I just updated it (same link) to include a much larger set of papers. The 'other' category now includes papers we may not yet have prioritized, may have deprioritized somewhat (but still found interesting), or may have set aside for other reasons (e.g., slightly outside our scope, not timely for evaluation as part of our model, etc.)
If you see research in the database you would particularly recommend that we focus on, or you want to briefly share some notes about the research, please fill out the relevant fields in our ‘suggest research’ form, flagging this with “[External suggestion]” in the ‘label’ field.
Unjournal: "Research with potential for impact" database
I don't think I posted this here yet and wanted to make sure people are aware of it. Please let me know what you think, how you might use it, how we can make it more useful, etc.
26 Sep 2024 – added 'filter bars'
Why are we sharing our database?
The Unjournal commissions and promotes the public evaluation and rating of research with potential for impact. We mainly cover applied, quantitative social science (see ‘what do we cover’).
Finally, we publish a package of evaluations and ratings on our PubPub page (and in the bibliometric ecosystem)
Because we’re committed to transparency and providing public goods, we’re sharing a live database of “research in our pipeline” below. This may be useful to:
Anyone interested in engaging with The Unjournal (e.g., authors looking to submit their work, researchers and PhD students interested joining our evaluator pool) who wants to get a better sense of our focus
Researchers, students, and professionals exploring research topics, approaches, and paths (e.g., Effective Thesis students), focused on having a measurable impact
Organizations, funders, and policymakers interested in reading and using recent research
Who may want to suggest ‘pivotal questions’ and research relevant to these
(There are some limitations on what columns and rows are shared -- see the link. Remember you need to click to the second page to see the actual database.)
A preliminary estimate, and a request for better ones.
Summary
I believe the standard literature estimates for the number of DALYs attributable to a case of stunting are too low, largely because they don’t account for the long term effects. This means that childhood nutritional interventions that reduce the prevalence of stunting may be substantially more cost-effective than previously believed.
Epistemic status
Exploratory and back-o...
Note: This post was crossposted from Planned Obsolescence by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post.
Subtitle: It’s a major warning shot, and might be the last one we get
All opinions are my personal view, and don’t represent my employer or fellow investigators.
This week, METR and Redwood Research published...
I just updated it (same link) to include a much larger set of papers. The 'other' category now includes papers we may not yet have prioritized, may have deprioritized somewhat (but still found interesting), or may have set aside for other reasons (e.g., slightly outside our scope, not timely for evaluation as part of our model, etc.)
Now grouped by main outcome/cause/field cluster.