andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-52 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Somebody should warn Doris Kearns Goodwin not to take any of this guy’s material. . . .
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Somebody should warn Doris Kearns Goodwin not to take any of this guy’s material. [sent-1, score-0.644]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('warn', 0.494), ('doris', 0.452), ('kearns', 0.452), ('goodwin', 0.431), ('somebody', 0.288), ('guy', 0.236), ('take', 0.15)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999994 52 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-26-Intellectual property
Introduction: Somebody should warn Doris Kearns Goodwin not to take any of this guy’s material. . . .
2 0.2005839 913 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-16-Groundhog day in August?
Introduction: A colleague writes: Due to my similar interest in plagiarism , I went to The Human Cultural and Social Landscape session. [The recipient of the American Statistical Association's Founders Award in 2002] gave the first talk in the session instead of Yasmin Said, which was modestly attended (20 or so people) and gave a sociology talk with no numbers — and no attribution to where these ideas (on Afghanistan culture) came from. Would it really have hurt to give the source of this? I’m on board with plain laziness for this one. I think he may have mentioned a number of his collaborators at the beginning, and all he talked about were cultural customs and backgrounds, no science to speak of. It’s kind of amazing to me that he actually showed up at JSM, but of course if he had any shame, he wouldn’t have repeatedly stolen copied without proper attribution in the first place. It’s not even like Doris Kearns Goodwin who reportedly produced a well-written book out of it!
3 0.11858743 1484 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-05-Two exciting movie ideas: “Second Chance U” and “The New Dirty Dozen”
Introduction: I have a great idea for a movie. Actually two movies based on two variants of a similar idea. It all started when I saw this story: Dr. Anil Potti, the controversial cancer researcher whose work at Duke University led to lawsuits from patients, is now a medical oncologist at the Cancer Center of North Dakota in Grand Forks. When asked about Dr. Potti’s controversial appointment, his new boss said : If a guy can’t get a second chance here in North Dakota, where he trained, man, you can’t get a second chance anywhere. (Link from Retraction Watch , of course.) Potti’s boss is also quoted as saying, “Most, if not all, his patients have loved him.” On the other hand, the news article reports: “The North Carolina medical board’s website lists settlements against Potti of at least $75,000.” I guess there’s no reason you can’t love a guy and still want a juicy malpractice settlement. Second Chance U I don’t give two poops about Dr. Anil Potti. But seeing the above s
4 0.10372189 902 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-12-The importance of style in academic writing
Introduction: In my comments on academic cheating , I briefly discussed the question of how some of these papers could’ve been published in the first place, given that they tend to be of low quality. (It’s rare that people plagiarize the good stuff, and, when they do—for example when a senior scholar takes credit for a junior researcher’s contributions without giving proper credit—there’s not always a paper trail, and there can be legitimate differences of opinion about the relative contributions of the participants.) Anyway, to get back to the cases at hand: how did these rulebreakers get published in the first place? The question here is not how did they get away with cheating but how is it that top journals were publishing mediocre research? In the case of the profs who falsified data (Diederik Stapel) or did not follow scientific protocol (Mark Hauser), the answer is clear: By cheating, they were able to get the sort of too-good-to-be-true results which, if they were true, would be
5 0.08768633 1026 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-25-Bayes wikipedia update
Introduction: I checked and somebody went in and screwed up my fixes to the wikipedia page on Bayesian inference. I give up.
6 0.087613195 1044 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-06-The K Foundation burns Cosma’s turkey
7 0.086204477 258 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-05-A review of a review of a review of a decade
8 0.081707306 763 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-13-Inventor of Connect Four dies at 91
9 0.079844736 1867 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-22-To Throw Away Data: Plagiarism as a Statistical Crime
10 0.079572372 290 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-22-Data Thief
11 0.077432707 1954 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-24-Too Good To Be True: The Scientific Mass Production of Spurious Statistical Significance
12 0.075028688 751 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-08-Another Wegman plagiarism
13 0.073087431 528 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-21-Elevator shame is a two-way street
14 0.062516756 767 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-15-Error in an attribution of an error
15 0.054573748 430 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-25-The von Neumann paradox
16 0.054561291 2234 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-05-Plagiarism, Arizona style
17 0.053547166 75 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-08-“Is the cyber mob a threat to freedom?”
