Human Centered Data Science (Fall 2018)/Schedule: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:08, 14 September 2018

This page is a work in progress.

Week 1: September 27

Day 1 plan

Introduction to Human Centered Data Science: What is data science? What is human centered? What is human centered data science?

Assignments due

fill out the pre-course survey
Read: Provost, Foster, and Tom Fawcett. Data science and its relationship to big data and data-driven decision making. Big Data 1.1 (2013): 51-59. (no reading reflection required)

Agenda

Syllabus review
Pre-course survey results
What do we mean by data science?
What do we mean by human centered?
How does human centered design relate to data science?
Looking ahead: Week 2 assignments and topics

Readings assigned

Read: Barocas, Solan and Nissenbaum, Helen. Big Data's End Run around Anonymity and Consent. In Privacy, Big Data, and the Public Good. 2014. (PDF on Canvas)

Homework assigned

Reading reflection

Resources

Aragon, C. et al. (2016). Developing a Research Agenda for Human-Centered Data Science. Human Centered Data Science workshop, CSCW 2016.
Kling, Rob and Star, Susan Leigh. Human Centered Systems in the Perspective of Organizational and Social Informatics. 1997.
Ideo.org The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design. 2015.

Week 2: October 4

Day 2 plan

Ethical considerations: privacy, informed consent and user treatment

Assignments due

Week 1 reading reflection

Agenda

Intro to assignment 1: Data Curation
A brief history of research ethics
Guest lecture: Javier Salido and Mark van Hollebeke, "A Practitioners View of Privacy & Data Protection"
Guest lecture: Javier Salido, "Differential Privacy"
Contextual Integrity in data science
Week 2 reading reflection

Readings assigned

Read:

Homework assigned

Reading reflection

Resources

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1979.
Markham, Annette and Buchanan, Elizabeth. Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Researchers. Association for Internet Research, 2012.
Hill, Kashmir. Facebook Manipulated 689,003 Users' Emotions For Science. Forbes, 2014.
Adam D. I. Kramer, Jamie E. Guillory, and Jeffrey T. Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. PNAS 2014 111 (24) 8788-8790; published ahead of print June 2, 2014.
Barbaro, Michael and Zeller, Tom. A Face Is Exposed for AOL Searcher No. 4417749. New York Times, 2008.
Zetter, Kim. Arvind Narayanan Isn’t Anonymous, and Neither Are You. WIRED, 2012.
Gray, Mary. When Science, Customer Service, and Human Subjects Research Collide. Now What? Culture Digitally, 2014.
Tene, Omer and Polonetsky, Jules. Privacy in the Age of Big Data. Stanford Law Review, 2012.
Dwork, Cynthia. Differential Privacy: A survey of results. Theory and Applications of Models of Computation , 2008.
Hsu, Danny. Techniques to Anonymize Human Data. Data Sift, 2015.
Metcalf, Jacob. Twelve principles of data ethics. Ethical Resolve, 2016.

Week 3: October 11

Day 3 plan

Reproducibility and Accountability: data curation, preservation, documentation, and archiving; best practices for open scientific research

Assignments due

Week 2 reading reflection

Agenda

Six Provocations for Big Data: Review & Reflections
A primer on copyright, licensing, and hosting for code and data
Introduction to replicability, reproducibility, and open research
Reproducibility case study: fivethirtyeight.com
Group activity: assessing reproducibility in data journalism
Overview of Assignment 1: Data curation

Readings assigned

Read: Chapter 2 "Assessing Reproducibility" and Chapter 3 "The Basic Reproducible Workflow Template" from The Practice of Reproducible Research University of California Press, 2018.
Read: Hickey, Walt. The Dollars and Cents Case Against Hollywood's Exclusion of Women. FiveThirtyEight, 2014. AND Keegan, Brian. The Need for Openness in Data Journalism. 2014.

Homework assigned

Reading reflection
A1: Data curation

Examples of well-documented open research projects

Keegan, Brian. WeatherCrime. GitHub, 2014.
Geiger, Stuart R. and Halfaker, Aaron. Operationalizing conflict and cooperation between automated software agents in Wikipedia: A replication and expansion of "Even Good Bots Fight". GitHub, 2017.
Thain, Nithum; Dixon, Lucas; and Wulczyn, Ellery. Wikipedia Talk Labels: Toxicity. Figshare, 2017.
Narayan, Sneha et al. Replication Data for: The Wikipedia Adventure: Field Evaluation of an Interactive Tutorial for New Users. Harvard Dataverse, 2017.

