
987 lines (560 loc) · 27.6 KB
/
orc-reprohack.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="" xml:lang="">
<head>
<title>ReproHacks: Practicing reproducibility makes better</title>
<meta charset="utf-8" />
<meta name="author" content="Anna Krystalli" />
<link rel="stylesheet" href="assets/css/user2020-xaringan-themer.css" type="text/css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" href="assets/css/user2020-custom.css" type="text/css" />
</head>
<body>
<textarea id="source">
background-image: url(assets/backgrounds/ro-sticker-background.jpg)
background-size: contain
<img src="assets/reprohack_logo.png" width="20%" />
# ReproHacks:
### Practicing reproducibility makes better
<br>
### _Anna Krystalli_ <i class="fab fa-twitter "></i> @annakrystalli
.white[
_TUoS Open Research Conversation: Reproducibility and Preregistration_
]
---
# 👋 Hello
### me: **Dr Anna Krystalli**
- **Research Software Engineer**, _University of Sheffield_
+ twitter **@annakrystalli**
+ github **@annakrystalli**
+ email **a.krystalli[at]sheffield.ac.uk**
- **Editor [rOpenSci](http://onboarding.ropensci.org/)**
- **Co-organiser:** [Sheffield R Users group](https://www.meetup.com/SheffieldR-Sheffield-R-Users-Group/)
---
layout: true
.left.footnote[<i class="fab fa-twitter "></i> @annakrystalli]
---
class: inverse, center, middle
# Background
???
Let's start with a bit of background
---
.pull-left[
]
.pull-right[
]
???
- I'm sure most by now have heard about the reproducibility crisis.
- I don't want to go into to much detail about the many and varied drivers of the crises and discussions about the implications.
- but one thing that most would agree on is that the publication sustem as it stands is not fit for validating modern research which is increasingly underlaid by more and complex computational workflows
---
# The paper is the advertisement
> “an article about a computational result is advertising, not scholarship. The **actual scholarship is the full software environment, code and data, that produced the result.**”
*John Claerbout paraphrased in [Buckheit and Donoho (1995)](https://statweb.stanford.edu/~wavelab/Wavelab_850/wavelab.pdf)*
--
### Why is our whole system geared towards **reviewing, publishing, distributing, archiving** the advertisement?
???
I feel our problem is well captured by the following quote by John Claerbout, referenced in a paepr by Buckheit and Donoho
---
## Progress: calls for reproducibility as minimum standard
> #### **Reproducibility** has the potential to serve as a **minimum standard for judging scientific claims** when full independent replication of a study is not possible.
<br>
.center[
<img src="assets/repro-spectrum.jpg" width="90%" />
]
.img-attr[Reproducible Research in Computational Science
_ROGER D. PENG, SCIENCE 02 DEC 2011 : 1226-1227_
]
<br>
???
We have been making progress though, with computational reproducibility, _the ability to reproduce a result from the original code and data_ being put forward as a minimum standard for validating research findings
---
class: inverse, center, middle
.box[
## Benefit #1
]
### transparency as a means of verification
--
## Benefit #2
### transparency as a means of supercharging research cycle
???
- This points to the recognition that a certain level of compuatational transparency is necessary for verifying the validity of research findings
- It also offers and additional superpower. Making underlying materials openly available means it's much easier to build on previous research, effectively supercharging the research cycle.
---
class: center, middle
# So how are we doing?
<img src="assets/repro-spectrum.jpg" width="90%" />
.img-attr[Reproducible Research in Computational Science
_ROGER D. PENG, SCIENCE 02 DEC 2011 : 1226-1227_
]
???
- Now, this recognition is an important first step but what does it mean in practice?
- How far have we actually come?
- Well that's actually a really hard question to answer because, despite an increase in the publication of more research code and data (by no means sufficient yet), there is still no systematic review of such materials to confirm that research is indeed reproducible
---
background-image: url(assets/annie-spratt-fallen-tree.jpg)
background-size: cover
class: center, middle
--
.bg-white[
# If a paper claims to be reproducible but nobody checks it, is it really reproducible?
]
???