18 0.051911533 1207 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-10-A quick suggestion
19 0.050907843 1882 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-03-The statistical properties of smart chains (and referral chains more generally)
20 0.050565545 733 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-27-Another silly graph
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.018), (1, -0.023), (2, -0.014), (3, 0.008), (4, -0.004), (5, 0.005), (6, 0.031), (7, -0.011), (8, 0.008), (9, -0.002), (10, 0.006), (11, -0.021), (12, -0.005), (13, 0.0), (14, -0.006), (15, -0.006), (16, 0.008), (17, -0.013), (18, 0.025), (19, -0.017), (20, -0.008), (21, -0.011), (22, 0.004), (23, 0.004), (24, 0.001), (25, -0.021), (26, -0.02), (27, -0.002), (28, -0.013), (29, 0.002), (30, 0.041), (31, 0.033), (32, 0.011), (33, 0.042), (34, 0.025), (35, -0.002), (36, 0.009), (37, -0.017), (38, 0.011), (39, 0.033), (40, -0.01), (41, 0.008), (42, 0.029), (43, 0.015), (44, -0.022), (45, -0.024), (46, 0.001), (47, 0.004), (48, 0.003), (49, -0.009)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.98247355 52 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-26-Intellectual property
Introduction: Somebody should warn Doris Kearns Goodwin not to take any of this guy’s material. . . .
2 0.68435276 766 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-14-Last Wegman post (for now)
Introduction: John Mashey points me to a news article by Eli Kintisch with the following wonderful quote: Will Happer, a physicist at Princeton University who questions the consensus view on climate, thinks Mashey is a destructive force who uses “totalitarian tactics”–publishing damaging documents online, without peer review–to carry out personal vendettas. I’ve never thought of uploading files as “totalitarian” but maybe they do things differently at Princeton. I actually think of totalitarians as acting secretly–denunciations without evidence, midnight arrests, trials in undisclosed locations, and so forth. Mashey’s practice of putting everything out in the open seems to me the opposite of totalitarian. The article also reports that Edward Wegman’s lawyer said that Wegman “has never engaged in plagiarism.” If I were the lawyer, I’d be pretty mad at Wegman at this point. I can just imagine the conversation: Lawyer: You never told me about that 2005 paper where you stole from Bria
3 0.68104076 1568 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-07-That last satisfaction at the end of the career
Introduction: I just finished reading an amusing but somewhat disturbing article by Mark Singer, a reporter for the New Yorker who follows in that magazine’s tradition of writing about amiable frauds. (For those who are keeping score at home, Singer employs a McKelway-style relaxed tolerance rather than Liebling-style pyrotechnics.) Singer’s topic was a midwestern dentist named Kip Litton who fradulently invented a side career for himself as a sub-3-hour marathoner. What was amazing was not so much that Litton lied about his accomplishments but, rather, the huge efforts that he undertook to support these lies. He went to faraway cities to not run marathons. He fabricated multiple personas on running message boards. He even invented an entire marathon and made up a list of participants. This got me thinking about Ed Wegman (sorry!), the statistician who got tangled in a series of plagiarism scandals . As with Litton, once Wegman was caught once, energetic people looked at the records and
4 0.67366219 1324 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-16-Wikipedia author confronts Ed Wegman
Introduction: Wegman: “It’s not reprinted 100 percent like you had it.” Wikipedia guy: “No, you added another paragraph at the end and you changed the headline. . . . You even copied the typos that I’ve corrected on my website. It was taken verbatim and reprinted in your paper.” The original author got a check for $500 but, unfortunately, no free subscription to “Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics” (a $1400-$2800 value ). P.S. To those who think I’m being mean to Wegman: I haven’t yet heard that he’s apologized to the people whose work he copied without attribution, or to the people who spent their time tracking all this down, or to the U.S. Congress for misrepresenting his expertise in his official report. Everyone makes mistakes, and just about everyone has ethical lapses at times. But when you get caught you’re supposed to make apology and restitution.
5 0.65725869 1236 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-29-Resolution of Diederik Stapel case
Introduction: A correspondent writes: A brief update on the Stapel scandal . It seems that the Dutch universities involved were really determined to get to the bottom of this. A first part of the outcomes of the investigations are online (in English). Several “commissions” or “committees” (I guess no proper English but this is the way scandals are sorted out in Dutch politics too) were established to investigate the matter. The first commission to report is the commissie Levelt: https://www.commissielevelt.nl/ The most interesting part is this I guess: https://www.commissielevelt.nl/levelt-committee/fraud-determined/ This concerns only the articles investigated by that commission. The others (Noort and Drenth) are expected to report in the coming months. I [the correspondent] feel sorry for Stapel, but the amount of fraud is sizeable. I like the way the universities handle this—especially that they are fairly transparent. Interesting. This all seems like overkill given how obvio
6 0.6211921 913 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-16-Groundhog day in August?
