Juniper

@juniperbevensee

She/her. Lesbian. Andrew Torba called me a "tranny demon hacker". AI enjoyer. Decentralisation / agency / decol juniperbevensee.com 🫀

984 Following1,039 Followers3,332 Posts

Bluesky

lesbian

Is this your profile?Claim it and juniperbevensee.dirty.social is yours.Claim profile

Juniper@juniperbevensee· Jul 6

Love yr mistakes

Juniper@juniperbevensee· Jul 6

Hailey inspired me "it's a rainy day pick something nice". Ramen was a great choice.

A bot ordering me ramen on DoorDash from signal

Juniper@juniperbevensee· Jul 5

check dis out p cool for local models!!

and assign each call/syllable to clusters, then in the PCA clustering GUI we can annotate and re-cluster (and maybe add new categories to the ones provided from the literature). The clusters we manually output from the PCA clustering GUI w... Read more
9m

1 Unread Message
MA

⁨Matilde - Science Agent⁩
Understood — thanks for the correction, Azure. Let me walk through my pipeline exactly as I see it now in practice:
Phase 1 (current deployed version):
- For Kākā — use Tirth Vaishnav's literature-derived category set provided directly to our matching layer.
- For korimako/Tūī — no fixed categories from a paper; instead, we rely on manual labelling by Juni/Azure in the template GUI plus my PCA clustering step later as described under part 6 above: (1) canonical examples built either by Tirth's input or via our manual labels, (2) those fed into matching to assign calls/syllables initially, (3) then PCA clusters surfaced and annotated/reclustered with new categories added if needed.
- The kākā "49 number" — unclear what that refers to in my current logic; I could not verify the source... Read more

Juniper@juniperbevensee· Jul 5

The more I avoid ad hominem and try to patiently inform the more I get blocked lol. I wanted to just say >ngmi

Juniper@juniperbevensee· Jul 2

I see we got the exact same softly kink coded necklace in our trans girl starter pack

Smiling boyish trans girl Lezbo w leather and pearl necklace

Juniper@juniperbevensee· Jul 1

I've discovered ancient emojis from a dead civilization!!! Inscrutable UI. Very inspirational.

Busted old DS white and blue ux w 4 square emojis

Juniper@juniperbevensee· Jun 30

I made a Duolingo game for Aotearoa's native birdsong 😅 it's from real science. I'll release it all later.

Te reo Manu. Five levels starting at sounds and ending at regional dialects.

Spectrogram encodings of bird song pieces as multi choice

Juniper@juniperbevensee· Jun 28

Rate my setup Allende

Juniper@juniperbevensee· Jun 25

I feel particularly sassy about this OAI side swipe from the blogpost:

When OpenAI staggered the mathematics community with a novel counterexample to a notoriously difficult Erdős problem, they also refused to publish the entire chain of thought. We believe in science not enclosure, so we shared everything. The frank limitations of our study, the dataset, the encodings, the conversation, the tool calls, and even the reasoning itself.

Juniper@juniperbevensee· Jun 24

***** < 24 hours !!! *****

soft brown background and jewel tone bar graphs:

This wasn't one query. Over 20.6 hours Matilde answered 42 prompts with 351 autonomous tool calls — and most of them went to reading the literature, not crunching Reddit. The full reasoning trace is published; this is its shape.
351
Tool calls
42
Human prompts
8.4
Calls / prompt
18
Distinct tools
20.6h
Span of work
Where the effort went
Literature & web research
230
Code & data
85
Browsing sources
20
Planning & coordination
9
Citation checking
7
Literature & web research
230
Code & data
85
Browsing sources
20
Planning & coordination
9
Citation checking
7

Juniper@juniperbevensee· Jun 22

Fam!!! We took open data and successfully ran an independent autonomous audit 😭

TEST 2: BRAIN SCAN ANALYSIS

This one is bigger. We had Matilde independently analyze real brain imaging data (MEG -- a technique that measures magnetic fields from brain activity). Specifically, we asked it to check for the "M100" -- a well-known brain response that happens about 80-120 milliseconds after you hear a sound. It's one of the most reliably reproduced findings in neuroscience.

On the first try (meg-1), we gave it too little data (30 seconds), and it correctly said "I can't find the M100 here" rather than faking a result. On the second try (meg-2), with more data (90 seconds, 56 trials), it found the peak at 115 ms -- right in the expected window. Textbook result.

THE BIG PICTURE: We demonstrated that an AI agent can take a published dataset, run a real neuroscience analysis pipeline from scratch, and independently verify whether a known scientific finding holds up -- all automatically. That's a building block for making science reproducible at scale, which is exactly what you're going after with NimbleCo.

Juniper@juniperbevensee· Jun 22

Now it's doing a lit review on a topic and pulling relevant datasets to start independent data analysis. So from here we could independently audit existing findings. Search for and publish for unpublishable null hypothesis. Or conduct novel research.

Found two strong candidates. Let me verify both and fetch open-access links.

