andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-436 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
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 .
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 I guess there’s a reason they put this stuff in the Opinion section and not in the Science section, huh? [sent-1, score-1.663]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('section', 0.684), ('huh', 0.39), ('opinion', 0.315), ('stuff', 0.299), ('guess', 0.248), ('reason', 0.237), ('put', 0.195), ('science', 0.188)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 436 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 .
2 0.27519497 6 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-27-Jelte Wicherts lays down the stats on IQ
Introduction: Good stuff.
3 0.20388752 2144 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-23-I hate this stuff
Introduction: Aki pointed me to this article . I’m too exhausted to argue all this in detail yet one more time, but let me just say that I hate this stuff for the reasons given in Section 5 of this paper from 1998 (based on classroom activities from 1994). I’ve hated this stuff for a long time. And I don’t think Yitzhak likes it either; see this discussion from 2005 and this from 2009.
4 0.16835272 543 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-28-NYT shills for personal DNA tests
Introduction: Kaiser nails it . The offending article , by John Tierney, somehow ended up in the Science section rather than the Opinion section. As an opinion piece (or, for that matter, a blog), Tierney’s article would be nothing special. But I agree with Kaiser that it doesn’t work as a newspaper article. As Kaiser notes, this story involves a bunch of statistical and empirical claims that are not well resolved by P.R. and rhetoric.
Introduction: Well put.
6 0.14635916 332 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-10-Proposed new section of the American Statistical Association on Imaging Sciences
7 0.12673882 185 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-04-Why does anyone support private macroeconomic forecasts?
8 0.10924168 153 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-17-Tenure-track position at U. North Carolina in survey methods and social statistics
9 0.1070639 1770 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-19-Retraction watch
10 0.10692288 1611 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-07-Feedback on my Bayesian Data Analysis class at Columbia
11 0.10311969 1168 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-14-The tabloids strike again
12 0.10243839 904 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-13-My wikipedia edit
13 0.091856144 208 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-15-When Does a Name Become Androgynous?
14 0.086380839 1830 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-29-Giving credit where due
15 0.0833048 1323 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-16-Question 6 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
16 0.083290465 2215 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-17-The Washington Post reprints university press releases without editing them
17 0.081368566 400 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-08-Poli sci plagiarism update, and a note about the benefits of not caring
19 0.077644818 1760 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-12-Misunderstanding the p-value
20 0.077440202 1322 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-15-Question 5 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.065), (1, -0.025), (2, -0.024), (3, -0.003), (4, -0.043), (5, 0.005), (6, 0.005), (7, -0.015), (8, -0.002), (9, 0.001), (10, 0.036), (11, -0.012), (12, -0.02), (13, 0.001), (14, -0.036), (15, -0.009), (16, -0.02), (17, 0.039), (18, -0.004), (19, -0.007), (20, 0.036), (21, -0.012), (22, -0.038), (23, -0.042), (24, 0.026), (25, -0.03), (26, -0.023), (27, 0.031), (28, -0.045), (29, 0.027), (30, 0.05), (31, -0.062), (32, 0.028), (33, -0.081), (34, 0.013), (35, 0.003), (36, 0.015), (37, -0.059), (38, 0.019), (39, -0.021), (40, -0.006), (41, -0.024), (42, -0.045), (43, -0.081), (44, 0.15), (45, 0.043), (46, 0.059), (47, -0.004), (48, 0.044), (49, -0.069)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99086207 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 .
2 0.82006443 6 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-27-Jelte Wicherts lays down the stats on IQ
Introduction: Good stuff.
3 0.79082131 2144 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-23-I hate this stuff
Introduction: Aki pointed me to this article . I’m too exhausted to argue all this in detail yet one more time, but let me just say that I hate this stuff for the reasons given in Section 5 of this paper from 1998 (based on classroom activities from 1994). I’ve hated this stuff for a long time. And I don’t think Yitzhak likes it either; see this discussion from 2005 and this from 2009.
4 0.7881667 208 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-15-When Does a Name Become Androgynous?
Introduction: Good stuff , as always, from Laura Wattenberg.
5 0.72972435 153 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-17-Tenure-track position at U. North Carolina in survey methods and social statistics
Introduction: See here . Cool–it looks like they’re doing interesting stuff, and it’s great to see this sort of support for applied research.
6 0.67381686 194 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-09-Data Visualization
7 0.65709931 1499 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-16-Uri Simonsohn is speaking at Columbia tomorrow (Mon)
8 0.63083464 2079 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-27-Uncompressing the concept of compressed sensing
9 0.60908073 1006 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-12-Val’s Number Scroll: Helping kids visualize math
10 0.59805119 1193 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-03-“Do you guys pay your bills?”