Examples of not-so-well documented open research projects

Eclarke. SWGA paper. GitHub, 2016.
David Lefevre. Lefevre and Cox: Delayed instructional feedback may be more effective, but is this contrary to learners’ preferences? Figshare, 2016.
Alneberg. CONCOCT Paper Data. GitHub, 2014.

Other resources

Press, Gil. Cleaning Big Data: Most Time-Consuming, Least Enjoyable Data Science Task, Survey Says. Forbes, 2016.
Christensen, Garret. Manual of Best Practices in Transparent Social Science Research. 2016.
Hickey, Walt. The Bechdel Test: Checking Our Work. FiveThirtyEight, 2014.
Chapman et al. Cross Industry Standard Process for Data Mining. IBM, 2000.

Week 4: October 18

Day 4 plan

Day 4 slides

Interrogating datasets: understanding your data; framing research questions; planning your study

Assignments due

Reading reflection
A1: Data curation

Agenda

Final project: Goal, timeline, and deliverables.
Overview of assignment 2: Bias in data
Reading reflections review
Sources of bias in datasets
Introduction to assignment 2: Bias in data
Sources of bias in data collection and processing
In-class exercise: assessing bias in training data

Readings assigned

Shyong (Tony) K. Lam, Anuradha Uduwage, Zhenhua Dong, Shilad Sen, David R. Musicant, Loren Terveen, and John Riedl. 2011. WP:clubhouse?: an exploration of Wikipedia's gender imbalance. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (WikiSym '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1-10. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2038558.2038560

Homework assigned

Reading reflection
A2: Bias in data

Resources

Aschwanden, Christie. Science Isn't Broken FiveThirtyEight, 2015.
Halfaker, Aaron et al. The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration Community: How Wikipedia's reaction to sudden popularity is causing its decline. American Behavioral Scientist, 2012.
Warnke-Wang, Morten. Autoconfirmed article creation trial. Wikimedia, 2017.
Wikipedia Or Encyclopædia Britannica: Which Has More Bias?. Forbes, 2015. Based on Greenstein, Shane, and Feng Zhu.Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia. Harvard Business School working paper.

Week 5: October 25

Day 5 plan

Day 5 slides

Interrogating algorithms: ethical AI, algorithmic transparency, societal implications of machine learning

Assignments due

Reading reflection

Agenda

Assignment 1 review & reflection
Week 4 reading reflection discussion
Survey of qualitative research methods
Mixed-methods case study #1: The Wikipedia Gender Gap: causes & consequences
In-class activity: Automated Gender Recognition scenarios
Introduction to ethnography
Ethnographic research case study: Structured data on Wikimedia Commons
Introduction to crowdwork
Overview of Assignment 3: Crowdwork ethnography

Readings assigned

Christian Sandvig, Kevin Hamilton, Karrie Karahalios, Cedric Langbort (2014/05/22) Auditing Algorithms: Research Methods for Detecting Discrimination on Internet Platforms. Paper presented to "Data and Discrimination: Converting Critical Concerns into Productive Inquiry," a preconference at the 64th Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association. May 22, 2014; Seattle, WA, USA.

Homework assigned

Reading reflection
A3: Final project plan

Resources

Bamman, David Interpretability in Human-Centered Data Science. 2016 CSCW workshop on Human-Centered Data Science.
Anderson, Carl. The role of model interpretability in data science. Medium, 2016.
Hill, Kashmir. Facebook figured out my family secrets, and it won't tell me how. Engadget, 2017.
Blue, Violet. Google’s comment-ranking system will be a hit with the alt-right. Engadget, 2017.
Ingold, David and Soper, Spencer. Amazon Doesn’t Consider the Race of Its Customers. Should It?. Bloomberg, 2016.
Mars, Roman. The Age of the Algorithm. 99% Invisible Podcast, 2017.
Google's Perspective API

Week 6: November 1

Day 6 plan

Day 6 slides

Introduction to mixed-methods research: Big data vs thick data; qualitative research in data science

Assignments due

Reading reflection
A2: Bias in data

Agenda

Reading reflections
Ethical implications of crowdwork
Algorithmic transparency, interpretability, and accountability
Auditing algorithms
In-class activity: auditing the Perspective API

