Blaise Frederick

A physicist who wandered into a psychiatry department and ended up obsessing about random fluctuations in cerebral circulation. @[email protected]

[Blaise Frederick @blaisefrederick]

@CKorponay @DrAmyJanes @NatureHumBehav The effect is widespread (in all the datasets we looked at) and pretty big. Fortunately, you can (and should) model and remove it, and we tell you how.

[Blaise Frederick @blaisefrederick]

@CKorponay @DrAmyJanes @NatureHumBehav Cole gives a great rundown here of our new paper in NHB. Read the whole thread, but the TL;DR - physiological noise in fMRI is not stationary, and tends to grow over time (probably for to decreasing arousal), leading to apparent (artifactual) increases in functional connectivity.

[Cole Korponay @CKorponay]

I'm so excited to share the culmination of this thrilling adventure with @DrAmyJanes and @blaisefrederick, out now in @NatureHumBehav

📜 includes tools to detect and remove this pernicious 🎈artifact that hides in plain sight in our #fMRI datasets

https://t.co/wQeZCvP82p

🧵..

[Dr. Mirela G. Tulbure 🛰 🌎 + 🐍 + 🌊 @MirelaGTulbure]

Do grant proposal texts matter for funding decisions? A field experiment

Spoiler alert...NO!

#Grants #academia

[Blaise Frederick @blaisefrederick]

@wanyeburkett It took me a LONG time to pay off all my student loans, and it was a constant stressor, even in the much better economy when I was just starting out. I am absolutely fine with new graduates not having to go through that.

[Blaise Frederick @blaisefrederick]

@northernthrux AFAIK there is no plausible way they could retrospectively federalize these crimes. And the Supreme Court can’t overturn state verdicts.

[Blaise Frederick @blaisefrederick]

@mSanterre @chheplo They said ops, not flops.

[Blaise Frederick @blaisefrederick]

@PrezLives2022 A deal like that would be a terrible idea.

A large section of the population would see that as absolute confirmation that his prosecution was political, rather than because he had done inexcusable things, and you would NEVER then convince them otherwise.

[Blaise Frederick @blaisefrederick]

@lmurray89 It makes your brain smooth. Which is good, right?

[Blaise Frederick @blaisefrederick]

@TheBirthdayBook @minombrejonas @spotted_model Sea lion. Don’t waste your time responding. https://t.co/Dwumx6Cv55

[Blaise Frederick @blaisefrederick]

@squirrellovers_ Chauncey

[Blaise Frederick @blaisefrederick]

@HHackenbecker "Don't tell me - you're from outer space." "No, I'm from Iowa - I only work in outer space."

[Blaise Frederick @blaisefrederick]

@BriannaWu @thefrankwu Can you post the recipe?

[Blaise Frederick @blaisefrederick]

@dan_marinazzo @Wal_yas Yes, I’m only talking about the review process. Not defending their business model, but I think the review process is objectively better from both the author and the reviewer side.

[Blaise Frederick @blaisefrederick]

@Wal_yas It’s more work than a single pass review, but less work for everyone than having to do everything again in a subsequent cycle.

[Blaise Frederick @blaisefrederick]

@Wal_yas And now I realize that I misread your poll as paper review, not grant review!

I’m even MORE in favor of non-anonymous grant review, and the need for reviewers to really justify their decisions. We’ve all suffered drive by grant assassinations.

[Blaise Frederick @blaisefrederick]

@Wal_yas What I’d really like to see is a (rapid) second round on grant reviews. You get the pink sheets and can do a rebuttal, and the committee meets again to assess the response and rebalance scores. Then you can clarify clear misunderstandings, and don’t miss a whole cycle.

[Blaise Frederick @blaisefrederick]

@dan_marinazzo @Wal_yas I agree. I really like the arena review style of frontiers journals - it’s interactive, and the reviewers names are listed on the accepted paper. I think that discourages all sorts of bad/sloppy behavior. It also gives reviewers the incentive to actually help improve the paper.