This makes me think of that only philosophical question:
> If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
> So, if a paper claims to be reproducible but no-one is there to check it, is it actually reproducible?
---
class: center
<img src="assets/practice-sharon-mccutcheon-unsplash.jpg" width="60%" />
# Practice
???
This lack of systematic review leads to an additional problem, that there is no opportunity to practice and get feedback on the reproducibility of our research
Now anyone that has ever tried to learn an instrument, a sport or any other activity knows that far more important to success than any talent or natural ability is practice. Without an opportunity to practice we are really stuck in theoretical discussions of reproducibility
---
# Reprohack
#### One day reproducibility hackathons
***
--
- ### How reproducible are papers?
--
- ### How can we provide a sandbox environment to practice reproducibility?
???
So these were really the key issues that the ReproHack project sought to address:
- How reproducible are papers with associated published code and data?
- How can we provide a sandbox environment where both authors and reviewers can practice reproducibility?
---
# ReproHack History
#### OpenCon Satellite: Berlin, 2016
#### OpenCon Satellite: London, 2017
--
<br>
Inspired by Owen Petchey's [Reproducible Research in Ecology, Evolution, Behaviour, and Environmental Studies](https://github.com/opetchey/RREEBES) course,
- Reproduce published results from raw data
- Over a few months and a number of sessions
--
### **ReproHack mission: Reproduce paper in a day from code and data**
???
Let's start with a bit of ReproHack history
So I’ll start with some ReproHack history:
They were originally run as part of Opencon satellite events
and were inspired by Owen Petchey’s Reproducible Research course
where students attempt to recreate published results from raw data,
And they do this over a few months and multiple sessions.
We wanted to condense that activity into one day so
set the challenge to be, to reproduce results from published data AND code.
---
### Software Sustainability Institute Fellowship 2019
.pull-left[
]
--
.pull-right[
<img src="assets/me-reprohack.png" width="90%" />
<img src="https://github.com/reprohack/reprohack-2019-06-27/blob/master/CCmcrlogo.png?raw=true" width="90%" />
]
???
Not much happened since then until
this year when I joined the 2019 Software Sustainability Institute Fellows cohort
and my proposal was to
resurrect and
further develop,
And run a series of ReproHacks
The first one being at Carpentry Connect Manchester
---
## ReproHacks since the Fellowship
- ### [Leiden ReproHack](https://reprohacknl.github.io/ReproHack/)
- ### [N8 CIR Northern Tour ReproHack Series](https://n8cir.org.uk/news/reprohacks/) (x5)
- ### [N8 CIR Remote ReproHack](https://n8cir.org.uk/events/remote-reprohack/)
- ### [LatinR ReproHack](https://latin-r.com/blog/reprohack-en)
- ### [UCL ReproHack for Open Access week](https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/open-access/2020/11/17/open-access-week-the-first-reprohack-%E2%99%BB-ucl/)
???
Since the Fellowship, there's been a number of events run both by myself and the ReproHack community
- Leiden ReproHack: lead to formation of core team
- N8 CIR Northern Tour ReproHack Series] A series of (x5) events across Northern UK universities
- [N8 CIR Remote ReproHack](https://n8cir.org.uk/events/remote-reprohack/): Cancellation of the Manchester event due to COVID lead to the first remote event
- [LatinR ReproHack](https://latin-r.com/blog/reprohack-en): lead nicely to a remote event at last year's Latin R, where we ran the first event fully in Spanish!
- [UCL ReproHack for Open Access week](https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/open-access/2020/11/17/open-access-week-the-first-reprohack-%E2%99%BB-ucl/): In October, community members ran the first week long event for open access week
---
## Reprohack Core Team
<img src="assets/reprohack_core_team.png" width="100%" />
???