Readings assigned

R. Stuart Geiger and Aaron Halfaker. 2017. Operationalizing conflict and cooperation between automated software agents in Wikipedia: A replication and expansion of Even Good Bots Fight. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (Nov 2017 issue, CSCW 2018 Online First) 1, 2, Article 49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3134684

Homework assigned

Reading reflection

Resources

Maximillian Klein. Gender by Wikipedia Language. Wikidata Human Gender Indicators (WHGI), 2017.
Benjamin Collier and Julia Bear. Conflict, criticism, or confidence: an empirical examination of the gender gap in wikipedia contributions. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '12). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145265
Christina Shane-Simpson, Kristen Gillespie-Lynch, Examining potential mechanisms underlying the Wikipedia gender gap through a collaborative editing task, In Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 66, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.043. (PDF on Canvas)
Amanda Menking and Ingrid Erickson. 2015. The Heart Work of Wikipedia: Gendered, Emotional Labor in the World's Largest Online Encyclopedia. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702514
Andrea Forte, Nazanin Andalibi, and Rachel Greenstadt. Privacy, Anonymity, and Perceived Risk in Open Collaboration: A Study of Tor Users and Wikipedians. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW '17). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998273

Week 7: November 8

Day 7 plan

Critical approaches to data science: power, data & society, ethics of crowdwork

Assignments due

Reading reflection
A3: Final project plan

Agenda

Guest lecture: Rochelle LaPlante

Readings assigned (read both, reflect on one)

Lilly C. Irani and M. Six Silberman. 2013. Turkopticon: interrupting worker invisibility in amazon mechanical turk. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470742
Shilad Sen, Margaret E. Giesel, Rebecca Gold, Benjamin Hillmann, Matt Lesicko, Samuel Naden, Jesse Russell, Zixiao (Ken) Wang, and Brent Hecht. 2015. Turkers, Scholars, "Arafat" and "Peace": Cultural Communities and Algorithmic Gold Standards. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '15). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675285

Homework assigned

Reading reflection
A4: Crowdwork ethnography

Resources

WeArDynamo contributors. How to be a good requester and Guidelines for Academic Requesters. Wearedynamo.org
Wang, Tricia. Why Big Data Needs Thick Data. Ethnography Matters, 2016.

Week 8: November 15

Day 8 plan

Day 8 slides

Human-centered algorithm design: user-centered design and evaluation of algorithmic systems

Assignments due

Reading reflection

Agenda

Final project overview & examples
Guest Lecture: Kelly Franznick, Blink UX
Reading reflections
Human-centered algorithm design

design process
user-driven evaluation
design patterns & anti-patterns

Readings assigned

Michael D. Ekstrand, F. Maxwell Harper, Martijn C. Willemsen, and Joseph A. Konstan. 2014. User perception of differences in recommender algorithms. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Recommender systems (RecSys '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 161-168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2645710.2645737
Chen, N., Brooks, M., Kocielnik, R., Hong, R., Smith, J., Lin, S., Qu, Z., Aragon, C. Lariat: A visual analytics tool for social media researchers to explore Twitter datasets. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Data Analytics and Data Mining for Social Media Minitrack (2017)

Homework assigned

Reading reflection

Resources

Sean M. McNee, John Riedl, and Joseph A. Konstan. 2006. Making recommendations better: an analytic model for human-recommender interaction. In CHI '06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1103-1108. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1125451.1125660
Kevin Crowston and the Gravity Spy Team. 2017. Gravity Spy: Humans, Machines and The Future of Citizen Science. In Companion of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW '17 Companion). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 163-166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3022198.3026329
Michael D. Ekstrand and Martijn C. Willemsen. 2016. Behaviorism is Not Enough: Better Recommendations through Listening to Users. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 221-224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2959100.2959179
Jess Holbrook. Human Centered Machine Learning. Google Design Blog. 2017.
Xavier Amatriain and Justin Basilico. Netflix Recommendations: Beyond the 5 stars. Netflix Tech Blog, 2012.
Fabien Girardin. Experience design in the machine learning era. Medium, 2016.
Brian Whitman. How music recommendation works - and doesn't work. Variogram, 2012.
Paul Lamere. How good is Google's Instant Mix?. Music Machinery, 2011.
Snyder, Jaime. Values in the Design of Visualizations. 2016 CSCW workshop on Human-Centered Data Science.

