IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE MAKING OF REGIONAL REGULATIONS IN NORTH KOLAKA REGENCY ACCORDING TO ACT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA NO. 12/2011 CONCERNING THE MAKING OF LEGISLATION

The making of legislation has recently become a subject of discussion among communities, such as the very low level of community participation, arbitrary actions in the making of laws and regulations, the establishment of legislation that seems to be a rushed law product, the Covid-19 pandemic that restrict people to have a gathering to capture the community aspirations, and the establishment of all forms of regulations under the act that may affect people’s mobility in social life.The present study aims to find out the roots of problem concerning the extent of public participation in the making of regional regulations in North Kolaka Regency, Kendari, Indonesia. Therefore, it is expected that the legislation will be issued in accordance with the will of community and the Act of the Republic of Indonesia No. 12/2011 concerning the Making of Legislation, as amended by the Act of the Republic of Indonesia No. 15/2011 concerning Amendments to the Act of the Republic of Indonesia No. 12/2011 concerning the Making of Legislation.The author employed the combination of normative legal research and empirical legal research as the type of this study. The results indicated that the regional regulations that have been ratified will not be well applicable and effective at the implementation level, since they are not in accordance with the instructions for the making of regional regulations as regulated in the legislation. The presence of regional regulations that do not accommodate all the public interests as well as the low level of public participation will then create a new problem among community. For this reason, more comprehensive public involvement is needed, whether in the form of public sharing, FGD (Focus Group Discussion), or the help of experts in Bapemperda and Regional Government who specifically handle the issue on the making of regional regulations. Keywords: Participation, Public, Regional Regulations

P.021 Electdetect: An Artificial Neural Network for the Detection of Artifacts in intracranial EEG Recordings From Patients with Epilepsy

Background: Intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) recordings are obtained from the sampling of sub-cortical structures and provide extraordinary insight into the spatiotemporal dynamics of the brain. As these recordings are increasingly obtained at higher channel counts and greater sampling frequencies, preprocessing through visual inspection is becoming untenable. Consequently, artificial neural networks (ANNs) are now being leveraged for this task. Methods: One-hour recordings from six patients diagnosed with drug-resistant epilepsy at Toronto Western Hospital were obtained alongside fiduciary ECG and EOG activity. R-wave peaks and local maxima were identified in the ECG and EOG recordings, respectively, and were time-mapped onto the iEEG recordings to delimit one-second epochs around 1.6 million cardiac and 600 thousand ocular artifacts. Epochs were then split into train-test-evaluation sets and fed into an ANN as one-second spectrograms (0 - 1,000 Hz) over 30-time steps. Results: The ANN model achieved formidable classification results on the evaluation set with an F1, positive predictive value, and sensitivity scores of 0.93. Furthermore, model architecture computed the classification probability at each time-step and enabled insight into the spatiotemporal features driving classification. Conclusions: We expect this research to promote the public sharing of new ANN from multiple institutions and enable novel automated algorithms for artifact detection in iEEG recordings.

ToxPi*GIS Toolkit: Creating, viewing, and sharing integrative visualizations for geospatial data using ArcGIS

Background: Presenting a comprehensive picture of geographic data comprising multiple factors is an inherently integrative undertaking. Visualizing such data in an interactive form is essential for public sharing and geographic information systems (GIS) analysis. The Toxicological Prioritization Index (ToxPi) framework has been used as an integrative model layered atop geospatial data, and its deployment within the dynamic ArcGIS universe would open up powerful new avenues for sophisticated, interactive GIS analysis. Objective: We propose an actively developed suite of software, the ToxPi*GIS Toolkit, for creating, viewing, sharing, and analyzing interactive ToxPi figures in ArcGIS. Methods: The ToxPi*GIS Toolkit is a collection of methods for creating interactive feature layers that contain ToxPi diagrams. It currently includes an ArcGIS Toolbox (ToxPiToolbox.tbx) for drawing geographically located ToxPi diagrams onto a feature layer, a collection of modular Python scripts that create predesigned layer files containing ToxPi feature layers from the command line, and a collection of Python routines for useful data manipulation and preprocessing. We present workflows documenting ToxPi feature layer creation, sharing, and embedding for both novice and advanced users looking for additional customizability. Results: Map visualizations created with the ToxPi*GIS Toolkit can be made freely available on public URLs, allowing users without ArcGIS Pro access or expertise to view and interact with them. Novice users with ArcGIS Pro access can create de novo custom maps, and advanced users can exploit additional customization options. The ArcGIS Toolbox provides a simple means for generating ToxPi feature layers. We illustrate its usage with current COVID-19 data to compare drivers of pandemic vulnerability in counties across the United States. Significance: Development of new features, which will advance the interests of the scientific community in many fields, is ongoing for the ToxPi*GIS Toolkit, which can be accessed from www.toxpi.org.

