Present: Tim, Carol, Jane, Arran, Helen, Tejala, Julia, Alex

Apologies: Nina

Agenda:

  1. TaNC evaluations - see email in notes (Added by Nina who is now on leave: I will check in with team availability on return. I have created an ‘Evaluation’ sub-folder in the One Drive AHRC meeting folder).
  2. Notion subscription renewal
  3. GitHub documentation (AMS adds following a slack discussion : shall we also set up a HuggingFace organisation page (similar to https://huggingface.co/Livingwithmachines ) so we can upload ML models and datasets ? links with GitHub pages will also be enabled)
  4. Anything on the conference? Streaming advertising to staff? Recordings?
  5. AOB
    1. CRediT taxonomy meeting
    2. For information: Response to UCL Press referees

Notes:

  1. ‘Dear Tim and Katerina, I was passed on your details by Michelle Forster-Davies to be in touch with you concerning the TaNC programme evaluation. As I mentioned in the TaNC partners meeting on 11 September we are at the stage of picking up with Discovery Projects to make arrangements for evaluation sessions. We will facilitate a session with 5 to 7 people involved in Congruence Engine. This would be held online for 90 minutes. Once date and time has been established we will set up a Zoom meeting invite for you to share with participants. There’s nothing for participants to prepare in advance. We will have prepared a discussion guide with questions and prompts covering: Background and introduction TaNC Views on TaNC objectives Project reflections relevant for the Programme evaluation Experience of collaboration Suggestions to inform future progress Wrap up The privacy notice for participants is attached. To give you a feel of outputs, this is the report from the interim evaluation Impact Evaluation Interim Report (Towards a National Collection) (zenodo.org) Please get back to me this week to confirm you have received this and your sense of what timings would be best for those involved in your project. Following this, please can you be in touch with potential participants from your project to determine a date and time. Between our team, we can accommodate any date and time that suits your side. Do let me know if you have any questions or requests for us. Best regards, Fiona’

Tim to follow up with Fiona about the intended audience and aims of the evaluation before we suggest people. 2. How many months do we want to renew this for - an entire year might be too long and expensive? How long will it take to archive everything on Notion?

Reduce the number of people who have ‘paid for’ accounts (Tim and Carol) and then invite everyone else. Renew for the year then. 3. We need to ensure this happens. The xls here (derived from AMS’s googledrive doc) includes some points of discussion, including Tasha’s ‘concerns raised about sharing data/code’. This is something ARPM should be discussing.

As part of the obligations we have toward AHRC, we need to ensure there is something the represent the work. Alex notes it is possible to create closed repos that can be opened at a later point. Both Tim and Jane to have conversations with the team.

*Reminder to people that AMS is around for a few weeks only and if they want support with these, it needs to happen now.*

CE_GitHub_Pages_Tracking document.xlsx

  1. Streaming service now in place for the conference. Julia has sent to all CE people and CE-linked people. Carol has passed onto Vicky who does the newsletter. Tim suggests sending onto all other SMG staff via Angela. Carol to follow that up. AR to check an email sent by Julia to see if all partners were included in the email. Recording of the session being worked through. Julia and Max looking into it. Congruence Engine treatment has been applied to the programme and we will have the treatment assets soon and Julia will share with all speakers. Tim and Rachel to do welcome on the day.

  2. AOB

    1. Arran met with Alex R, Anna-Maria, Jon A to discuss how we go about using the CRediT taxonomy. Draft plan is:
      1. Email all lead authors and ask them to do a first round of how people should be credited beyond text authorship
      2. ARPM to have a look and see if anyone is blatantly missing
      3. Add CRediT suggestions to Notion and send around a form for people to express where they think they (or others) should be credited, but haven’t been yet.
      4. Agreed that the CRediT statement should not be in an endnote for publications, but as a CRediT statement at the start of the chapters.
    2. Response to reviewers

    Boon et al_proposal reviews & TMB response.docx

    c.