andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2011 andrew_gelman_stats-2011-503 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: I never read email before 4. That doesn’t mean I never send email before 4.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 That doesn’t mean I never send email before 4. [sent-2, score-1.785]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('email', 0.698), ('never', 0.461), ('send', 0.385), ('mean', 0.241), ('read', 0.219), ('doesn', 0.214)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 503 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.
2 0.33171332 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
3 0.30826497 259 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-06-Inbox zero. Really.
Introduction: Just in time for the new semester: This time I’m sticking with the plan : 1. Don’t open a message until I’m ready to deal with it. 2. Don’t store anything–anything–in the inbox. 3. Put to-do items in the (physical) bookje rather than the (computer) “desktop.” 4. Never read email before 4pm. (This is the one rule I have been following. 5. Only one email session per day. (I’ll have to see how this one works.)
4 0.23883744 18 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-06-$63,000 worth of abusive research . . . or just a really stupid waste of time?
Introduction: As someone who relies strongly on survey research, it’s good for me to be reminded that some surveys are useful, some are useless, but one thing they almost all have in common is . . . they waste the respondents’ time. I thought of this after receiving the following email, which I shall reproduce here. My own comments appear after. Recently, you received an email from a student asking for 10 minutes of your time to discuss your Ph.D. program (the body of the email appears below). We are emailing you today to debrief you on the actual purpose of that email, as it was part of a research study. We sincerely hope our study did not cause you any disruption and we apologize if you were at all inconvenienced. Our hope is that this letter will provide a sufficient explanation of the purpose and design of our study to alleviate any concerns you may have about your involvement. We want to thank you for your time and for reading further if you are interested in understanding why you rece
Introduction: This is hilarious ( link from a completely deadpan Tyler Cowen). I’d call it “unintentionally hilarious” but I’m pretty sure that rms knew this was funny when he was writing it. It’s sort of like when you write a top 10 list—it’s hard to resist getting silly and going over the top. It’s only near the end that we get to the bit about the parrots. All joking aside, the most interesting part of the email was this: I [rms] have to spend 6 to 8 hours *every day* doing my usual work, which is responding to email about the GNU Project and the Free Software Movement. I’d wondered for awhile what is it that Richard Stallman actually does, that is how does he spend his time (aside from giving lectures to promote his ideas and pay the bills). Emailing –> Blogging I too spend a lot of time on email, but a few years ago I consciously tried to shift a bunch of my email exchanges to the blog. I found that I was sending out a lot of information to an audience of one, information
6 0.22446522 332 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-10-Proposed new section of the American Statistical Association on Imaging Sciences
7 0.21425429 530 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-22-MS-Bayes?
9 0.14979114 2111 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-23-Tables > figures yet again
10 0.13700572 2148 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-25-Spam!
11 0.13507372 1841 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-04-The Folk Theorem of Statistical Computing
12 0.12711836 866 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-23-Participate in a research project on combining information for prediction
13 0.12710451 1502 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-19-Scalability in education
14 0.12373661 1607 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-05-The p-value is not . . .
15 0.12342205 240 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-29-ARM solutions
16 0.11936001 1380 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-15-Coaching, teaching, and writing
17 0.11457221 1573 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-11-Incredibly strange spam
18 0.11047696 343 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-15-?
19 0.10848677 1134 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-21-Lessons learned from a recent R package submission
20 0.1059058 318 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-04-U-Haul statistics
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.071), (1, -0.041), (2, -0.056), (3, 0.005), (4, 0.029), (5, 0.033), (6, 0.083), (7, -0.04), (8, 0.003), (9, -0.031), (10, 0.044), (11, -0.047), (12, 0.089), (13, 0.003), (14, -0.034), (15, 0.062), (16, 0.017), (17, -0.088), (18, 0.018), (19, 0.024), (20, 0.067), (21, -0.036), (22, 0.11), (23, -0.092), (24, -0.019), (25, 0.001), (26, 0.07), (27, 0.024), (28, -0.018), (29, 0.044), (30, -0.063), (31, 0.052), (32, -0.095), (33, 0.065), (34, -0.053), (35, -0.078), (36, 0.053), (37, -0.067), (38, 0.02), (39, -0.017), (40, 0.093), (41, 0.066), (42, -0.036), (43, -0.141), (44, 0.075), (45, -0.096), (46, 0.001), (47, -0.045), (48, 0.104), (49, -0.121)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.9955163 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.
2 0.77511084 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
3 0.7597779 259 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-06-Inbox zero. Really.
Introduction: Just in time for the new semester: This time I’m sticking with the plan : 1. Don’t open a message until I’m ready to deal with it. 2. Don’t store anything–anything–in the inbox. 3. Put to-do items in the (physical) bookje rather than the (computer) “desktop.” 4. Never read email before 4pm. (This is the one rule I have been following. 5. Only one email session per day. (I’ll have to see how this one works.)
4 0.68843222 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.
Introduction: This is hilarious ( link from a completely deadpan Tyler Cowen). I’d call it “unintentionally hilarious” but I’m pretty sure that rms knew this was funny when he was writing it. It’s sort of like when you write a top 10 list—it’s hard to resist getting silly and going over the top. It’s only near the end that we get to the bit about the parrots. All joking aside, the most interesting part of the email was this: I [rms] have to spend 6 to 8 hours *every day* doing my usual work, which is responding to email about the GNU Project and the Free Software Movement. I’d wondered for awhile what is it that Richard Stallman actually does, that is how does he spend his time (aside from giving lectures to promote his ideas and pay the bills). Emailing –> Blogging I too spend a lot of time on email, but a few years ago I consciously tried to shift a bunch of my email exchanges to the blog. I found that I was sending out a lot of information to an audience of one, information
6 0.67701876 1573 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-11-Incredibly strange spam
7 0.67216003 282 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-17-I can’t escape it
8 0.65349913 18 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-06-$63,000 worth of abusive research . . . or just a really stupid waste of time?