11 0.5976094 122 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-01-MCMC machine
12 0.59216177 747 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-06-Research Directions for Machine Learning and Algorithms
13 0.57616174 1785 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-02-So much artistic talent
14 0.575414 1738 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-25-Plaig
15 0.56373805 2024 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-15-Swiss Jonah Lehrer update
16 0.53817493 733 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-27-Another silly graph
17 0.51261652 313 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-03-A question for psychometricians
18 0.49163491 2153 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-29-“Statistics Done Wrong”
19 0.48862743 1112 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-11-A blog full of examples for your statistics class
20 0.48031968 2067 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-18-EP and ABC
topicId topicWeight
[(24, 0.237), (86, 0.284), (99, 0.207)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99155152 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 .
2 0.91804516 1530 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-11-Migrating your blog from Movable Type to WordPress
Introduction: Cord Blomquist, who did a great job moving us from horrible Movable Type to nice nice WordPress, writes: I [Cord] wanted to share a little news with you related to the original work we did for you last year. When ReadyMadeWeb converted your Movable Type blog to WordPress, we got a lot of other requestes for the same service, so we started thinking about a bigger market for such a product. After a bit of research, we started work on automating the data conversion, writing rules, and exceptions to the rules, on how Movable Type and TypePad data could be translated to WordPress. After many months of work, we’re getting ready to announce TP2WP.com , a service that converts Movable Type and TypePad export files to WordPress import files, so anyone who wants to migrate to WordPress can do so easily and without losing permalinks, comments, images, or other files. By automating our service, we’ve been able to drop the price to just $99. I recommend it (and, no, Cord is not paying m
3 0.91188955 1427 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-24-More from the sister blog
Introduction: Anthropologist Bruce Mannheim reports that a recent well-publicized study on the genetics of native Americans, which used genetic analysis to find “at least three streams of Asian gene flow,” is in fact a confirmation of a long-known fact. Mannheim writes: This three-way distinction was known linguistically since the 1920s (for example, Sapir 1921). Basically, it’s a division among the Eskimo-Aleut languages, which straddle the Bering Straits even today, the Athabaskan languages (which were discovered to be related to a small Siberian language family only within the last few years, not by Greenberg as Wade suggested), and everything else. This is not to say that the results from genetics are unimportant, but it’s good to see how it fits with other aspects of our understanding.
4 0.91010714 253 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-03-Gladwell vs Pinker
Introduction: I just happened to notice this from last year. Eric Loken writes : Steven Pinker reviewed Malcolm Gladwell’s latest book and criticized him rather harshly for several shortcomings. Gladwell appears to have made things worse for himself in a letter to the editor of the NYT by defending a manifestly weak claim from one of his essays – the claim that NFL quarterback performance is unrelated to the order they were drafted out of college. The reason w [Loken and his colleagues] are implicated is that Pinker identified an earlier blog post of ours as one of three sources he used to challenge Gladwell (yay us!). But Gladwell either misrepresented or misunderstood our post in his response, and admonishes Pinker by saying “we should agree that our differences owe less to what can be found in the scientific literature than they do to what can be found on Google.” Well, here’s what you can find on Google. Follow this link to request the data for NFL quarterbacks drafted between 1980 and
Introduction: The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society publishes papers followed by discussions. Lots of discussions, each can be no more than 400 words. Here’s my most recent discussion: The authors are working on an important applied problem and I have no reason to doubt that their approach is a step forward beyond diagnostic criteria based on point estimation. An attempt at an accurate assessment of variation is important not just for statistical reasons but also because scientists have the duty to convey their uncertainty to the larger world. I am thinking, for example, of discredited claims such as that of the mathematician who claimed to predict divorces with 93% accuracy (Abraham, 2010). Regarding the paper at hand, I thought I would try an experiment in comment-writing. My usual practice is to read the graphs and then go back and clarify any questions through the text. So, very quickly: I would prefer Figure 1 to be displayed in terms of standard deviations, not variances. I
6 0.89645362 1718 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-11-Toward a framework for automatic model building
8 0.88567781 305 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-29-Decision science vs. social psychology
9 0.87868702 2102 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-15-“Are all significant p-values created equal?”
10 0.87811017 873 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-26-Luck or knowledge?
11 0.87195569 76 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-09-Both R and Stata
12 0.87095451 904 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-13-My wikipedia edit
13 0.86750072 1547 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-25-College football, voting, and the law of large numbers
14 0.86386567 759 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-11-“2 level logit with 2 REs & large sample. computational nightmare – please help”
15 0.85515326 2219 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-21-The world’s most popular languages that the Mac documentation hasn’t been translated into
16 0.85289097 2082 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-30-Berri Gladwell Loken football update
17 0.84296989 779 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-25-Avoiding boundary estimates using a prior distribution as regularization
18 0.84154975 1971 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-07-I doubt they cheated
19 0.83859837 1983 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-15-More on AIC, WAIC, etc