7 0.60948354 728 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-24-A (not quite) grand unified theory of plagiarism, as applied to the Wegman case
8 0.59851408 400 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-08-Poli sci plagiarism update, and a note about the benefits of not caring
9 0.58643049 1266 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-16-Another day, another plagiarist
10 0.57737046 1442 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-03-Double standard? Plagiarizing journos get slammed, plagiarizing profs just shrug it off
11 0.56985086 1639 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-26-Impersonators
12 0.56527686 751 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-08-Another Wegman plagiarism
13 0.56430352 722 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-20-Why no Wegmania?
14 0.56256253 1210 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-12-Plagiarists are in the habit of lying
15 0.55011231 1867 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-22-To Throw Away Data: Plagiarism as a Statistical Crime
16 0.54812175 1073 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-20-Not quite getting the point
17 0.54173303 297 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-27-An interesting education and statistics blog
19 0.53551155 528 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-21-Elevator shame is a two-way street
20 0.53215277 1440 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-02-“A Christmas Carol” as applied to plagiarism
topicId topicWeight
[(16, 0.195), (25, 0.525)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.95884538 52 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-26-Intellectual property
Introduction: Somebody should warn Doris Kearns Goodwin not to take any of this guy’s material. . . .
2 0.66112071 264 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-08-Tortoise is planning to vote Republican this year
Introduction: Details here. P.S. No update on Ed Park or Vin Scully .
3 0.41590759 1741 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-27-Thin scientists say it’s unhealthy to be fat
Introduction: “Even as you get near the upper reaches of the normal weight range, you begin to see increases in chronic diseases,” said JoAnn Manson, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, HMS Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, and HSPH professor of epidemiology. “It’s a clear gradient of increase.” Yeah, she would say that. Thin people. And then there’s Frank Hu, professor of nutrition at Harvard: The studies that Flegal [the author of the original study finding a negative correlation between body mass index and mortality] did use included many samples of people who were chronically ill, current smokers and elderly, according to Hu. These factors are associated with weight loss and increased mortality. In other words, people are not dying because they are slim, he said. They are slim because they are dying—of cancer or old age, for example. By doing a meta-analysis of studies that did not properly control for this bias, Flegal amplif
4 0.4093352 821 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-25-See me talk in the Upper West Side (without graphs) today
Introduction: At Picnic Cafe, Broadway at 101 St, 6-7pm today. Should we vote even though it probably won’t make a difference? Why is the question “Are we better off now than four years ago?” not an appeal to selfishness? Are Americans as polarized as we think? Come explore these and other questions about voting in America today. It’s the usual stuff but close-up so lots of opportunity to argue and heckle. No slides or graphs. My plan is to hand out 30-50 index cards, each with a phrase (for example, “Moderation in the pursuit of moderation is no vice” or “Gerrymandering is good for you” or “How to predict elections”), then participants can call out topics and I’ll yap on them (with discussion) till we run out of time. It’ll be weird to talk without graphs. We’ll see how it goes.
5 0.34853816 1745 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-02-Classification error
Introduction: 15-2040 != 19-3010 (and, for that matter, 25-1022 != 25-1063).
6 0.34506866 1026 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-25-Bayes wikipedia update
7 0.31895202 572 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-14-Desecration of valuable real estate
8 0.31679472 1014 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-16-Visualizations of NYPD stop-and-frisk data
9 0.31497073 398 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-06-Quote of the day
10 0.30395973 528 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-21-Elevator shame is a two-way street
11 0.30391583 1115 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-12-Where are the larger-than-life athletes?
12 0.29414958 1659 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-07-Some silly things you (didn’t) miss by not reading the sister blog
13 0.29074222 445 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-03-Getting a job in pro sports… as a statistician
14 0.28578728 1279 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-24-ESPN is looking to hire a research analyst
15 0.28426835 1304 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-06-Picking on Stephen Wolfram
16 0.28399539 1697 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-29-Where 36% of all boys end up nowadays
17 0.28377762 353 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-19-The violent crime rate was about 75% higher in Detroit than in Minneapolis in 2009
18 0.27806219 1366 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-05-How do segregation measures change when you change the level of aggregation?
20 0.27544561 1180 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-22-I’m officially no longer a “rogue”