andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2011 andrew_gelman_stats-2011-879 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining

879 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-29-New journal on causal inference


meta infos for this blog

Source: html

Introduction: Judea Pearl is starting an (online) Journal of Causal Inference. The first issue is planned for Fall 2011 and the website is now open for submissions. Here’s the background (from Pearl): Existing discipline-specific journals tend to bury causal analysis in the language and methods of traditional statistical methodologies, creating the inaccurate impression that causal questions can be handled by routine methods of regression, simultaneous equations or logical implications, and glossing over the special ingredients needed for causal analysis. In contrast, Journal of Causal Inference highlights both the uniqueness and interdisciplinary nature of causal research. In addition to significant original research articles, Journal of Causal Inference also welcomes: 1) Submissions that synthesize and assess cross-disciplinary methodological research 2) Submissions that discuss the history of the causal inference field and its philosophical underpinnings 3) Unsolicited short communi


Summary: the most important sentenses genereted by tfidf model

sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore

1 The first issue is planned for Fall 2011 and the website is now open for submissions. [sent-2, score-0.276]

2 In contrast, Journal of Causal Inference highlights both the uniqueness and interdisciplinary nature of causal research. [sent-4, score-0.676]

3 I don’t have any submissions myself right now, but if I were going to write something for the journal, perhaps I would send in something like this article on experimental reasoning in social science. [sent-7, score-0.37]


similar blogs computed by tfidf model

tfidf for this blog:

wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)

[('causal', 0.461), ('submissions', 0.301), ('journal', 0.23), ('pearl', 0.198), ('ingredients', 0.144), ('glossing', 0.144), ('synthesize', 0.144), ('underpinnings', 0.144), ('unorthodox', 0.144), ('inference', 0.137), ('welcomes', 0.136), ('methodologies', 0.125), ('bury', 0.125), ('handled', 0.125), ('simultaneous', 0.118), ('inaccurate', 0.116), ('judea', 0.116), ('emerging', 0.116), ('open', 0.113), ('highlights', 0.111), ('communications', 0.107), ('articles', 0.107), ('unsolicited', 0.106), ('interdisciplinary', 0.104), ('highlight', 0.1), ('equations', 0.098), ('questions', 0.096), ('ongoing', 0.096), ('aim', 0.095), ('planned', 0.094), ('controversy', 0.093), ('routine', 0.093), ('perspectives', 0.093), ('philosophical', 0.091), ('consensus', 0.089), ('assess', 0.086), ('logical', 0.086), ('creating', 0.084), ('methods', 0.083), ('methodological', 0.082), ('responses', 0.077), ('implications', 0.075), ('fall', 0.074), ('traditional', 0.073), ('existing', 0.072), ('website', 0.069), ('reasoning', 0.069), ('bring', 0.069), ('language', 0.068), ('needed', 0.068)]

similar blogs list:

simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle

same-blog 1 1.0000001 879 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-29-New journal on causal inference

Introduction: Judea Pearl is starting an (online) Journal of Causal Inference. The first issue is planned for Fall 2011 and the website is now open for submissions. Here’s the background (from Pearl): Existing discipline-specific journals tend to bury causal analysis in the language and methods of traditional statistical methodologies, creating the inaccurate impression that causal questions can be handled by routine methods of regression, simultaneous equations or logical implications, and glossing over the special ingredients needed for causal analysis. In contrast, Journal of Causal Inference highlights both the uniqueness and interdisciplinary nature of causal research. In addition to significant original research articles, Journal of Causal Inference also welcomes: 1) Submissions that synthesize and assess cross-disciplinary methodological research 2) Submissions that discuss the history of the causal inference field and its philosophical underpinnings 3) Unsolicited short communi

2 0.43639559 1888 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-08-New Judea Pearl journal of causal inference

Introduction: Pearl reports that his Journal of Causal Inference has just posted its first issue , which contains a mix of theoretical and applied papers. Pearl writes that they welcome submissions on all aspects of causal inference.

3 0.27602902 1939 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-15-Forward causal reasoning statements are about estimation; reverse causal questions are about model checking and hypothesis generation

Introduction: Consider two broad classes of inferential questions : 1. Forward causal inference . What might happen if we do X? What are the effects of smoking on health, the effects of schooling on knowledge, the effect of campaigns on election outcomes, and so forth? 2. Reverse causal inference . What causes Y? Why do more attractive people earn more money? Why do many poor people vote for Republicans and rich people vote for Democrats? Why did the economy collapse? When statisticians and econometricians write about causal inference, they focus on forward causal questions. Rubin always told us: Never ask Why? Only ask What if? And, from the econ perspective, causation is typically framed in terms of manipulations: if x had changed by 1, how much would y be expected to change, holding all else constant? But reverse causal questions are important too. They’re a natural way to think (consider the importance of the word “Why”) and are arguably more important than forward questions.