Week 9: November 22 (No Class Session)

Day 9 plan

Data science for social good: TBD

Assignments due

Reading reflection
A4: Crowdwork ethnography

Agenda

Reading reflections discussion
Feedback on Final Project Plans
Guest lecture: Steven Drucker (Microsoft Research)
UI patterns & UX considerations for ML/data-driven applications
Final project presentation: what to expect
In-class activity: final project peer review

Readings assigned

Hill, B. M., Dailey, D., Guy, R. T., Lewis, B., Matsuzaki, M., & Morgan, J. T. (2017). Democratizing Data Science: The Community Data Science Workshops and Classes. In N. Jullien, S. A. Matei, & S. P. Goggins (Eds.), Big Data Factories: Scientific Collaborative approaches for virtual community data collection, repurposing, recombining, and dissemination. New York, New York: Springer Nature. [Preprint/Draft PDF]
Bivens, R. and Haimson, O.L. 2016. Baking Gender Into Social Media Design: How Platforms Shape Categories for Users and Advertisers. Social Media + Society. 2, 4 (2016), 205630511667248. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116672486.
Schlesinger, A. et al. 2017. Intersectional HCI: Engaging Identity through Gender, Race, and Class. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’17. (2017), 5412–5427. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025766.

Homework assigned

Reading reflection

Resources

Berney, Rachel, Bernease Herman, Gundula Proksch, Hillary Dawkins, Jacob Kovacs, Yahui Ma, Jacob Rich, and Amanda Tan. Visualizing Equity: A Data Science for Social Good Tool and Model for Seattle. Data Science for Social Good Conference, September 2017, Chicago, Illinois USA (2017).
Sayamindu Dasgupta and Benjamin Mako Hill. Learning With Data: Designing for Community Introspection and Exploration. Position paper for Developing a Research Agenda for Human-Centered Data Science (a CSCW 2016 workshop).

Week 10: November 29

Day 10 plan

Day 10 slides

User experience and big data

Assignments due

Reading reflection

Agenda

Reading reflections discussion
Feedback on Final Project Plans
Guest lecture: Steven Drucker (Microsoft Research)
UI patterns & UX considerations for ML/data-driven applications
Final project presentation: what to expect
In-class activity: final project peer review

Readings assigned

Megan Risdal, Communicating data science: a guide to presenting your work. Kaggle blog, 2016.
Marilynn Larkin, How to give a dynamic scientific presentation. Elsevier Connect, 2015.

Homework assigned

Reading reflection
A5: Final presentation

Resources

Bart P. Knijnenburg, Martijn C. Willemsen, Zeno Gantner, Hakan Soncu, and Chris Newell. 2012. Explaining the user experience of recommender systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 22, 4-5 (October 2012), 441-504. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11257-011-9118-4
Sean M. McNee, Nishikant Kapoor, and Joseph A. Konstan. 2006. Don't look stupid: avoiding pitfalls when recommending research papers. In Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 171-180. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1180875.1180903
Megan Risdal, Communicating data science: Why and how to visualize information. Kaggle blog, 2016.
Megan Risdal, Communicating data science: an interview with a storytelling expert. Kaggle blog, 2016.
Richard Garber, Power of brief speeches: World War I and the Four Minute Men. Joyful Public Speaking, 2010.
Brent Dykes, Data Storytelling: The Essential Data Science Skill Everyone Needs. Forbes, 2016.

Week 11: December 6

Day 11 plan

Final presentations: course wrap up, presentation of student projects

Assignments due

Reading reflection
A5: Final presentation

Agenda

Student final presentations
Course wrap-up

Readings assigned

none!

Homework assigned

none!

Resources

one

Week 12: Finals Week (No Class Session)

NO CLASS
A6: FINAL PROJECT REPORT DUE BY 11:59PM on Sunday, December 9
LATE PROJECT SUBMISSIONS NOT ACCEPTED.