Rates and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: Protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

Numerous studies have demonstrated low but increasing rates of data and code sharing within medical and health research disciplines. However, it remains unclear how commonly data and code are shared across all fields of medical and health research, as well as whether sharing rates are positively associated with implementation of progressive policies by publishers and funders, or growing expectations from the medical and health research community at large. Therefore this systematic review aims to synthesise the findings of medical and health science studies that have empirically investigated the prevalence of data or code sharing, or both. Objectives include the investigation of: (i) the prevalence of public sharing of research data and code alongside published articles (including preprints), (ii) the prevalence of private sharing of research data and code in response to reasonable requests, and (iii) factors associated with the sharing of either research output (e.g., the year published, the publisher’s policy on sharing, the presence of a data or code availability statement). It is hoped that the results will provide some insight into how often research data and code are shared publicly and privately, how this has changed over time, and how effective some measures such as the institution of data sharing policies and data availability statements have been in motivating researchers to share their underlying data and code.

Embedding open and reproducible science into teaching: A bank of lesson plans and resources

Recently, there has been a growing emphasis on embedding open and reproducible approaches into research. One essential step in accomplishing this larger goal is to embed such practices into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. However, this often requires substantial time and resources to implement. Also, while many pedagogical resources are regularly developed for this purpose, they are not often openly and actively shared with the wider community. The creation and public sharing of open educational resources is useful for educators who wish to embed open scholarship and reproducibility into their teaching and learning. In this article, we describe and openly share a bank of teaching resources and lesson plans on the broad topics of open scholarship, open science, replication, and reproducibility that can be integrated into taught courses, to support educators and instructors. These resources were created as part of the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS) hackathon at the 2021 Annual Conference, and we detail this collaborative process in the article. By sharing these open pedagogical resources, we aim to reduce the labour required to develop and implement open scholarship content to further the open scholarship and open educational materials movement.

Rates and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: Protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

Numerous studies have demonstrated low but increasing rates of data and code sharing within medical and health research disciplines. However it remains unclear how commonly data and code are shared across all fields of medical and health research, as well as whether sharing rates are positively associated with implementation of progressive policies by publishers and funders, or growing expectations from the medical and health research community at large. Therefore this systematic review aims to synthesise the findings of medical and health science studies that have empirically investigated the prevalence of data or code sharing, or both. Objectives include the investigation of: (i) the prevalence of public sharing of research data and code alongside published articles (including preprints), (ii) the prevalence of private sharing of research data and code in response to reasonable requests, and (iii) factors associated with the sharing of either research output (e.g., the year published, the publisher’s policy on sharing, the presence of a data or code availability statement). It is hoped that the results will provide some insight into how often research data and code are shared publicly and privately, how this has changed over time, and how effective some measures such as the institution of data sharing policies and data availability statements have been in motivating researchers to share their underlying data and code.

Evidence of misuse of nonparametric tests in the presence of heteroscedasticity within obesity research

Background: Classic nonparametric tests (cNPTs), like Kruskal–Wallis or Mann–Whitney U, are sometimes used to detect differences in central tendency (i.e., means or medians). However, when the tests’ assumptions are violated, such as in the presence of unequal variance and other forms of heteroscedasticity, they are no longer valid for testing differences in central tendency. Yet, sometimes researchers erroneously use cNPTs to account for heteroscedasticity. Objective: To document the appropriateness of cNPT use in obesity literature, characterize studies that use cNPTs, and evaluate the citation and public sharing patterns of these articles. Methods: We reviewed obesity studies published in 2017 to determine whether the authors used cNPTs: (1) to correct for heteroscedasticity (invalid); (2) when heteroscedasticity was clearly not present (correct); or (3) when it was unclear whether heteroscedasticity was present (unclear). Open science R packages were used to transparently search literature and extract data on how often papers with errors have been cited in academic literature, read in Mendeley, and disseminated in the media. Results: We identified nine studies that used a cNPT in the presence of heteroscedasticity (some because of the mistaken rationale that the test corrected for heteroscedasticity), 25 articles that did not explicitly state whether heteroscedasticity was present when a cNPT was used, and only four articles that appropriately reported that heteroscedasticity was not present when a cNPT was used. Errors were found in observational and interventional studies, in human and rodent studies, and only when studies were unregistered. Studies with errors have been cited 113 times, read in Mendeley 123 times, and disseminated in the media 41 times, by the public, scientists, science communicators, and doctors. Conclusions: Examples of inappropriate use of cNPTs exist in the obesity literature, and those articles perpetuate the errors via various audiences and dissemination platforms.