Before moving on I'd just like to give props and thanks to the ReproHack core team which have been instrumental in the development of the project and the running of all these events
---
class: inverse, middle, center
# How does it work?
---
## Call for papers
.pull-left[
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">✨Do you champion <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/reproducible?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#reproducible</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/research?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#research</a>? <br>✨Do you have a reproducible paper with open code and data?<br><br>The <a href="https://twitter.com/SoftwareSaved?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SoftwareSaved</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ReproHack?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ReproHack</a> series needs you! 🚀<br><br>Help others learn &amp; engage with your work by submitting it to our 1-day Reproducibility hackathons!<a href="https://t.co/PssdXqwl8Z">https://t.co/PssdXqwl8Z</a></p>&mdash; annakrystalli (@annakrystalli) <a href="https://twitter.com/annakrystalli/status/1138769695513952260?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 12, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
]
--
.pull-right.middle[
<img src="assets/rh-paper_list.png" width="100%" />
]
???
In the current format, leading up to the event,
we have a call for papers
where we encourage authors to submit their papers for reproduction.
We like this because it means authors get engaged from the start
And this hopefully results in a nice paper list for participants to work with on the day
---
background-image: url("assets/on_the_day-bg.jpg")
background-size: cover
# On the day
- ### Select paper and form groups
- ### Work with materials and reproduce
- ### Discuss
- ### Feed back to authors
???
On the day, we start with a bit of an introduction in which we stress that:
- Reproducibility is hard!
- Authors are incredibly brave to invite us into their work
- So we set the tone to invite only constructive feedback.
Participants are then free to review and select papers they wish to work on and attempt to reproduce them
At some point we regroup to share progress and close with a final share out.
Most importantly, we ask participants to feed their experiences back to the authors
---
class: inverse, center, middle
# Tips for Reproducing & Reviewing
<img src="assets/Hackathon.jpg" width="70%" />
???
Now I'll just go over a few of the tips we give participants for reviewing
---
## Selecting Papers
.pull-left[
- **Information submitted by authors:**
- Languages / tools used
- Why you should attempt the paper.
- **No. attempts <i class="fas fa-recycle "></i>** No. times reproduction has been attempted
- **Mean Repro Score <i class="fas fa-check-circle "></i>** Mean reproducibility score (out of 10)
- lower == harder!
]
.pull-right[
<img src="assets/ReprohackPickPapers.jpg" width="90%" />
]
---
class:center, middle
# Review as an auditor 📑
???
Then we ask ask participants to review using a few hats, first that of an auditor, and we ask them to reflect on anumber of acharacteristics of the materials
---
.pull-left[
# Access
- How **easy** was it to **gain** access to the materials?
- Did you manage to download all the files you needed?
]
.pull-right[
# Installation
- How **easy / automated** was **installation**?
- Did you have any problems?
- How did you solve them?
]
---
---
.pull-left[
# Data
- Were **data clearly separated from code and other items**?
- Were **large data files deposited in a trustworthy data repository** and referred to using a **persistent identifier**?
- Were **data documented** ...somehow...
]
.pull-right[
# Documentation
Was there **adequate documentation** describing:
- how to **install** necessary software including non-standard dependencies?
- how to **use** materials to reproduce the paper?
- how to **cite** the materials, ideally in a form that can be copy and pasted?
]
---
.pull-left[
# Analysis
- **Were you able to fully reproduce** the paper? ✅
- **How automated** was the process of reproducing the paper?
- **How easy was it to link** analysis **code** to:
- the **plots** it generates
- **sections in the manuscript** in which it is described and results reported
]
--
.pull-right[
<br>
### If the analysis was not fully reproducible 🚫
- Were there **missing dependencies?**
- Was the **computational environment not adequately described** / captured?
- Was there **bugs** in the code?
- Did **code run but results (e.g. model outputs, tables, figures) differ** to those published? By **how much?**
]
---
class: center
# Review as a user 🎮
.pull-left[
### New User
<img src="https://25.media.tumblr.com/30906cccedfe97a3d5450a23359ca298/tumblr_ml72i2eL6t1rsudnqo1_500.gif" width="80%" />
]
--
.pull-right[
### Invested User
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/9K2nFglCAQClO/source.gif" width="80%" />
]
???