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 ;Readings assigned
-* Read: Kling, Rob and Star, Susan Leigh. [https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/1798/wp97-04B.html ''Human Centered Systems in the Perspective of Organizational and Social Informatics.''] 1997.
+* Read: Barocas, Solan and Nissenbaum, Helen. ''Big Data's End Run around Anonymity and Consent.'' In ''Privacy, Big Data, and the Public Good''. 2014. (PDF on Canvas)
 ;Homework assigned
@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 ;Resources
-* Read: Aragon, C. et al. (2016). [https://cscw2016hcds.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/cscw_2016_human-centered-data-science_workshop.pdf ''Developing a Research Agenda for Human-Centered Data Science.''] Human Centered Data Science workshop, CSCW 2016.
+* Aragon, C. et al. (2016). [https://cscw2016hcds.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/cscw_2016_human-centered-data-science_workshop.pdf ''Developing a Research Agenda for Human-Centered Data Science.''] Human Centered Data Science workshop, CSCW 2016.
+* Kling, Rob and Star, Susan Leigh. [https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/1798/wp97-04B.html ''Human Centered Systems in the Perspective of Organizational and Social Informatics.''] 1997.
 * Ideo.org [http://www.designkit.org/ ''The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design.''] 2015.
@@ Line 50: / Line 51: @@
 [[HCDS_(Fall_2018)/Day_2_plan|Day 2 plan]]
-[[:File:HCDS Week 2 slides.pdf|Day 2 slides]]
+<!-- [[:File:HCDS Week 2 slides.pdf|Day 2 slides]] -->
 ;Ethical considerations: ''privacy, informed consent and user treatment''
@@ Line 63: / Line 64: @@
 ;Readings assigned
-* Read: Markham, Annette and Buchanan, Elizabeth. [https://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf ''Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Researchers.''] Association for Internet Research, 2012.
+* Read:
-* Read: Barocas, Solan and Nissenbaum, Helen. ''Big Data's End Run around Anonymity and Consent.'' In ''Privacy, Big Data, and the Public Good''. 2014. (PDF on Canvas)
 ;Homework assigned
@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 ;Resources
-* Wittkower, D.E. [http://firstmonday.org/article/view/6948/5628 Lurkers, creepers, and virtuous interactivity: From property rights to consent and care as a conceptual basis for privacy concerns and information ethics]
 * National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. [https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html ''The Belmont Report.''] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1979.
+* Markham, Annette and Buchanan, Elizabeth. [https://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf ''Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Researchers.''] Association for Internet Research, 2012.
 * Hill, Kashmir. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook-manipulated-689003-users-emotions-for-science/#6a01653e197c ''Facebook Manipulated 689,003 Users' Emotions For Science.''] Forbes, 2014.
-* Adam D. I. Kramer, Jamie E. Guillory, and Jeffrey T. [http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full ''Hancock Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks.''] PNAS 2014 111 (24) 8788-8790; published ahead of print June 2, 2014.
+* Adam D. I. Kramer, Jamie E. Guillory, and Jeffrey T. [http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full ''Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks.''] PNAS 2014 111 (24) 8788-8790; published ahead of print June 2, 2014.
 * Barbaro, Michael and Zeller, Tom. [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E0CE3DD1F3FF93AA3575BC0A9609C8B63&legacy=true ''A Face Is Exposed for AOL Searcher No. 4417749.''] New York Times, 2008.
 * Zetter, Kim. [https://www.wired.com/2012/06/wmw-arvind-narayanan/ ''Arvind Narayanan Isn’t Anonymous, and Neither Are You.''] WIRED, 2012.
@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 * Tene, Omer and Polonetsky, Jules. [https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox-privacy-and-big-data/ ''Privacy in the Age of Big Data.''] Stanford Law Review, 2012.
 * Dwork, Cynthia. [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/dwork_tamc.pdf ''Differential Privacy: A survey of results'']. Theory and Applications of Models of Computation , 2008.
-* Green, Matthew. [https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2016/06/15/what-is-differential-privacy/ ''What is Differential Privacy?''] A Few Thoughts on Cryptographic Engineering, 2016.
 * Hsu, Danny. [http://blog.datasift.com/2015/04/09/techniques-to-anonymize-human-data/ ''Techniques to Anonymize Human Data.''] Data Sift, 2015.
 * Metcalf, Jacob. [http://ethicalresolve.com/twelve-principles-of-data-ethics/ ''Twelve principles of data ethics'']. Ethical Resolve, 2016.
-* Poor, Nathaniel and Davidson, Roei. [https://cscw2016hcds.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/poor_hcds20161.pdf ''When The Data You Want Comes From Hackers, Or, Looking A Gift Horse In The Mouth'']. CSCW Human Centered Data Science Workshop, 2016.
 <br/>
 <hr/>
@@ Line 90: / Line 88: @@
 [[HCDS_(Fall_2018)/Day_3_plan|Day 3 plan]]
-[[:File:HCDS Week 3 slides.pdf|Day 3 slides]]
+<!-- [[:File:HCDS Week 3 slides.pdf|Day 3 slides]] -->
 ;Reproducibility and Accountability: ''data curation, preservation, documentation, and archiving; best practices for open scientific research''