andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-409 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Amusing authorship analysis.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('authorship', 0.774), ('amusing', 0.596), ('analysis', 0.215)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 409 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-11-“Tiny,” “Large,” “Very,” “Nice,” “Dumbest”
Introduction: Amusing authorship analysis.
2 0.2615599 981 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-30-rms2
Introduction: In case you just can’t get enough, check out this amusing interview. The interview is from the year 2000 (I think) but it reads like it could’ve been done yesterday.
3 0.24340643 1979 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-13-Convincing Evidence
Introduction: Keith O’Rourke and I wrote an article that begins: Textbooks on statistics emphasize care and precision, via concepts such as reliability and validity in measurement, random sampling and treatment assignment in data collection, and causal identification and bias in estimation. But how do researchers decide what to believe and what to trust when choosing which statistical methods to use? How do they decide the credibility of methods? Statisticians and statistical practitioners seem to rely on a sense of anecdotal evidence based on personal experience and on the attitudes of trusted colleagues. Authorship, reputation, and past experience are thus central to decisions about statistical procedures. It’s for a volume on theoretical or methodological research on authorship, functional roles, reputation, and credibility in social media, edited by Sorin Matei and Elisa Bertino.
4 0.16848321 2283 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-06-An old discussion of food deserts
Introduction: I happened to be reading an old comment thread from 2012 (follow the link from here ) and came across this amusing exchange: Perhaps this is the paper Jonathan was talking about? Here’s more from the thread: Anyway, I don’t have anything to add right now, I just thought it was an interesting discussion.
5 0.1549305 1851 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-11-Actually, I have no problem with this graph
Introduction: Tom Salvesen asks, is this the worst info-graphic of the year? I say, no. Nobody really cares about these numbers. It’s an amusing feature. The alternative would not be a better display of these data, the alternative would be some photo or cartoon. They’re just having fun. I wouldn’t give it any design awards but it’s fine, it is what it is.
6 0.15476349 1514 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-28-AdviseStat 47% Campaign Ad
8 0.11739647 826 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-27-The Statistics Forum!
9 0.10835828 444 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-02-Rational addiction
10 0.096674159 129 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-05-Unrelated to all else
11 0.089667708 1917 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-28-Econ coauthorship update
12 0.089322641 836 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-03-Another plagiarism mystery
13 0.087751128 1824 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-25-Fascinating graphs from facebook data
14 0.068799131 1329 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-18-Those mean psychologists, making fun of dodgy research!
15 0.058877837 701 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-07-Bechdel wasn’t kidding
16 0.057808138 908 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-14-Type M errors in the lab
18 0.049736571 517 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-14-Bayes in China update
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.02), (1, 0.005), (2, -0.015), (3, -0.011), (4, -0.001), (5, -0.002), (6, -0.01), (7, -0.001), (8, 0.006), (9, -0.002), (10, 0.015), (11, -0.012), (12, 0.011), (13, -0.004), (14, 0.009), (15, 0.008), (16, 0.001), (17, -0.008), (18, 0.035), (19, -0.005), (20, -0.002), (21, 0.016), (22, 0.025), (23, -0.0), (24, -0.024), (25, 0.031), (26, -0.015), (27, 0.002), (28, -0.011), (29, -0.016), (30, -0.004), (31, 0.013), (32, 0.02), (33, -0.001), (34, 0.0), (35, -0.006), (36, -0.026), (37, -0.01), (38, -0.008), (39, 0.027), (40, 0.018), (41, -0.013), (42, -0.042), (43, -0.003), (44, 0.011), (45, 0.015), (46, -0.034), (47, -0.03), (48, 0.008), (49, 0.029)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.90103453 409 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-11-“Tiny,” “Large,” “Very,” “Nice,” “Dumbest”
Introduction: Amusing authorship analysis.
2 0.49337679 181 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-03-MCMC in Python
Introduction: John Salvatier forwards a note from Anand Patil that a paper on PyMC has appeared in the Journal of Statistical Software, We’ll have to check this out.
3 0.429571 1851 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-11-Actually, I have no problem with this graph
Introduction: Tom Salvesen asks, is this the worst info-graphic of the year? I say, no. Nobody really cares about these numbers. It’s an amusing feature. The alternative would not be a better display of these data, the alternative would be some photo or cartoon. They’re just having fun. I wouldn’t give it any design awards but it’s fine, it is what it is.
4 0.42439854 1514 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-28-AdviseStat 47% Campaign Ad
Introduction: Lee Wilkinson sends me this amusing ad for his new software, AdviseStat: The ad is a parody, but the software is real !
5 0.41748887 1516 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-30-Computational problems with glm etc.
Introduction: John Mount provides some useful background and follow-up on our discussion from last year on computational instability of the usual logistic regression solver. Just to refresh your memory, here’s a simple logistic regression with only a constant term and no separation, nothing pathological at all: > y <- rep (c(1,0),c(10,5)) > display (glm (y ~ 1, family=binomial(link="logit"))) glm(formula = y ~ 1, family = binomial(link = "logit")) coef.est coef.se (Intercept) 0.69 0.55 --- n = 15, k = 1 residual deviance = 19.1, null deviance = 19.1 (difference = 0.0) And here’s what happens when we give it the not-outrageous starting value of -2: > display (glm (y ~ 1, family=binomial(link="logit"), start=-2)) glm(formula = y ~ 1, family = binomial(link = "logit"), start = -2) coef.est coef.se (Intercept) 71.97 17327434.18 --- n = 15, k = 1 residual deviance = 360.4, null deviance = 19.1 (difference = -341.3) Warning message:
6 0.41075763 146 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-14-The statistics and the science
7 0.41010636 147 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-15-Quote of the day: statisticians and defaults
9 0.38544276 1776 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-25-The harm done by tests of significance
10 0.38280824 129 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-05-Unrelated to all else
11 0.38270584 697 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-05-A statistician rereads Bill James
12 0.37870014 1238 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-31-Dispute about ethics of data sharing
13 0.37675264 940 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-03-It depends upon what the meaning of the word “firm” is.
