andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-429 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Indeed.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('indeed', 1.0)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 429 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-24-“But you and I don’t learn in isolation either”
Introduction: Indeed.
Introduction: Indeed.
3 0.17258526 2092 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-07-Data visualizations gone beautifully wrong
Introduction: Jeremy Fox points us to this compilation of data visualizations in R that went wrong, in a way that ended up making them look like art. They are indeed wonderful.
4 0.14004624 1602 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-01-The purpose of writing
Introduction: Basbøll : My aim is Socratic. I don’t want to help you become more knowledgeable. I want to help you better distinguish what you know from what you don’t know. Excellent point. Indeed, laying out what I do know and tracing the boundary of my ignorance, that’s what writing is all about for me.
Introduction: Leading theoretical statistician Larry Wassserman in 2008 : Some of the greatest contributions of statistics to science involve adding additional randomness and leveraging that randomness. Examples are randomized experiments, permutation tests, cross-validation and data-splitting. These are unabashedly frequentist ideas and, while one can strain to fit them into a Bayesian framework, they don’t really have a place in Bayesian inference. The fact that Bayesian methods do not naturally accommodate such a powerful set of statistical ideas seems like a serious deficiency. To which I responded on the second-to-last paragraph of page 8 here . Larry Wasserman in 2013 : Some people say that there is no role for randomization in Bayesian inference. In other words, the randomization mechanism plays no role in Bayes’ theorem. But this is not really true. Without randomization, we can indeed derive a posterior for theta but it is highly sensitive to the prior. This is just a restat
6 0.10903604 2106 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-19-More on “data science” and “statistics”
7 0.10360005 1695 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-28-Economists argue about Bayes
8 0.10148098 2175 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-18-A course in sample surveys for political science
9 0.10101911 1250 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-07-Hangman tips
10 0.096624359 2329 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-11-“What should you talk about?”
11 0.094997726 2143 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-22-The kluges of today are the textbook solutions of tomorrow.
12 0.090918548 263 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-08-The China Study: fact or fallacy?
13 0.088868335 1084 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-26-Tweeting the Hits?
14 0.086438045 1144 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-29-How many parameters are in a multilevel model?
15 0.079687886 999 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-09-I was at a meeting a couple months ago . . .
16 0.07967338 376 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-28-My talk at American University
17 0.075474508 1682 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-19-R package for Bayes factors
18 0.074363418 255 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-04-How does multilevel modeling affect the estimate of the grand mean?
19 0.073200591 461 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-09-“‘Why work?’”
20 0.072140314 1182 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-24-Untangling the Jeffreys-Lindley paradox
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.029), (1, -0.001), (2, -0.005), (3, -0.018), (4, -0.021), (5, -0.028), (6, 0.009), (7, 0.017), (8, -0.016), (9, -0.02), (10, -0.015), (11, 0.01), (12, 0.016), (13, 0.009), (14, 0.021), (15, -0.022), (16, -0.001), (17, -0.001), (18, 0.007), (19, -0.033), (20, -0.017), (21, -0.016), (22, -0.005), (23, 0.023), (24, -0.034), (25, 0.076), (26, -0.015), (27, -0.025), (28, 0.012), (29, 0.005), (30, -0.038), (31, -0.036), (32, 0.023), (33, -0.001), (34, 0.034), (35, 0.075), (36, 0.018), (37, -0.053), (38, -0.047), (39, -0.08), (40, -0.006), (41, -0.004), (42, 0.007), (43, -0.094), (44, -0.145), (45, 0.006), (46, 0.02), (47, 0.012), (48, -0.068), (49, -0.011)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999994 429 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-24-“But you and I don’t learn in isolation either”
Introduction: Indeed.
Introduction: Indeed.
3 0.51573569 2092 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-07-Data visualizations gone beautifully wrong
Introduction: Jeremy Fox points us to this compilation of data visualizations in R that went wrong, in a way that ended up making them look like art. They are indeed wonderful.
4 0.41273722 1602 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-01-The purpose of writing
Introduction: Basbøll : My aim is Socratic. I don’t want to help you become more knowledgeable. I want to help you better distinguish what you know from what you don’t know. Excellent point. Indeed, laying out what I do know and tracing the boundary of my ignorance, that’s what writing is all about for me.
5 0.34238216 676 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-23-The payoff: $650. The odds: 1 in 500,000.
Introduction: Details here .
6 0.34139946 376 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-28-My talk at American University
7 0.33006686 2187 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-26-Twitter sucks, and people are gullible as f…
8 0.3230702 2175 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-18-A course in sample surveys for political science
9 0.31871301 999 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-09-I was at a meeting a couple months ago . . .