MA

Here's your starter kit for an MEG auditory processing study:

---

DATASET: ds000246 — "MEG-BIDS Brainstorm data sample"

- Modalities: MEG + MRI
- Tasks: AEF (auditory evoked field) + noise (empty room)
- Subjects: 1
- Size: ~2.5 GB
- Format: BIDS
- Authors: Bock, Donhauser, Tadel, Niso, Baillet

This is a well-established sample dataset with an auditory evoked field paradigm — directly relevant to your study for piloting analysis pipelines, testing source localization, etc.

---

KEY PAPERS (both verified, neither retracted):

[1] Tadel F, Baillet S, Mosher JC, Pantazis D, Leahy RM. "Brainstorm: A User-Friendly Application for MEG/EEG Analysis." Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2011.
DOI: 10.1155/2011/879716
Verdict: VERIFIED (0.9/1.0) — not retracted, cited 3,309 times
Full text (OA, CC-BY): https://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/cin/2011/879716.pdf
Why it matters: This is the toolbox paper for Brainstorm, the software tied to ds000246. Essential reference if you use Brainstorm for your analysis.

[2] Hari R, Salmelin R. "Magnetoencephalography: From SQUIDs to neuroscience." NeuroImage 61(2), 386–396, 2012.
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.074
Verdict: VERIFIED (0.9/1.0) — not retracted, cited 241 times
Full text (OA, CC-BY-NC-ND): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.074
Why it matters: Comprehensive review of MEG methodology with extensive coverage of auditory cortex research — ideal for your introduction/background section.

---

Both citations are clean and both have open-access full text available. Want me to dig into the dataset files, extract content from either paper, or search for more specialized papers on a particular aspect of auditory MEG processing?

Juniper@juniperbevensee· Jun 22

Catching a retraction:

Is this paper retracted? Wakefield et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 1998. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0
2m

MA

⁨Matilde - Science Agent⁩
Yes — this paper is RETRACTED.

The Wakefield et al. 1998 Lancet paper (DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0) was formally retracted by The Lancet in 2010. It's one of the most well-known retractions in modern scientific history. The paper falsely suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, and was found to involve ethical violations and data manipulation. Wakefield was subsequently struck off the UK medical register.

If you're encountering this citation in a manuscript or reference list, it must be either removed or explicitly noted as retracted, depending on context. It should never be cited as supporting evidence for any claim.
2m

HC

⁨Hermes (Cyborg)⁩
@. Verify this whole bibliography please: (1) doi:10.1038/171737a0 (2) doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0 (3) doi:10.1038/nn.99999999 (4) Hodgkin AL, Huxley AF. A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. J Physiol 1952. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1952.sp004764
1m

MA

⁨Matilde - Science Agent⁩
Here's the full bibliography audit:

SUMMARY: 4 references checked — 2 verified, 1 retracted, 1 not found. Two need attention.

[1] Watson & Crick — DNA structure (Nature 1953)
VERIFIED (0.9/1.0)
DOI resolves, metadata matches, not retracted. Cited 10,423 times.

[2] Wakefield et al. — MMR/autism (Lancet 1998)
RETRACTED (0.1/1.0)
The paper exists but was formally retracted by The Lancet in 2010. The title in Crossref is now prefixed "RETRACTED:". Must be removed or explicitly flagged as retracted in any manuscript.

[3] Smith — Quantum effects in neural microtubules (Nat Neurosci 2021)
NOT FOUND (0.1/1.0)
DOI 10.1038/nn.99999999 does not resolve anywhere. Likely

Juniper@juniperbevensee· Jun 22

My science agent correctly catching a fake citation. Also note that I have one agent calling the science agent autonomously to run it through a series of tests i designed:

Can you verify this one? Smith J. Quantum effects in neural microtubules. Nature Neuroscience 2021. doi:10.1038/nn.99999999
4m

MA

⁨Matilde - Science Agent⁩
This one does NOT check out.

VERDICT: Not Found (score 0.1/1.0)

Four-axis check:

1. Existence — FAIL. The DOI 10.1038/nn.99999999 does not resolve in Crossref, OpenAlex, or DataCite. It is likely fabricated or incorrect.

2. Metadata match — Unknown. No record exists to compare against.

3. Retraction — Unknown. Can't check retraction status for a nonexistent DOI.

4. URL liveness — Not checked (no URL supplied).

Bottom line: This reference cannot be verified and should not be cited. The DOI appears to be invalid — it follows the Nature Neuroscience prefix pattern (10.1038/nn.) but the suffix is nonsensical.

This is the kind of citation that LLMs are known to hallucinate — a plausible-looking title, a real journal, a real-format DOI, but none of it corresponds to an actual publication. If you encountered this in a manuscript or generated text, I'd flag it for removal or replacement with a real, verified source.

Want me to search for real papers on quantum effects in microtubules? There is genuine (if contested) literature on that topic.

Juniper@juniperbevensee· Jun 19

Ed Zitron fans have got to be some of my fave modern contortionists. (tfw I brought up Ed not knowing the difference bw front and backend dev)

Juniper@juniperbevensee· Jun 18

Okay so i have this semi autonomous fully modular gardener that i can log into from anywhere and it made me think, hey these things can write on demand GUIs with real abilities, what if i just asked my osint bot to write/serve me a dashboard of our investigations. 😱😵🤯