giuseppe cannata

us like in 'us rooting for domestic producers'

AI fills jobs immigrants no longer want to do

The quiet collapse of surveys: fewer humans (and more AI agents) are answering survey questions I show data on two trends undermining surveys: the collapse of human response rates and the increase of AI agents. I'll also discuss downstream implications and propose some possible solutions.

Fascinating substack post by @laurenleek.eu on the problem of declining humans and increasing AI agents in survey responses. This is going to become a huge issue in survey research!
open.substack.com/pub/laurenle...

What a day in The Hague for the #RodeLijn protest.

The largest Dutch protest in 20 years!

you would make a great irony man

Exciting Milestone: Our Report Featured in Nature! ✨

www.nature.com/articles/d41...

Happy to announce that our report on the science-for-policy interface through the eyes of professionals has been spotlighted in a correspondence published by Nature.

With Krieger, @drlmelchor.bsky.social, Almeida

Proud of my students for their amazing work writing three blog posts as part of my Gender & Politics class last year. Check them out! ✨📖 #Gendersky

🔹 Overview of our seminar: rb.gy/yeopf4
🔹 Feminist research & transforming academia: rb.gy/yeopf4
🔹 Cyber harassment & democracy: rb.gy/kaw8wx

🧭 Differentiated democratic enlargement to sharpen EU accession process EU enlargement is often hailed as a tool for spurring political reform and countering Russian influence. But Richard Youngs argues that its democratic dimensions are more complex than conventional wis...

Amidst persisting challenges to the EU enlargement process, Richard Youngs proposes a differentiated democratic enlargement framework for navigating the complex realities of candidate countries.

Read his piece for @ecprtheloop.bsky.social⬇️

I jot down here some reflections on challenges in EIPM/science-for-policy.

I draw largely on my research stay at JRC in Brussels and on a really cool report on S4P ecosystems I had the chance to contribute to (check it out here if you missed it!)

publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/h...

'Because the manosphere is not just a fringe that has become mainstream, it’s a mainstream that many liberals continue to treat as a fringe'

Great take. It's not about extremists getting out of online niches, but a reactionary backlash of a patriarchal society. And we need to deal with it as such.

Per chi si trova a Firenze
⬇️

Incredibile 'sta nuova serie su M.

I mean, luxury surveillance is the only reasonable type of surveillance I can think of.

We gotta watch out for those nasty millionaires.

This.

Researcher: "We let the data speak for itself."

Earlier that day:

I like to say I respect despair as an emotion but not an analysis. As an analysis it assumes we know what can and can't happen, and the future is both uncertain and at least to some extent what we make of it. Plus why would I give them what they want, as premature surrender? Thanks Senator Schatz.

Wish I had that energy to write on working days.

Some definitely are.
I wouldn't draw the line there, between books and non-books.

Although peer review is one of the central pillars of academic publishing, qualitative researchers’ experiences of this process have been largely overlooked. Existing research and commentary have focused on peer reviewers’ comments on qualitative articles, which are often described as indicative of a quantitative mindset or hostility to nonpositivist qualitative research. We extend this literature by focusing on qualitative researchers’ experiences of methodologically incongruent reviewer and editor comments—comments that are incommensurate with the conceptual foundations of the reviewed research. Qualitative researchers (N = 163) from a range of health and social science disciplines, including psychology, responded to a brief qualitative survey. Most contributors reported that peer reviewers and editors universalized the assumptions and expectations of postpositivist research and reporting. Some also reported that peer reviewers and editors universalized the norms and values particular to specific qualitative approaches. Contributors were concerned that peer reviewers often accept review invitations when they lack relevant methodological expertise and editors often select peer reviewers without such expertise. In response to methodologically incongruent comments, many contributors described a process of initially “pushing back” and explaining why these comments were incongruent with their research. When this educative approach was unsuccessful, some knowingly compromised the methodological integrity of their research and acquiesced to reviewer and editor requests. Earlier career researchers especially highlighted the powerlessness they felt in the peer review process in the context of a “publish or perish” academic climate. We end by outlining contributors’ recommendations for improving the methodological integrity of the peer review of qualitative research.

“Where are the findings? You only provide quotes.”

New article considers qualitative researchers’ experiences of methodologically incongruent peer review feedback

Open Access: dx.doi.org/10.1037/qup0...

Few quotes follow 🧵

This is, for its public visibility and symbolic power, a historical event, thanks to Gisèle Pelicot's brave words and decisions through the trial.

Excerpts from the hearings are the most blatant argument against 'not all men' dismissive takes and a grim proof of rape culture pervasiveness.

Worth reading, to prepare for the new year.

“We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist”

James Baldwin

I do have access to Google, don't mind rudeness, and I have my own reservations about Politico's editorial line and I was just curious about what propaganda bothers you – but, again, it's not that serious.

Let's leave it at that.

Thanks for explaining yourself, but there was no need to – it's less serious than this.

On a side note, one might argue that one repost is already 'too many,' but Politico is a news outlet no worse than others for EU stuff, imho. I am sincerely curious, propaganda for what?

Migration Communication Campaigns Dataset - Migration Policy Centre The Migration Communication CampaignsDatabase Be inspired, learn what works, and plan more effective communication through our interactive migration communication campaigns database. Explore the datab...

Communication campaigns are increasingly used to shape perceptions and attitudes towards migration.

Yet, there is little data available on migration communication campaigns. The Migration Communications Campaigns Database aims to change this.

migrationpolicycentre.eu/campaigns/

Wait, didn't the EPP threaten to thwart the Commission deal over the appointment of a far-right EV-P just a couple of weeks ago?

This will likely be a disruptive precedent for the EU as a whole.

And was kinda willing to risk the Commission deal over the appointment of the first-ever EV-P formally affiliated to a far-right EP group too.

How can we improve the uptake of scientific evidence in policymaking and politics?

We asked 500 professionals working at the science for policy interface for their experiences and insights.

👇 Here is our study.

It's chopping logic versus chopping logistics.