A survey of code sharing practice and policy in computational biology

Sharing of code supports reproducible research but fewer journals have policies on code sharing compared to data sharing, and there is little evidence on researchers’ attitudes and experiences with code sharing. Before introducing a stronger policy on sharing of code, the Editors and publisher of the journal PLOS Computational Biology wished to test, via an online survey, the suitability of a proposed mandatory code sharing policy with its community of authors. Previous research has established, in 2019, 41% of papers in the journal linked to shared code. We also wanted to understand the potential impact of the proposed policy on authors' submissions to the journal, and their concerns about code sharing.We received 214 completed survey responses, all of whom had generated code in their research previously. 80% had published in PLOS Computational Biology and 88% of whom were based in Europe or North America. Overall, respondents reported they were more likely to submit to the journal if it had a mandatory code sharing policy and US researchers were more positive than the average for all respondents. Researchers whose main discipline is Medicine and Health sciences viewed the proposed policy less favourably, as did the most senior researchers (those with more than 100 publications) compared to early and mid-career researchers.The authors surveyed report that, on average, 71% of their research articles have associated code, and that for the average author, code has not been shared for 32% of these papers. The most common reasons for not sharing code previously are practical issues, which are unlikely to prevent compliance with the policy. A lack of time to share code was the most common reason. 22% of respondents who had not shared their code in the past cited intellectual property (IP) concerns - a concern that might prevent public sharing of code under a mandatory code sharing policy. The results also imply that 18% of the respondents’ previous publications did not have the associated code shared and IP concerns were not cited, suggesting more papers in the journal could share code.To remain inclusive of all researchers in the community, the policy was designed to allow researchers who can demonstrate they are legally restricted from sharing their code to be granted an exemption to public sharing of code.As a secondary goal of the survey we wanted to determine if researchers have unmet needs in their ability to share their own code, and to access other researchers' code. Consistent with our previous research on data sharing, we found potential opportunities for new products or features that support code accessibility or reuse. We found researchers were on average satisfied with their ability to share their own code, suggesting that offering new products or features to support sharing in the absence of a stronger policy would not increase the availability of code with the journal's publications.

Stars, Rainbows, and Michael Myers: The Carnivalesque Intersection of Play and Horror in Kindergarteners’ (Trade)marking and (Copy)writing

Background Research on children's play asserts that children's identities are performed and (re)formed in peer groups where they try out identities and make sense of their social worlds. Yet there are kinds of play (e.g., violence, gore, sexuality, and consumer culture) that are often hidden and taken underground, deemed inappropriate for public spaces. These underground spaces are potentially revolutionary (#playrevolution) as children disrupt power hierarchies and regulatory boundaries in both subtle and overt ways. These spaces are important for children who are consistently marginalized by intersecting identities, further complicated by negative perceptions attached to certain topics constituting dark play. Thus, what if we look beyond labeling certain play episodes “inappropriate” and consider how children produce and enact culture? What seems nonsensical and irrational to the adult gaze is about creative participation, agency, and autonomy for children. Focus Bakhtin described “carnival” as a countercultural space where folk ideologies dominated, hierarchies were removed, and people engaged in joyful laughter, playful mockery, and the enactment of various discourses. This unofficial space allowed for multiple voices, giving individuals an opportunity to (re)create identities in dialogue with others. For young children, free play can be considered carnivalesque—children learn to disrupt social structures and norms, question authority and power, test boundaries, and understand conflict. Taking up Bakhtin's notion of carnival, this study examines the lived experiences of young children as they construct (counter)cultural spaces of creativity, play, and resistance. Research Design Drawing from a five-month qualitative study in a Midwestern kindergarten classroom, I take up Bakhtin's notion of carnival, or the practices of everyday individuals when free from authority or boundaries. Data for this project were collected during writing workshop times, occurring 3 to 5 times per week for 45–90 minutes; the sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed, and writing samples were collected daily. The focus is on five children who sat together at the same table; limited to their table space, they navigated around curriculum while collectively cultivating their own cultural community. Through an analysis of artifacts, written texts, transcriptions, and popular media content, this study examines how children destabilize hierarchies and subvert the authority of traditional and “appropriate” genres. Conclusions Children actively took up tools and ideas from horror story genres (e.g., chainsaws, blood, and masks), while their local context served as the setting for their own stories: the nearby high school, Halloween parties, and popular costumes. They remixed stories to include curricular demands (e.g., true stories) with popular culture interests. However, they did not reveal these seemingly “inappropriate” topics to their teacher and the demands of school literacy. Their resulting written stories were not pictures of chainsaws, bloody deaths, and killer dolls: They were “masked” by attempts at writing letters underneath pictures of houses, trees, cars, rainbows, and people. Arguably, the children knew how to navigate the official space of school, understanding which ideas were appropriate for their secret conversations and which were appropriate for public sharing. In the midst of their play, children learned how to write from one another: Certain words were borrowed across the table, pictures (e.g., rainbows) symbolized common practices, and storylines were “copied” and reappropriated from others. These literacy attempts were trademarked and encoded on their written texts to signify belonging and participation at the intersection of popular culture and play.