4 0.23596078 1418 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-16-Long discussion about causal inference and the use of hierarchical models to bridge between different inferential settings

Introduction: Elias Bareinboim asked what I thought about his comment on selection bias in which he referred to a paper by himself and Judea Pearl, “Controlling Selection Bias in Causal Inference.” I replied that I have no problem with what he wrote, but that from my perspective I find it easier to conceptualize such problems in terms of multilevel models. I elaborated on that point in a recent post , “Hierarchical modeling as a framework for extrapolation,” which I think was read by only a few people (I say this because it received only two comments). I don’t think Bareinboim objected to anything I wrote, but like me he is comfortable working within his own framework. He wrote the following to me: In some sense, “not ad hoc” could mean logically consistent. In other words, if one agrees with the assumptions encoded in the model, one must also agree with the conclusions entailed by these assumptions. I am not aware of any other way of doing mathematics. As it turns out, to get causa

5 0.19685222 1675 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-15-“10 Things You Need to Know About Causal Effects”

Introduction: Macartan Humphreys pointed me to this excellent guide . Here are the 10 items: 1. A causal claim is a statement about what didn’t happen. 2. There is a fundamental problem of causal inference. 3. You can estimate average causal effects even if you cannot observe any individual causal effects. 4. If you know that, on average, A causes B and that B causes C, this does not mean that you know that A causes C. 5. The counterfactual model is all about contribution, not attribution. 6. X can cause Y even if there is no “causal path” connecting X and Y. 7. Correlation is not causation. 8. X can cause Y even if X is not a necessary condition or a sufficient condition for Y. 9. Estimating average causal effects does not require that treatment and control groups are identical. 10. There is no causation without manipulation. The article follows with crisp discussions of each point. My favorite is item #6, not because it’s the most important but because it brings in some real s

6 0.16383408 1624 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-15-New prize on causality in statstistics education

7 0.16300943 2170 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-13-Judea Pearl overview on causal inference, and more general thoughts on the reexpression of existing methods by considering their implicit assumptions

8 0.16226405 2245 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-12-More on publishing in journals

9 0.15954815 2286 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-08-Understanding Simpson’s paradox using a graph

10 0.15211977 120 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-30-You can’t put Pandora back in the box

11 0.15201968 1336 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-22-Battle of the Repo Man quotes: Reid Hastie’s turn

12 0.150078 1778 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-27-My talk at the University of Michigan today 4pm

13 0.14327885 1136 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-23-Fight! (also a bit of reminiscence at the end)

14 0.1393574 340 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-13-Randomized experiments, non-randomized experiments, and observational studies

15 0.13805784 785 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-02-Experimental reasoning in social science

16 0.1229552 545 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-30-New innovations in spam

17 0.12100846 1996 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-24-All inference is about generalizing from sample to population

18 0.11834502 1656 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-05-Understanding regression models and regression coefficients

19 0.11754734 1865 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-20-What happened that the journal Psychological Science published a paper with no identifiable strengths?

20 0.11754167 1133 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-21-Judea Pearl on why he is “only a half-Bayesian”


similar blogs computed by lsi model

lsi for this blog:

topicId topicWeight

[(0, 0.135), (1, -0.007), (2, -0.096), (3, -0.109), (4, -0.082), (5, 0.023), (6, -0.109), (7, -0.072), (8, 0.026), (9, 0.054), (10, 0.019), (11, 0.011), (12, -0.017), (13, 0.036), (14, 0.022), (15, -0.022), (16, -0.004), (17, 0.016), (18, -0.075), (19, 0.099), (20, -0.029), (21, -0.088), (22, 0.159), (23, 0.04), (24, 0.176), (25, 0.216), (26, 0.052), (27, -0.097), (28, -0.056), (29, 0.055), (30, 0.038), (31, -0.108), (32, -0.056), (33, 0.012), (34, -0.118), (35, 0.002), (36, 0.025), (37, 0.003), (38, -0.0), (39, 0.069), (40, -0.073), (41, 0.041), (42, -0.044), (43, 0.014), (44, -0.034), (45, 0.051), (46, -0.054), (47, 0.063), (48, -0.003), (49, -0.032)]

similar blogs list:

simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle

same-blog 1 0.99128652 879 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-29-New journal on causal inference

Introduction: Judea Pearl is starting an (online) Journal of Causal Inference. The first issue is planned for Fall 2011 and the website is now open for submissions. Here’s the background (from Pearl): Existing discipline-specific journals tend to bury causal analysis in the language and methods of traditional statistical methodologies, creating the inaccurate impression that causal questions can be handled by routine methods of regression, simultaneous equations or logical implications, and glossing over the special ingredients needed for causal analysis. In contrast, Journal of Causal Inference highlights both the uniqueness and interdisciplinary nature of causal research. In addition to significant original research articles, Journal of Causal Inference also welcomes: 1) Submissions that synthesize and assess cross-disciplinary methodological research 2) Submissions that discuss the history of the causal inference field and its philosophical underpinnings 3) Unsolicited short communi

2 0.95834798 1888 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-08-New Judea Pearl journal of causal inference

Introduction: Pearl reports that his Journal of Causal Inference has just posted its first issue , which contains a mix of theoretical and applied papers. Pearl writes that they welcome submissions on all aspects of causal inference.

