Tal Yarkoni

Oh, that would be even better--though obviously much more work. :) I'd be happy to submit a PR for any of the above suggestions, but not sure I could take...

@Joe-Hilgard, I think it's optimistic to think this is an education issue--or at least, that can be easily solved with a few sentences of explanation. It's probably safe to assume...

I looked through the models (admittedly not very carefully, but short of trying to run them through pybids and fitlins, I don't know that my careful review is terribly helpful)...

My two cents: this feels to me like way more trouble than it's worth. Just give each stimulus a unique `stim` and/or `item` label, and then you can map between...

Regarding (1), long term, I think the cleanest way to handle this internally would be to refactor the code so that we're passing around a list of `Study` containers instead...

> I think that the issue is that, as you said, the effect is so negligible (or perhaps entirely nonexistent) that including null findings just doesn't impact the results. That's...

That's a fair point, but I'm not talking about checking for convergence to 1e-4; I just mean, e.g., correlation across voxels should be > 0.9, and summary stat estimates should...

IIRC I don't think I had a separate `nimads` module; what I had was built into the new Neurosynth back-end. I think @jdkent commented most of that code out, but...

I think ultimately the right solution to this problem is to represent the data in a more structured way that closely aligns with the NIMADS spec. I.e., `Dataset` would be...

Oh, but re: having a single `Dataset` instead of two: I think if we want to do it that way, we would probably need to introduce a new abstraction and...