andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-332 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Martin Lindquist writes that he and others are trying to start a new ASA section on statistics in imaging. If you’re interested in being a signatory to its formation, please send him an email.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Martin Lindquist writes that he and others are trying to start a new ASA section on statistics in imaging. [sent-1, score-0.916]
2 If you’re interested in being a signatory to its formation, please send him an email. [sent-2, score-0.564]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('lindquist', 0.486), ('formation', 0.458), ('asa', 0.41), ('martin', 0.31), ('send', 0.221), ('section', 0.214), ('email', 0.2), ('please', 0.199), ('start', 0.161), ('interested', 0.144), ('trying', 0.141), ('others', 0.138), ('statistics', 0.102), ('new', 0.087), ('re', 0.087), ('writes', 0.073)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 332 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-10-Proposed new section of the American Statistical Association on Imaging Sciences
Introduction: Martin Lindquist writes that he and others are trying to start a new ASA section on statistics in imaging. If you’re interested in being a signatory to its formation, please send him an email.
2 0.25031671 1136 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-23-Fight! (also a bit of reminiscence at the end)
Introduction: Martin Lindquist and Michael Sobel published a fun little article in Neuroimage on models and assumptions for causal inference with intermediate outcomes. As their subtitle indicates (“A response to the comments on our comment”), this is a topic of some controversy. Lindquist and Sobel write: Our original comment (Lindquist and Sobel, 2011) made explicit the types of assumptions neuroimaging researchers are making when directed graphical models (DGMs), which include certain types of structural equation models (SEMs), are used to estimate causal effects. When these assumptions, which many researchers are not aware of, are not met, parameters of these models should not be interpreted as effects. . . . [Judea] Pearl does not disagree with anything we stated. However, he takes exception to our use of potential outcomes notation, which is the standard notation used in the statistical literature on causal inference, and his comment is devoted to promoting his alternative conventions. [C
3 0.23514599 1091 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-29-Bayes in astronomy
Introduction: David Schminovich points me to this paper by Yu Lu, H. Mo, Martin Weinberg, and Neal Katz: We believe that a wide range of physical processes conspire to shape the observed galaxy population but we remain unsure of their detailed interactions. The semi-analytic model (SAM) of galaxy formation uses multi-dimensional parameterisations of the physical processes of galaxy formation and provides a tool to constrain these underlying physical interactions. Because of the high dimensionality, the parametric problem of galaxy formation may be profitably tackled with a Bayesian-inference based approach, which allows one to constrain theory with data in a statistically rigorous way. In this paper we develop a SAM in the framework of Bayesian inference. . . . And here’s another from the same authors, this time on “Bayesian inference of galaxy formation from the K-band luminosity function of galaxies: tensions between theory and observation.” I haven’t actually looked at the papers but
4 0.22446522 503 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-04-Clarity on my email policy
Introduction: I never read email before 4. That doesn’t mean I never send email before 4.
5 0.14635916 436 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-29-Quality control problems at the New York Times
Introduction: I guess there’s a reason they put this stuff in the Opinion section and not in the Science section, huh? P.S. More here .
6 0.10030778 27 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-11-Update on the spam email study
7 0.091049194 733 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-27-Another silly graph
8 0.082776345 18 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-06-$63,000 worth of abusive research . . . or just a really stupid waste of time?
9 0.080366664 658 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-11-Statistics in high schools: Towards more accessible conceptions of statistical inference
10 0.073551357 816 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-22-“Information visualization” vs. “Statistical graphics”
11 0.073366053 259 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-06-Inbox zero. Really.
12 0.072725743 2309 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-28-Crowdstorming a dataset
13 0.070628703 1080 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-24-Latest in blog advertising
14 0.069797203 1110 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-10-Jobs in statistics research! In New Jersey!
15 0.068911761 1298 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-03-News from the sister blog!
16 0.068851903 537 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-25-Postdoc Position #1: Missing-Data Imputation, Diagnostics, and Applications
17 0.066469193 933 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-30-More bad news: The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals
19 0.064854175 2363 andrew gelman stats-2014-06-07-“Does researching casual marijuana use cause brain abnormalities?”
20 0.064728223 2048 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-03-A comment on a post at the Monkey Cage
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.064), (1, -0.019), (2, -0.058), (3, 0.008), (4, 0.026), (5, 0.047), (6, -0.005), (7, -0.023), (8, -0.037), (9, -0.002), (10, 0.019), (11, -0.048), (12, 0.05), (13, -0.002), (14, -0.025), (15, 0.057), (16, -0.009), (17, -0.029), (18, -0.01), (19, 0.005), (20, 0.057), (21, -0.004), (22, 0.053), (23, -0.083), (24, 0.012), (25, 0.023), (26, 0.026), (27, 0.01), (28, -0.034), (29, 0.025), (30, -0.005), (31, 0.004), (32, -0.051), (33, -0.003), (34, -0.036), (35, -0.028), (36, -0.014), (37, -0.034), (38, 0.016), (39, 0.031), (40, 0.042), (41, 0.021), (42, -0.009), (43, -0.083), (44, 0.027), (45, -0.049), (46, -0.011), (47, -0.019), (48, 0.026), (49, -0.024)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.95558167 332 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-10-Proposed new section of the American Statistical Association on Imaging Sciences
Introduction: Martin Lindquist writes that he and others are trying to start a new ASA section on statistics in imaging. If you’re interested in being a signatory to its formation, please send him an email.
2 0.78092319 503 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-04-Clarity on my email policy
Introduction: I never read email before 4. That doesn’t mean I never send email before 4.
