andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2011 andrew_gelman_stats-2011-631 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: With some upgrades from a previous post . And with a hopefully clear 40+ page draft paper (see page 16). Drawing Inference – Literally and by Individual Contribution.pdf Comments are welcome, though my reponses may be delayed. (Working on how to best render the graphs.) K? p.s. Plot was modified so that it might be better interpreted without reading any of the paper – though I would not suggest that – reading at least pages 1 to 17 is recomended.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 And with a hopefully clear 40+ page draft paper (see page 16). [sent-2, score-1.354]
2 pdf Comments are welcome, though my reponses may be delayed. [sent-4, score-0.292]
3 Plot was modified so that it might be better interpreted without reading any of the paper – though I would not suggest that – reading at least pages 1 to 17 is recomended. [sent-9, score-2.062]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('render', 0.326), ('page', 0.279), ('hopefully', 0.275), ('modified', 0.271), ('draft', 0.253), ('drawing', 0.248), ('welcome', 0.243), ('reading', 0.242), ('literally', 0.237), ('interpreted', 0.223), ('though', 0.193), ('pages', 0.189), ('plot', 0.179), ('previous', 0.164), ('suggest', 0.157), ('paper', 0.156), ('individual', 0.138), ('inference', 0.119), ('comments', 0.119), ('working', 0.112), ('clear', 0.112), ('least', 0.102), ('best', 0.101), ('may', 0.099), ('without', 0.098), ('post', 0.096), ('better', 0.081), ('might', 0.067), ('see', 0.049), ('would', 0.041)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999988 631 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-28-Explaining that plot.
Introduction: With some upgrades from a previous post . And with a hopefully clear 40+ page draft paper (see page 16). Drawing Inference – Literally and by Individual Contribution.pdf Comments are welcome, though my reponses may be delayed. (Working on how to best render the graphs.) K? p.s. Plot was modified so that it might be better interpreted without reading any of the paper – though I would not suggest that – reading at least pages 1 to 17 is recomended.
Introduction: See page 179 here for Gowa’s review from 1986. And here’s my version (from 2008).
3 0.13795485 1056 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-13-Drawing to Learn in Science
Introduction: Joshua Vogelstein points us to an article by Shaaron Ainsworth, Vaughan Prain, and Russell Tytler: Should science learners be challenged to draw more? Certainly making visualizations is integral to scientific thinking. Scientists do not use words only but rely on diagrams, graphs, videos, photographs, and other images to make discoveries, explain findings, and excite public interest. . . . However, in the science classroom, learners mainly focus on interpreting others’ visualizations; when drawing does occur, it is rare that learners are systematically encouraged to create their own visual forms to develop and show understanding (6). Drawing includes constructing a line graph from a table of values, sketching cells observed through a microscope, or inventing a way to show a scientific phenomenon (e.g., evaporation). Although interpretation of visualizations and other information is clearly critical to learning, becoming proficient in science also requires learners to develop many
4 0.12977201 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
5 0.10854929 1090 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-28-“. . . extending for dozens of pages”
Introduction: Kaiser writes : I have read a fair share of bore-them-to-tears compilation of survey research results – you know, those presentations with one multi-colored, stacked or grouped bar chart after another, extending for dozens of pages. I hate those grouped bar charts also—as I’ve written repeatedly, the central role of almost all statistical displays is to make comparisons, and you can make twice as many comparisons with a line plot as a bar plot. But I suspect the real problem with the reports that Kaiser is talking about is the “extending for dozens of pages” part. If they could just print each individual plot smaller and put dozens on a page, you could maybe get through the whole report in two or three pages. Almost always, graphs are too large. I’ve even seen abominations such as a fifty-page report with a single huge pie chart on each page. As Kaiser says, think about communication! A report with one big pie chart or bar plot per page is like a text document with one w
6 0.10141572 1436 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-31-A book on presenting numbers from spreadsheets
7 0.10040861 1080 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-24-Latest in blog advertising
8 0.098376997 1888 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-08-New Judea Pearl journal of causal inference
9 0.095901623 225 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-23-Getting into hot water over hot graphics
10 0.09334667 254 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-04-Bayesian inference viewed as a computational approximation to classical calculations
11 0.092347525 260 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-07-QB2
12 0.083941638 1106 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-08-Intro to splines—with cool graphs
13 0.083581582 1661 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-08-Software is as software does
14 0.081403755 859 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-18-Misunderstanding analysis of covariance
15 0.079353571 1137 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-24-Difficulties in publishing non-replications of implausible findings
16 0.078469582 427 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-23-Bayesian adaptive methods for clinical trials
17 0.07745412 1712 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-07-Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics (with all the discussions!)