Then we also ask them to review as a potential user and in particular as two important users
- First as a new user, and here the unfamiliarity of the material is actually a superpower and can unearth important gaps in the documentation or difficulties in usability of the materials
- The second is as an invested user, someone who really wants to use the materials themselves. This can unearth useful usability features or ADDITIONAL USECASES
---
## Feedback as a community member
.pull-left[
#### Acknowledge author effort
#### Give feedback in good faith
#### Focus on community benefits and system level solutions
<img src="assets/1728_TURI_Book sprint_11 community_040619.jpg" width="100%" />
]
--
.pull-right[
> #### _Help build convention on what form a Reproducible paper should take and how we should be able to use it_
]
???
Finally we also stress the importance of reviewing as a community member.
There is a lot wrong with our publication system and the authors that submit their work for others to learn form are not one of them!
Overall, this is an opportunity for the whole community to learn and help define these materials should look like and what form would make them fit for the purposes we need and want them to.
---
class: inverse, center, middle
# What did we learn?
---
## N8 CIR ReproHack Series Stats
- ### 38 papers submitted so far
- ### Total of ~ 70 participants
- ### 39 completed reviews over 27 papers
---
## Review Scores
<img src="orc-reprohack_files/figure-html/unnamed-chunk-15-1.svg" width="90%" />
---
## What would improve reproducibility?
- ### Better documentation
- ### More complete description / capture of computational environment
## What was their favourite aspect of reproducible materials?
- ### Literate programming
???
The most low hanging fruit across the board was better documentation. FAuthors familiarity with materials means they make a lot of assumptions about users prior knowledge that reviews shine a light on. This can be from basics on specifying how materials are laid out to what software needs to be installed to run the code
The second most common problem is poorly specified computational environments. The simplest way to get round this would be to atleast provide session information with the most robust being providing an executable computational environment for the analysis, for example in a docker container
FInally we found that participants really enjoyed working with literate programming documents where text, code and outputs are laid out togetther in a single executable document
---
.pull-left[
### Opportunity for peer skill sharing
- CCMcr: Contributing to open source
- Leiden: Synching GitHub repositories with Zenodo
- Remote Reprohack: Docker school
]
--
.pull-right[
## Fit for purpose
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">On the way home, <a href="https://twitter.com/df3n5?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@df3n5</a> said quite rightly, if all [code-producing/data-analysing] researchers would take part in at least one <a href="https://twitter.com/ReproHack?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ReproHack</a>, the code reproducibility and quality of documentation would generally soar!</p>&mdash; Durham University Advanced Research Computing (@ARC_DU) <a href="https://twitter.com/ARC_DU/status/1219897416536797185?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
]
???
We also found the events provided excellent opportunity for skill sharing
And importantly participants found they were fit for purpose. I couldn't agree with this tweet more that providing the space for working with real materials will have a real impact on the reproducibility of published work going forward
---
## ReproHacks are fun
<img src="assets/n8-reprohack_collage.gif" width="90%" />
???
Crucially though the events are fun!
Participants really enjoyed the low pressure friendly and collaborative environments, felt they learnt a lot and found being able to reproduce others work extremely satisfying!
---
class: inverse, center, middle
# On the future of Reviewing
???
Before I close I just want to offer a few thoughts on the future of reviewing
---
background-image: url(assets/imagine_review.png)
background-size: contain
class: middle, center
--
<img src="assets/ropensci_icon_lettering_color.png" width="65%" />
???
And I want to start with these hypothetical scenarios that could transpire from having the underlying materials available during review.
- In the first, reviewers are able to correct minor typos they found
- In the second, they are able to contribute to the research and become collaborators
- And the 3rd is a bot of a joke but I'm sure has crossed many authors mind during review!
Now these might seem far fetched but I see these sort of interactions all the time, during RrOpenSci reviews of packages aiming to help reserachers work more effectively with scientific code and data.
---
## On the scope of reproducibility
.pull-left[
- #### Reproducibility _ad infinitum_
+ ❌ **UNREALISTIC**
]
???