3 0.71928239 1573 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-11-Incredibly strange spam
Introduction: Unsolicited (of course) in the email the other day: Just wanted to touch base with you to see if you needed any quotes on Parking lot lighting or Garage Lighting? (Induction, LED, Canopy etc…) We help retrofit 1000′s of garages around the country. Let me know your specs and ill send you a quote in 24 hours. ** Owner Emergency Lights Co. Ill indeed. . . .
4 0.69642705 27 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-11-Update on the spam email study
Introduction: A few days ago I reported on the spam email that I received from two business school professors (one at Columbia)! As noted on the blog, I sent an email directly to the study’s authors at the time of reading the email, but they have yet to respond. This surprises me a bit. Certainly if 6300 faculty each have time to respond to one email on this study, the two faculty have time to respond to 6300 email replies, no? I was actually polite enough to respond to both of their emails! If I do hear back, I’ll let youall know! P.S. Paul Basken interviewed me briefly for a story in the Chronicle of Higher Education on the now-notorious spam email study. Basken’s article is reasonable–he points out that (a) the study irritated a lot of people, but (b) is ultimately no big deal. One interesting thing about the article is that, although some people felt that the spam email study was ethical, nobody came forth with an argument that the study was actually worth doing. P.P.S. In
5 0.68191862 1618 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-11-The consulting biz
Introduction: I received the following (unsolicited) email: Hello, *** LLC, a ***-based market research company, has a financial client who is interested in speaking with a statistician who has done research in the field of Alzheimer’s Disease and preferably familiar with the SOLA and BAPI trials. We offer an honorarium of $200 for a 30 minute telephone interview. Please advise us if you have an employment or consulting agreement with any organization or operate professionally pursuant to an organization’s code of conduct or employee manual that may control activities by you outside of your regular present and former employment, such as participating in this consulting project for MedPanel. If there are such contracts or other documents that do apply to you, please forward MedPanel a copy of each such document asap as we are obligated to review such documents to determine if you are permitted to participate as a consultant for MedPanel on a project with this particular client. If you are
6 0.67584634 259 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-06-Inbox zero. Really.
7 0.65772748 1080 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-24-Latest in blog advertising
8 0.65426415 18 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-06-$63,000 worth of abusive research . . . or just a really stupid waste of time?
9 0.65206623 880 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-30-Annals of spam
10 0.6490286 866 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-23-Participate in a research project on combining information for prediction
11 0.64738142 530 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-22-MS-Bayes?
12 0.63516605 545 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-30-New innovations in spam
13 0.62242681 2118 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-30-???
14 0.61682367 1380 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-15-Coaching, teaching, and writing
16 0.60246181 1922 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-02-They want me to send them free material and pay for the privilege
17 0.58770043 1589 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-25-Life as a blogger: the emails just get weirder and weirder
19 0.58325082 343 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-15-?
20 0.58143336 199 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-11-Note to semi-spammers
topicId topicWeight
[(24, 0.088), (48, 0.458), (86, 0.051), (99, 0.187)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.89553362 2363 andrew gelman stats-2014-06-07-“Does researching casual marijuana use cause brain abnormalities?”
Introduction: David Austin points me to a wonderfully-titled post by Lior Pachter criticizing a recent paper on the purported effects of cannabis use. Not the paper criticized here . Someone should send this all to David Brooks. I’ve heard he’s interested in the latest scientific findings, and I know he’s interested in marijuana.
2 0.88547266 493 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-31-Obituaries in 2010
Introduction: David Blackwell . Julian Besag . Arnold Zellner . Benoit Mandelbrot and Hirotugu Akaike (late) . Alfred Kahn .
same-blog 3 0.79703808 332 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-10-Proposed new section of the American Statistical Association on Imaging Sciences
Introduction: Martin Lindquist writes that he and others are trying to start a new ASA section on statistics in imaging. If you’re interested in being a signatory to its formation, please send him an email.
4 0.74319232 1088 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-28-Argument in favor of Ddulites
Introduction: Mark Palko defines a Ddulite as follows: A preference for higher tech solutions even in cases where lower tech alternatives have greater and more appropriate functionality; a person of ddulite tendencies. Though Ddulites are the opposite of Luddites with respect to attitudes toward technology, they occupy more or less the same point with respect to functionality. As a sometime Luddite myself (no cell phone, tv, microwave oven, etc.), I should in fairness point out the logic in favor of being a Ddulite. Old technology is typically pretty stable; new technology is improving. It can make sense to switch early (before the new technology actually performs better than the old) to get the benefits of being familiar with the new technology once it does take off.
5 0.71420842 841 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-06-Twitteo killed the bloggio star . . . Not!
Introduction: Alex Braunstein writes: Thanks for the post . You drove >800 pageviews to my site. That’s >90% of what Robert Scoble’s tweet generated with 184k followers, which I find incredibly impressive. 800 doesn’t sound like so much to me, but I suppose if it’s the right 800 . . .
6 0.66573513 181 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-03-MCMC in Python
7 0.65812933 2126 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-07-If I could’ve done it all over again
9 0.63426721 212 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-17-Futures contracts, Granger causality, and my preference for estimation to testing
11 0.61357373 202 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-12-Job openings in multilevel modeling in Bristol, England
12 0.601412 2147 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-25-Measuring Beauty
13 0.59133351 1234 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-28-The Supreme Court’s Many Median Justices
14 0.5791961 2240 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-10-On deck this week: Things people sent me
15 0.55659389 681 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-26-Worst statistical graphic I have seen this year
16 0.5564658 1496 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-14-Sides and Vavreck on the 2012 election
17 0.53088546 823 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-26-Including interactions or not
18 0.51639676 464 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-12-Finite-population standard deviation in a hierarchical model
19 0.49803314 976 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-27-Geophysicist Discovers Modeling Error (in Economics)