18 0.073904082 619 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-19-If a comment is flagged as spam, it will disappear forever
19 0.073506489 407 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-11-Data Visualization vs. Statistical Graphics
20 0.071961179 1240 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-02-Blogads update
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.11), (1, -0.011), (2, -0.04), (3, 0.008), (4, 0.02), (5, -0.024), (6, 0.005), (7, -0.037), (8, 0.038), (9, -0.03), (10, 0.045), (11, 0.005), (12, 0.006), (13, 0.004), (14, 0.059), (15, 0.036), (16, 0.009), (17, 0.021), (18, -0.026), (19, 0.045), (20, 0.016), (21, 0.037), (22, 0.041), (23, -0.041), (24, 0.025), (25, 0.021), (26, 0.048), (27, 0.012), (28, 0.031), (29, 0.002), (30, -0.059), (31, -0.001), (32, -0.006), (33, -0.059), (34, 0.001), (35, -0.059), (36, 0.039), (37, -0.038), (38, 0.065), (39, 0.005), (40, 0.043), (41, -0.032), (42, 0.025), (43, -0.0), (44, -0.021), (45, -0.043), (46, 0.019), (47, -0.018), (48, 0.003), (49, -0.008)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97553211 631 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-28-Explaining that plot.
Introduction: With some upgrades from a previous post . And with a hopefully clear 40+ page draft paper (see page 16). Drawing Inference – Literally and by Individual Contribution.pdf Comments are welcome, though my reponses may be delayed. (Working on how to best render the graphs.) K? p.s. Plot was modified so that it might be better interpreted without reading any of the paper – though I would not suggest that – reading at least pages 1 to 17 is recomended.
2 0.7430588 710 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-14-Missed Friday the 13th Zombie Plot Update
Introduction: The revised paper plot13.pdf Slightly improved figures figure13.pdf And just the history part from my thesis – that some find interesting. (And to provide a selfish wiki meta-analysis entry pointer) JustHistory.pdf I have had about a dozen friends read this or earlier versions – they split into finding it interesting (and pragmatic) versus incomprehensible. The reason for that may or may not point to ways to make it clearer. K?
3 0.71391648 859 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-18-Misunderstanding analysis of covariance
Introduction: Jeremy Miles writes: Are you familiar with Miller and Chapman’s (2001) article : Misunderstanding Analysis of Covariance saying that ANCOVA (and therefore, I suppose regression) should not be used when groups differ on a covariate. It has caused a moderate splash in psychology circles. I wondered if you had any thoughts on it. I had not heard of the article so I followed the link . . . ugh! Already on the very first column of the very first page they confuse nonadditivity with nonlinearity. I could probably continue with, “and it gets worse,” but since nobody’s paying me to read this one, I’ll stop reading right there on the first page! I prefer when people point me to good papers to read. . . .
Introduction: See page 179 here for Gowa’s review from 1986. And here’s my version (from 2008).
5 0.63164014 1916 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-The weirdest thing about the AJPH story
Introduction: Earlier today I posted a weird email that began with “You are receiving this notice because you have published a paper with the American Journal of Public Health within the last few years” and continued with a sleazy attempt to squeeze $1000 out of me so that an article that I sent them for free could be available to the public. $1000 might seem like a lot, but they assured me that “we are extending this limited time offer of open access at a steeply discounted rate.” Sort of like a Vegematic but without that set of Ginsu knives thrown in for free. But then when I was responding to comments, I realized that . . . I didn’t actually remember ever publishing anything in that journal. It’s not on my list of 100+ journals. I did a search on my published papers page and couldn’t find anything closer than the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health (and that was not within the last few years). I checked Google Scholar. And then I went straight to the AJPH webpage and sea
6 0.62734348 172 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-30-Why don’t we have peer reviewing for oral presentations?
7 0.62492925 1854 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-13-A Structural Comparison of Conspicuous Consumption in China and the United States
8 0.62323689 1240 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-02-Blogads update
9 0.61755753 1098 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-04-Bayesian Page Rank?
10 0.61586028 1080 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-24-Latest in blog advertising
11 0.5984565 1120 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-15-Fun fight over the Grover search algorithm
12 0.59780246 2237 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-08-Disagreeing to disagree
13 0.59724569 1660 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-08-Bayesian, Permutable Symmetries
14 0.59567231 365 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-24-Erving Goffman archives
15 0.5876596 2095 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-09-Typo in Ghitza and Gelman MRP paper
16 0.57895726 2363 andrew gelman stats-2014-06-07-“Does researching casual marijuana use cause brain abnormalities?”