10 0.31789419 280 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-16-Meet Hipmunk, a really cool flight-finder that doesn’t actually work
11 0.31676304 2106 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-19-More on “data science” and “statistics”
12 0.31403387 2361 andrew gelman stats-2014-06-06-Hurricanes vs. Himmicanes
13 0.31127205 917 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-20-Last post on Hipmunk
14 0.30975181 1133 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-21-Judea Pearl on why he is “only a half-Bayesian”
15 0.30855376 2185 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-25-Xihong Lin on sparsity and density
16 0.30705684 2238 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-09-Hipmunk worked
17 0.30633143 1183 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-25-Calibration!
18 0.30526048 2329 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-11-“What should you talk about?”
19 0.29867628 1226 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-22-Story time meets the all-else-equal fallacy and the fallacy of measurement
20 0.29335696 1965 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-02-My course this fall on l’analyse bayésienne de données
topicId topicWeight
[(47, 0.505)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 429 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-24-“But you and I don’t learn in isolation either”
Introduction: Indeed.
Introduction: Indeed.
3 0.46140876 275 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-14-Data visualization at the American Evaluation Association
Introduction: Stephanie Evergreen writes: Media, web design, and marketing have all created an environment where stakeholders – clients, program participants, funders – all expect high quality graphics and reporting that effectively conveys the valuable insights from evaluation work. Some in statistics and mathematics have used data visualization strategies to support more useful reporting of complex ideas. Global growing interest in improving communications has begun to take root in the evaluation field as well. But as anyone who has sat through a day’s worth of a conference or had to endure a dissertation-worthy evaluation report knows, evaluators still have a long way to go. To support the development of researchers and evaluators, some members of the American Evaluation Association are proposing a new TIG (Topical Interest Group) on Data Visualization and Reporting. If you are a member of AEA (or want to be) and you are interested in joining this TIG, contact Stephanie Evergreen.
Introduction: Adam Marcus at Retraction Watch reports on a physicist at the University of Toronto who had this unfortunate thing happen to him: This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief and first and corresponding author. The article was largely a duplication of a paper that had already appeared in ACS Nano, 4 (2010) 3374–3380, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nn100335g. The first and the corresponding authors (Kramer and Sargent) would like to apologize for this administrative error on their part . . . “Administrative error” . . . I love that! Is that what the robber says when he knocks over a liquor store and gets caught? As Marcus points out, the two papers have different titles and a different order of authors, which makes it less plausible that this was an administrative mistake (as could happen, for example, if a secretary was given a list of journals to submit the paper to, and accidentally submitted it to the second journal on the list without realizing it
5 0.33349743 1055 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-13-Data sharing update
Introduction: Fred Oswald reports that Sian Beilock sent him sufficient amounts of raw data from her research study so allow him to answer his questions about the large effects that were observed. This sort of collegiality is central to the collective scientific enterprise. The bad news is that IRB’s are still getting in the way. Beilock was very helpful but she had to work within the constraints of her IRB, which apparently advised her not to share data—even if de-identified—without getting lots more permissions. Oswald writes: It is a little concerning that the IRB bars the sharing of de-identified data, particularly in light of the specific guidelines of the journal Science, which appears to say that when you submit a study to the journal for publication, you are allowing for the sharing of de-identified data — unless you expressly say otherwise at the point that you submit the paper for consideration. Again, I don’t blame Beilock and Ramirez—they appear to have been as helpful as
6 0.29540995 2240 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-10-On deck this week: Things people sent me
7 0.29106671 95 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-17-“Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College”
9 0.2629267 1050 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-10-Presenting at the econ seminar
10 0.25888675 2275 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-31-Just gave a talk
11 0.23924054 2290 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-14-On deck this week
12 0.23513846 1668 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-11-My talk at the NY data visualization meetup this Monday!
13 0.23441434 1143 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-29-G+ > Skype
14 0.23403519 1261 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-12-The Naval Research Lab
15 0.20365827 546 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-31-Infovis vs. statistical graphics: My talk tomorrow (Tues) 1pm at Columbia
16 0.20113775 2124 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-05-Stan (quietly) passes 512 people on the users list
17 0.19672592 2068 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-18-G+ hangout for Bayesian Data Analysis course now! (actually, in 5 minutes)
18 0.19549178 2100 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-14-BDA class G+ hangout another try
19 0.19531812 2131 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-12-My talk at Leuven, Sat 14 Dec
20 0.19292264 1897 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-13-When’s that next gamma-ray blast gonna come, already?