9 0.64894331 530 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-22-MS-Bayes?
10 0.6120097 28 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-12-Alert: Incompetent colleague wastes time of hardworking Wolfram Research publicist
11 0.60622507 343 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-15-?
12 0.59789324 2111 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-23-Tables > figures yet again
13 0.59333175 2148 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-25-Spam!
14 0.59287071 1380 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-15-Coaching, teaching, and writing
15 0.5921315 1618 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-11-The consulting biz
16 0.58964688 605 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-09-Does it feel like cheating when I do this? Variation in ethical standards and expectations
18 0.5670054 1589 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-25-Life as a blogger: the emails just get weirder and weirder
19 0.5612095 2079 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-27-Uncompressing the concept of compressed sensing
20 0.55499077 1841 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-04-The Folk Theorem of Statistical Computing
topicId topicWeight
[(16, 0.189), (24, 0.23), (99, 0.279)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.98579812 799 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-13-Hypothesis testing with multiple imputations
Introduction: Vincent Yip writes: I have read your paper [with Kobi Abayomi and Marc Levy] regarding multiple imputation application. In order to diagnostic my imputed data, I used Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) tests to compare the distribution differences between the imputed and observed values of a single attribute as mentioned in your paper. My question is: For example I have this attribute X with the following data: (NA = missing) Original dataset: 1, NA, 3, 4, 1, 5, NA Imputed dataset: 1, 2 , 3, 4, 1, 5, 6 a) in order to run the KS test, will I treat the observed data as 1, 3, 4,1, 5? b) and for the observed data, will I treat 1, 2 , 3, 4, 1, 5, 6 as the imputed dataset for the K-S test? or just 2 ,6? c) if I used m=5, I will have 5 set of imputed data sets. How would I apply K-S test to 5 of them and compare to the single observed distribution? Do I combine the 5 imputed data set into one by averaging each imputed values so I get one single imputed data and compare with the ob
same-blog 2 0.9830873 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 0.97648299 411 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-13-Ethical concerns in medical trials
Introduction: I just read this article on the treatment of medical volunteers, written by doctor and bioethicist Carl Ellliott. As a statistician who has done a small amount of consulting for pharmaceutical companies, I have a slightly different perspective. As a doctor, Elliott focuses on individual patients, whereas, as a statistician, I’ve been trained to focus on the goal of accurately estimate treatment effects. I’ll go through Elliott’s article and give my reactions. Elliott: In Miami, investigative reporters for Bloomberg Markets magazine discovered that a contract research organisation called SFBC International was testing drugs on undocumented immigrants in a rundown motel; since that report, the motel has been demolished for fire and safety violations. . . . SFBC had recently been named one of the best small businesses in America by Forbes magazine. The Holiday Inn testing facility was the largest in North America, and had been operating for nearly ten years before inspecto
4 0.97389376 177 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-02-Reintegrating rebels into civilian life: Quasi-experimental evidence from Burundi
Introduction: Michael Gilligan, Eric Mvukiyehe, and Cyrus Samii write : We [Gilligan, Mvukiyehe, and Samii] use original survey data, collected in Burundi in the summer of 2007, to show that a World Bank ex-combatant reintegration program implemented after Burundi’s civil war caused significant economic reintegration for its beneficiaries but that this economic reintegration did not translate into greater political and social reintegration. Previous studies of reintegration programs have found them to be ineffective, but these studies have suffered from selection bias: only ex-combatants who self selected into those programs were studied. We avoid such bias with a quasi-experimental research design made possible by an exogenous bureaucratic failure in the implementation of program. One of the World Bank’s implementing partners delayed implementation by almost a year due to an unforeseen contract dispute. As a result, roughly a third of ex-combatants had their program benefits withheld for reas
5 0.96901238 2 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-23-Modeling heterogenous treatment effects
Introduction: Don Green and Holger Kern write on one of my favorite topics , treatment interactions (see also here ): We [Green and Kern] present a methodology that largely automates the search for systematic treatment effect heterogeneity in large-scale experiments. We introduce a nonparametric estimator developed in statistical learning, Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART), to model treatment effects that vary as a function of covariates. BART has several advantages over commonly employed parametric modeling strategies, in particular its ability to automatically detect and model relevant treatment-covariate interactions in a flexible manner. To increase the reliability and credibility of the resulting conditional treatment effect estimates, we suggest the use of a split sample design. The data are randomly divided into two equally-sized parts, with the first part used to explore treatment effect heterogeneity and the second part used to confirm the results. This approach permits a re
6 0.96690166 1871 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-27-Annals of spam
7 0.96467471 1293 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-01-Huff the Magic Dragon
9 0.95989549 434 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-28-When Small Numbers Lead to Big Errors
10 0.95770574 42 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-19-Updated solutions to Bayesian Data Analysis homeworks
11 0.95749629 1019 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-19-Validation of Software for Bayesian Models Using Posterior Quantiles
12 0.9564513 807 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-17-Macro causality
13 0.95641166 1219 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-18-Tips on “great design” from . . . Microsoft!
14 0.95610309 1016 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-17-I got 99 comparisons but multiplicity ain’t one
15 0.95581532 898 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-10-Fourteen magic words: an update
16 0.95497429 1093 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-30-Strings Attached: Untangling the Ethics of Incentives
17 0.95434594 586 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-23-A statistical version of Arrow’s paradox
18 0.95414633 1080 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-24-Latest in blog advertising
19 0.95392507 2248 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-15-Problematic interpretations of confidence intervals
20 0.95365089 2179 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-20-The AAA Tranche of Subprime Science