17 0.5782522 609 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-13-Coauthorship norms
18 0.57769448 2304 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-24-An open site for researchers to post and share papers
19 0.5772894 282 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-17-I can’t escape it
20 0.57450259 1977 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-11-Debutante Hill
topicId topicWeight
[(16, 0.12), (24, 0.093), (30, 0.172), (61, 0.047), (86, 0.044), (89, 0.042), (99, 0.325)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.9689796 179 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-03-An Olympic size swimming pool full of lithium water
Introduction: As part of his continuing plan to sap etc etc., Aleks pointed me to an article by Max Miller reporting on a recommendation from Jacob Appel: Adding trace amounts of lithium to the drinking water could limit suicides. . . . Communities with higher than average amounts of lithium in their drinking water had significantly lower suicide rates than communities with lower levels. Regions of Texas with lower lithium concentrations had an average suicide rate of 14.2 per 100,000 people, whereas those areas with naturally higher lithium levels had a dramatically lower suicide rate of 8.7 per 100,000. The highest levels in Texas (150 micrograms of lithium per liter of water) are only a thousandth of the minimum pharmaceutical dose, and have no known deleterious effects. I don’t know anything about this and am offering no judgment on it; I’m just passing it on. The research studies are here and here . I am skeptical, though, about this part of the argument: We are not talking a
2 0.95981973 1188 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-28-Reference on longitudinal models?
Introduction: Antonio Ramos writes: The book with Hill has very little on longitudinal models. So do you recommended any reference to complement your book on covariance structures typical from these models, such as AR(1), Antedependence, Factor Analytic, etc? I am very much interest in BUGS code for these basic models as well as how to extend them to more complex situations. My reply: There is a book by Banerjee, Carlin, and Gelfand on Bayesian space-time models. Beyond that, I think there is good work in psychometrics on covaraince structures but I don’t know the literature.
Introduction: Howard Wainer writes : When we focus only on the differences between groups, we too easily lose track of the big picture. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the current public discussions of the size of the gap in test scores that is observed between racial groups. It has been noted that in New Jersey the gap between the average scores of white and black students on the well-developed scale of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has shrunk by only about 25 percent over the past two decades. The conclusion drawn was that even though the change is in the right direction, it is far too slow. But focusing on the difference blinds us to what has been a remarkable success in education over the past 20 years. Although the direction and size of student improvements are considered across many subject areas and many age groups, I will describe just one — 4th grade mathematics. . . . there have been steep gains for both racial groups over this period (somewhat steeper g
same-blog 4 0.95208842 631 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-28-Explaining that plot.
Introduction: With some upgrades from a previous post . And with a hopefully clear 40+ page draft paper (see page 16). Drawing Inference – Literally and by Individual Contribution.pdf Comments are welcome, though my reponses may be delayed. (Working on how to best render the graphs.) K? p.s. Plot was modified so that it might be better interpreted without reading any of the paper – though I would not suggest that – reading at least pages 1 to 17 is recomended.
5 0.94677597 1259 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-11-How things sound to us, versus how they sound to others
Introduction: Hykel Hosni noticed this bit from the Lindley Prize page of the Society for Bayesan Analysis: Lindley became a great missionary for the Bayesian gospel. The atmosphere of the Bayesian revival is captured in a comment by Rivett on Lindley’s move to University College London and the premier chair of statistics in Britain: “it was as though a Jehovah’s Witness had been elected Pope.” From my perspective, this was amusing (if commonplace): a group of rationalists jocularly characterizing themselves as religious fanatics. And some of this is in response to intense opposition from outsiders (see the Background section here ). That’s my view. I’m an insider, a statistician who’s heard all jokes about religious Bayesians, from Bayesian and non-Bayesian statisticians alike. But Hosni is an outsider, and here’s how he sees the above-quoted paragraph: Research, however, is not a matter of faith but a matter of arguments, which should always be evaluated with the utmost intellec
6 0.94110203 412 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-13-Time to apply for the hackNY summer fellows program
7 0.93801987 450 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-04-The Joy of Stats
8 0.93376702 1623 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-14-GiveWell charity recommendations
9 0.92979014 1416 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-14-Ripping off a ripoff
10 0.92896259 1768 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-18-Mertz’s reply to Unz’s response to Mertz’s comments on Unz’s article
11 0.92756993 1831 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-29-The Great Race
12 0.92517257 1195 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-04-Multiple comparisons dispute in the tabloids
13 0.92305976 1497 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-15-Our blog makes connections!
14 0.91983175 593 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-27-Heat map
15 0.9135074 1178 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-21-How many data points do you really have?
16 0.91238719 2073 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-22-Ivy Jew update
17 0.91192102 109 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-25-Classics of statistics
18 0.90539414 170 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-29-When is expertise relevant?
19 0.90310884 496 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-01-Tukey’s philosophy
20 0.90218484 1936 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-13-Economic policy does not occur in a political vacuum