14 0.37245956 1822 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-24-Samurai sword-wielding Mormon bishop pharmaceutical statistician stops mugger
15 0.37027305 426 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-22-Postdoc opportunity here at Columbia — deadline soon!
16 0.36908224 953 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-11-Steve Jobs’s cancer and science-based medicine
17 0.36774835 1979 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-13-Convincing Evidence
18 0.36390311 1988 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-19-BDA3 still (I hope) at 40% off! (and a link to one of my favorite papers)
19 0.36325416 700 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-06-Suspicious pattern of too-strong replications of medical research
topicId topicWeight
[(70, 0.303), (99, 0.318)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.95635927 409 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-11-“Tiny,” “Large,” “Very,” “Nice,” “Dumbest”
Introduction: Amusing authorship analysis.
2 0.84856045 1979 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-13-Convincing Evidence
Introduction: Keith O’Rourke and I wrote an article that begins: Textbooks on statistics emphasize care and precision, via concepts such as reliability and validity in measurement, random sampling and treatment assignment in data collection, and causal identification and bias in estimation. But how do researchers decide what to believe and what to trust when choosing which statistical methods to use? How do they decide the credibility of methods? Statisticians and statistical practitioners seem to rely on a sense of anecdotal evidence based on personal experience and on the attitudes of trusted colleagues. Authorship, reputation, and past experience are thus central to decisions about statistical procedures. It’s for a volume on theoretical or methodological research on authorship, functional roles, reputation, and credibility in social media, edited by Sorin Matei and Elisa Bertino.
3 0.80368614 1329 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-18-Those mean psychologists, making fun of dodgy research!
Introduction: Two people separately sent me this amusing mock-research paper by Brian A. Nosek (I assume that’s what’s meant by “Arina K. Bones”). The article is pretty funny, but this poster (by Nosek and Samuel Gosling) is even better! Check it out: I remarked that this was almost as good as my zombies paper, and my correspondent pointed me to this page of (I assume) Nosek’s research on aliens. P.S. I clicked through to take the test to see if I’m dead or alive, but I got bored after a few minutes. I gotta say, if Gosling can come up with a 10-item measure of the Big Five, this crew should be able to come up with a reasonably valid alive-or-dead test that doesn’t require dozens and dozens of questions!
4 0.77202255 1657 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-06-Lee Nguyen Tran Kim Song Shimazaki
Introduction: Andrew Lee writes: I am a recent M.A. graduate in sociology. I am primarily qualitative in method but have been moving in a more mixed-methods direction ever since I discovered sports analytics (Moneyball, Football Outsiders, Wages of Wins, etc.). For my thesis I studied Korean-Americans in education in the health professions through a comparison of Asian ethnic representation in Los Angeles-area medical and dental schools. I did this by counting up different Asian ethnic groups at UC Irvine, USC and Loma Linda University’s medical/dental schools using surnames as an identifier (I coded for ethnicity using an algorithm from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries which correlated surnames with ethnicity: http://www.naaccr.org/Research/DataAnalysisTools.aspx). The coding was mostly easy, since “Nguyen” and “Tran” is always Vietnamese, “Kim” and “Song” is Korean, “Shimazaki” is Japanese, etc. Now, the first time around I found that Chinese-Americans and
5 0.75482082 1346 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-27-Average predictive comparisons when changing a pair of variables
Introduction: Jay Jones writes: I recently came across your paper on average predictive comparisons ( Gelman and Pardoe, 2007 ) and can see many applications for this in my work (I’m an applied statistician working for Weyerhaeuser Company at our R&D; center near Seattle). At the moment, I am using APC’s to help describe the results of a hierarchical multi-species model we fit to bird occupancy (presence/absence) data collected in the Oregon Coast Range. A question that came up in our study led me to consider whether the APC framework can be used for post-hoc combinations of inputs. For example, let’s say that after calculating the APC for each individual input in our model, we would like to look at some linear function f of two inputs of interest, u1 and u2. Naively, I would like to be able to plug this into the APC framework. For example, equation 5 in your paper might look something like this (for brevity, I’m omitting the summations): Numerator: w_ij * (E(y|u1_j, u2_j, v_i, the
7 0.73743081 116 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-29-How to grab power in a democracy – in 5 easy non-violent steps
8 0.72334969 6 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-27-Jelte Wicherts lays down the stats on IQ
9 0.72334969 90 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-16-Oil spill and corn production
10 0.72334969 122 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-01-MCMC machine
11 0.72334969 299 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-27-what is = what “should be” ??
12 0.72334969 632 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-28-Wobegon on the Potomac
13 0.72334969 826 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-27-The Statistics Forum!
14 0.72334969 1298 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-03-News from the sister blog!
15 0.72334969 1464 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-20-Donald E. Westlake on George W. Bush
16 0.72311258 23 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-09-Popper’s great, but don’t bother with his theory of probability
17 0.7227537 174 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-01-Literature and life
18 0.72267652 1483 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-04-“Bestselling Author Caught Posting Positive Reviews of His Own Work on Amazon”
19 0.72240371 860 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-18-Trolls!
20 0.72190636 1813 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-19-Grad students: Participate in an online survey on statistics education