On the scope of reproducibility ,honesty I feel reproducibity ad infinitum is unrealistic at this point
---
## On the scope of reproducibility
.pull-left[
- #### Reproducibility _ad infinitum_
+ ❌ **UNREALISTIC**
- #### Reproducibility for 2-3 years post-publication
+ ✅ **MORE REALISTIC**
+ Checked as part of publication process, e.g. CODE CHECK <https://codecheck.org.uk/> [](https://zenodo.org/record/3865491#.XwL4VZNKhfU)
]
.pull-right[
<embed src="assets/codecheck.pdf" width="90%" height="500" type="application/pdf" />
]
???
However, I believe having an expectation that work be reproducible for a given time period, say 2-3 years post publication is reasonable
ANd this should be checked during the publication process.
A project that's done a lot more work on this is codecheck whose checkers produce a reproducibilty report which accompanies the publication. The community needs the skill and capacity to perform these though and this is where we see reprohacks fitting in
---
## On the scope of reusability
### Openness can help:
- surface useful parts of code.
- facilitate user feedback and contribution
--
### MAINTENANCE?!
---
class: inverse, middle, center
...in the meantime
### take any opportunity to practice!
???
In the meantime we need to take every opportunity to practice and while I hope in the long term the need for ReproHacks will be obsolete, at the minute they offer a great opportunity to practice
---
background-image: url(assets/reprohack_many_ways.png)
background-size: cover
???
There are many ways to ReproHack and I've mentioned two of these alreay, but what I'd really like is for research groups to start reproducing and reviewing their work before publication to start normalising the process and developing the necessary skills
---
background-image: url(assets/reprohack_hub.png)
background-size: cover
--
.center[
<img src="assets/n8cir-logo-v1-cropped-224x63.png" width="30%" />
<img src="assets/reprohack_hub_participate.png" width="90%" />
]
???
With the help of N8 funding we are currently building a hub to centralise all reprohack activites and we hope this will make running reprohacks much easier for anyone interested.
---
## Interested in ReproHacking?
### [reprohack/reprohack-hq](https://github.com/reprohack/reprohack-hq) GH repository
#### Chat to us:
[](https://reprohack-autoinvite.herokuapp.com/)
### Host your own event!
### Submit your own papers!
---
class: inverse, center, middle
## 👋 Thanks for 👀
<br>
# ❓
---
## Resources
- [**The Turing Way**](https://the-turing-way.netlify.com/introduction/introduction): a lightly opinionated guide to reproducible data science.
- [**Statistical Analyses and Reproducible Research**](https://biostats.bepress.com/bioconductor/paper2/): Gentleman and Temple Lang's introduction of the concept of Research Compendia
- [**Packaging data analytical work reproducibly using R (and friends)**](https://peerj.com/preprints/3192/): how researchers can improve the reproducibility of their work using research compendia based on R packages and related tools
- [How to Read a Research Compendium](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.09525.pdf): Introduction to existing conventions for research compendia and suggestions on how to utilise their shared properties in a structured reading process.
- [Reproducible Research in R with rrtools](https://annakrystalli.me/rrtools-repro-research/): Workshop: Create a research compendium around materials associated with a published paper (text, data and code) using `rrtools`.
- [**Example Compendium**](https://github.com/annakrystalli/rrcompendiumDTB): Demo Research compendium.
