<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>scientonomy &#8211; the scottbot irregular</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?feed=rss2&#038;tag=scientonomy" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL</link>
	<description>data are everywhen</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:18:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Acceptances to Digital Humanities 2015 (part 3)</title>
		<link>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=41355</link>
		<comments>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=41355#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2015 07:09:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Weingart]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[personal research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[data analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dhconf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital humanities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diversity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gender]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scholarly communication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scientonomy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=41355</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[tl;dr There&#8217;s a disparity between gender diversity in authorship and attendance at DH2015; attendees are diverse, authors aren&#8217;t. That said, the geography of attendance is actually pretty encouraging this year. A lot of this work draws a project on the history of DH conferences I&#8217;m undertaking with the inimitable Nickoal Eichmann. She&#8217;s been integral on the research [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?feed=rss2&#038;p=41355</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Acceptances to Digital Humanities 2015 (part 2)</title>
		<link>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=41347</link>
		<comments>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=41347#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2015 23:56:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Weingart]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[personal research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[data analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dhconf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital humanities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[network analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scholarly communication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scientonomy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visualizations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=41347</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Had enough yet? Too bad! Full-ahead into my analysis of DH2015, part of my 6,021-part series on DH conference submissions and acceptances. If you want more context, read the Acceptances to DH2015 part 1. tl;dr This post&#8217;s about the topical coverage of DH2015 in Australia. If you&#8217;re curious about how the landscape compares to previous [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?feed=rss2&#038;p=41347</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Acceptances to Digital Humanities 2015 (part 1)</title>
		<link>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=41327</link>
		<comments>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=41327#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:28:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Weingart]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[personal research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[data analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dhconf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital humanities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scholarly communication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scientonomy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=41327</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[Update!] Melissa Terras pointed out I probably made a mistake on 2015 long paper -&#62; short paper numbers. I checked, and she was right. I&#8217;ve updated the figures accordingly. tl;dr Part 1 is about sheer numbers of acceptances to DH2015 and comparisons with previous years. DH is still growing, but the conference locale likely prohibited [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?feed=rss2&#038;p=41327</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Digital History, Saturn&#8217;s Rings, and the Battle of Trafalgar</title>
		<link>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=41109</link>
		<comments>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=41109#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:49:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Weingart]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[method]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ABMs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history of science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[methodologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scientonomy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=41109</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[History and astronomy are a lot alike. When people claim history couldn&#8217;t possibly be scientific, because how can you do science without direct experimentation, astronomy should be used as an immediate counterexample. Astronomers and historians both view their subjects from great distances; too far to send instruments for direct measurement and experimentation. Things have changed a bit [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?feed=rss2&#038;p=41109</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Submissions to Digital Humanities 2015 (pt. 3)</title>
		<link>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=41064</link>
		<comments>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=41064#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2014 14:59:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Weingart]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[personal research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[data analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dhconf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital humanities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[geography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scientonomy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=41064</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is the third post in a three-part series analyzing submissions to the 2015 Digital Humanities conference in Australia. In parts 1 &#38; 2, I covered submission volumes, topical coverage, and comparisons to conferences in previous years. This post will briefly address the geography of submissions, further exploring my criticism that this global-themed conference doesn&#8217;t [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?feed=rss2&#038;p=41064</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Submissions to Digital Humanities 2015 (pt. 2)</title>
		<link>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=41053</link>
		<comments>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=41053#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2014 17:50:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Weingart]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[personal research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[data analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dhconf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital humanities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scholarly communication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scientonomy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[text analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visualizations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=41053</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Do you like the digital humanities? Me too! You better like it, because this is the 700th or so in a series of posts about our annual conference, and I can&#8217;t imagine why else you&#8217;d be reading it. My last post went into some summary statistics of submissions to DH2015, concluding in the end that [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?feed=rss2&#038;p=41053</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Submissions to Digital Humanities 2015 (pt. 1)</title>
		<link>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=41041</link>
		<comments>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=41041#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2014 04:47:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Weingart]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[personal research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[data analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dhconf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital humanities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scholarly communication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scientonomy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[text analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visualizations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=41041</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s that time of the year again! The 2015 Digital Humanities conference will take place next summer in Australia, and as per usual, I&#8217;m going to summarize what is being submitted to the conference and, eventually, how those submissions become accepted. Each year reviewers get the chance to &#8220;bid&#8221; on conference submissions, and this lets us get [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?feed=rss2&#038;p=41041</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Barriers to Scholarship &#038; Iterative Writing</title>
		<link>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=40622</link>
		<comments>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=40622#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Mar 2014 16:44:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Weingart]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[miscellanea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open access]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scholarly communication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scientonomy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=40622</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This post is mostly just thinking out loud, musing about two related barriers to scholarship: a stigma related to self-plagiarism, and various copyright concerns. It includes a potential way to get past them. Self-Plagiarism When Jonah Lehrer&#8217;s plagiarism scandal first broke, it sounded a bit silly. Lehrer, it turned out, had taken some sentences he&#8217;d [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?feed=rss2&#038;p=40622</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Do historians need scientists?</title>
		<link>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=40349</link>
		<comments>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=40349#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:20:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Weingart]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[method]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disciplinarity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history of science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interdisciplinarity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[methodologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scientonomy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[two cultures]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=40349</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[edit: I&#8217;m realizing I didn&#8217;t make it clear in this post that I&#8217;m aware many historians consider themselves scientists, and that there&#8217;s plenty of scientific historical archaeology and anthropology. That&#8217;s exactly what I&#8217;m advocating there be more of, and more varied.] Short Answer: Yes. Less Snarky Answer: Historians need to be flexible to fresh methods, [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?feed=rss2&#038;p=40349</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bridging Token and Type</title>
		<link>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=40088</link>
		<comments>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=40088#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:06:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Weingart]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big data]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[data analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diffusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital humanities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disciplinarity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history of science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interdisciplinarity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[literary history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[macroanalysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[methodologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scientonomy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[two cultures]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=40088</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There&#8217;s an oft-spoken and somewhat strawman tale of how the digital humanities is bridging C.P. Snow&#8217;s &#8220;Two Culture&#8221; divide, between the sciences and the humanities. This story is sometimes true (it&#8217;s fun putting together Ocean&#8217;s Eleven-esque teams comprising every discipline needed to get the job done) and sometimes false (plenty of people on either side [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?feed=rss2&#038;p=40088</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
