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.)
Epistemic status: Speculation from two decently informed advocates armed with anecdata.
Note on process: After having some version of this conversation several times and saying, “we should probably write about this publicly,” we took the less heroic route: we recorded one of our conversations, fed the transcript into an LLM, and then substantially revised the structure, substance, and framing ourselves. We will not be sharing the transcript, as it is in...
TLDR: Take the population ethics quiz here: https://mdickens.me/pop-ethics/
Population ethics is an oft-overlooked subfield within ethics. Many people hold views that they don't realize contradict each other, or that have strange implications that they wouldn't endorse if they thought about it more.
Not just that—population ethics is a BIG DEAL. A lot of ethical decisions hinge on how you think about changes in future populations....
Headline finding: I audited 17 AI Safety Talent programmes. Zero of 17 have published any comparison group, rejected-applicant follow-up, matched control or randomisation. Not one. Every programme that mentions a counterfactual does it by asking participants to self-report.
Background
At least $70 million...
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.