---
# Acknowledgements
Images throughout the slides watermarked with **Scriberia** were created by [Scriberia](https://www.scriberia.co.uk/) for The Turing Way community and is used under a CC-BY licence
- _The Turing Way Community, & Scriberia. (2019, July 11). Illustrations from the Turing Way book dashes. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3332808_
<span>Photo on slide #24 by <a href="https://unsplash.com/@anniespratt?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">Annie Spratt</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com/s/photos/fallen-tree?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">Unsplash</a></span>
<span>Photo on slide #25 <a href="https://unsplash.com/@sharonmccutcheon?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">Sharon McCutcheon</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com/s/photos/practice-instrument?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">Unsplash</a></span>
</textarea>
<style data-target="print-only">@media screen {.remark-slide-container{display:block;}.remark-slide-scaler{box-shadow:none;}}</style>
<script src="https://remarkjs.com/downloads/remark-latest.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<script>var slideshow = remark.create({
"dev": "svg",
"highlightStyle": "github",
"highlightLines": true,
"countIncrementalSlides": false,
"slideNumberFormat": ""
});
if (window.HTMLWidgets) slideshow.on('afterShowSlide', function (slide) {
window.dispatchEvent(new Event('resize'));
});
(function(d) {
var s = d.createElement("style"), r = d.querySelector(".remark-slide-scaler");
if (!r) return;
s.type = "text/css"; s.innerHTML = "@page {size: " + r.style.width + " " + r.style.height +"; }";
d.head.appendChild(s);
})(document);
(function(d) {
var el = d.getElementsByClassName("remark-slides-area");
if (!el) return;
var slide, slides = slideshow.getSlides(), els = el[0].children;
for (var i = 1; i < slides.length; i++) {
slide = slides[i];
if (slide.properties.continued === "true" || slide.properties.count === "false") {
els[i - 1].className += ' has-continuation';
}
}
var s = d.createElement("style");
s.type = "text/css"; s.innerHTML = "@media print { .has-continuation { display: none; } }";
d.head.appendChild(s);
})(document);
// delete the temporary CSS (for displaying all slides initially) when the user
// starts to view slides
(function() {
var deleted = false;
slideshow.on('beforeShowSlide', function(slide) {
if (deleted) return;
var sheets = document.styleSheets, node;
for (var i = 0; i < sheets.length; i++) {
node = sheets[i].ownerNode;
if (node.dataset["target"] !== "print-only") continue;
node.parentNode.removeChild(node);
}
deleted = true;
});
})();
// adds .remark-code-has-line-highlighted class to <pre> parent elements
// of code chunks containing highlighted lines with class .remark-code-line-highlighted
(function(d) {
const hlines = d.querySelectorAll('.remark-code-line-highlighted');
const preParents = [];
const findPreParent = function(line, p = 0) {
if (p > 1) return null; // traverse up no further than grandparent
const el = line.parentElement;
return el.tagName === "PRE" ? el : findPreParent(el, ++p);
};
for (let line of hlines) {
let pre = findPreParent(line);
if (pre && !preParents.includes(pre)) preParents.push(pre);
}
preParents.forEach(p => p.classList.add("remark-code-has-line-highlighted"));
})(document);</script>
<script>
(function() {
var links = document.getElementsByTagName('a');
for (var i = 0; i < links.length; i++) {
if (/^(https?:)?\/\//.test(links[i].getAttribute('href'))) {
links[i].target = '_blank';
}
}
})();
</script>
<script>
slideshow._releaseMath = function(el) {
var i, text, code, codes = el.getElementsByTagName('code');
for (i = 0; i < codes.length;) {
code = codes[i];
if (code.parentNode.tagName !== 'PRE' && code.childElementCount === 0) {
text = code.textContent;
if (/^\\\((.|\s)+\\\)$/.test(text) || /^\\\[(.|\s)+\\\]$/.test(text) ||
/^\$\$(.|\s)+\$\$$/.test(text) ||
/^\\begin\{([^}]+)\}(.|\s)+\\end\{[^}]+\}$/.test(text)) {
code.outerHTML = code.innerHTML; // remove <code></code>
continue;
}
}
i++;
}
};
slideshow._releaseMath(document);
</script>
<!-- dynamically load mathjax for compatibility with self-contained -->
<script>
(function () {
var script = document.createElement('script');
script.type = 'text/javascript';
script.src = 'https://mathjax.rstudio.com/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-MML-AM_CHTML';
if (location.protocol !== 'file:' && /^https?:/.test(script.src))
script.src = script.src.replace(/^https?:/, '');
document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(script);
})();
</script>
</body>
</html>