3 0.81557667 340 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-13-Randomized experiments, non-randomized experiments, and observational studies

Introduction: In the spirit of Dehejia and Wahba: Three Conditions under Which Experiments and Observational Studies Produce Comparable Causal Estimates: New Findings from Within-Study Comparisons , by Cook, Shadish, and Wong. Can Nonrandomized Experiments Yield Accurate Answers? A Randomized Experiment Comparing Random and Nonrandom Assignments, by Shadish, Clark, and Steiner. I just talk about causal inference. These people do it. The second link above is particularly interesting because it includes discussions by some causal inference heavyweights. WWJD and all that.

4 0.77057934 1778 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-27-My talk at the University of Michigan today 4pm

Introduction: Causality and Statistical Learning Andrew Gelman, Statistics and Political Science, Columbia University Wed 27 Mar, 4pm, Betty Ford Auditorium, Ford School of Public Policy Causal inference is central to the social and biomedical sciences. There are unresolved debates about the meaning of causality and the methods that should be used to measure it. As a statistician, I am trained to say that randomized experiments are a gold standard, yet I have spent almost all my applied career analyzing observational data. In this talk we shall consider various approaches to causal reasoning from the perspective of an applied statistician who recognizes the importance of causal identification yet must learn from available information. Two relevant papers are here and here .

5 0.76711732 1675 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-15-“10 Things You Need to Know About Causal Effects”

Introduction: Macartan Humphreys pointed me to this excellent guide . Here are the 10 items: 1. A causal claim is a statement about what didn’t happen. 2. There is a fundamental problem of causal inference. 3. You can estimate average causal effects even if you cannot observe any individual causal effects. 4. If you know that, on average, A causes B and that B causes C, this does not mean that you know that A causes C. 5. The counterfactual model is all about contribution, not attribution. 6. X can cause Y even if there is no “causal path” connecting X and Y. 7. Correlation is not causation. 8. X can cause Y even if X is not a necessary condition or a sufficient condition for Y. 9. Estimating average causal effects does not require that treatment and control groups are identical. 10. There is no causation without manipulation. The article follows with crisp discussions of each point. My favorite is item #6, not because it’s the most important but because it brings in some real s

6 0.75534195 1624 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-15-New prize on causality in statstistics education

7 0.74793196 785 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-02-Experimental reasoning in social science

8 0.72701114 1939 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-15-Forward causal reasoning statements are about estimation; reverse causal questions are about model checking and hypothesis generation

9 0.7170881 2286 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-08-Understanding Simpson’s paradox using a graph

10 0.68040609 1802 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-14-Detecting predictability in complex ecosystems

11 0.66644585 307 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-29-“Texting bans don’t reduce crashes; effects are slight crash increases”

12 0.6534037 550 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-02-An IV won’t save your life if the line is tangled

13 0.64294928 1996 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-24-All inference is about generalizing from sample to population

14 0.64046222 1136 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-23-Fight! (also a bit of reminiscence at the end)

15 0.63617402 1492 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-11-Using the “instrumental variables” or “potential outcomes” approach to clarify causal thinking

16 0.6227144 1133 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-21-Judea Pearl on why he is “only a half-Bayesian”

17 0.62176633 807 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-17-Macro causality

18 0.61404091 2097 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-11-Why ask why? Forward causal inference and reverse causal questions

19 0.59534222 1418 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-16-Long discussion about causal inference and the use of hierarchical models to bridge between different inferential settings

20 0.59528035 1336 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-22-Battle of the Repo Man quotes: Reid Hastie’s turn


similar blogs computed by lda model

lda for this blog:

topicId topicWeight

[(15, 0.079), (16, 0.08), (21, 0.047), (22, 0.152), (24, 0.128), (27, 0.012), (36, 0.031), (56, 0.013), (63, 0.011), (68, 0.014), (76, 0.015), (86, 0.019), (87, 0.015), (89, 0.013), (97, 0.013), (99, 0.255)]

similar blogs list:

simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle

1 0.96353161 448 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-03-This is a footnote in one of my papers

Introduction: In the annals of hack literature, it is sometimes said that if you aim to write best-selling crap, all you’ll end up with is crap. To truly produce best-selling crap, you have to have a conviction, perhaps misplaced, that your writing has integrity. Whether or not this is a good generalization about writing, I have seen an analogous phenomenon in statistics: If you try to do nothing but model the data, you can be in for a wild and unpleasant ride: real data always seem to have one more twist beyond our ability to model (von Neumann’s elephant’s trunk notwithstanding). But if you model the underlying process, sometimes your model can fit surprisingly well as well as inviting openings for future research progress.

2 0.96009409 1037 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-01-Lamentably common misunderstanding of meritocracy

Introduction: Tyler Cowen pointed to an article by business-school professor Luigi Zingales about meritocracy. I’d expect a b-school prof to support the idea of meritocracy, and Zingales does not disappoint. But he says a bunch of other things that to me represent a confused conflation of ideas. Here’s Zingales: America became known as a land of opportunity—a place whose capitalist system benefited the hardworking and the virtuous [emphasis added]. In a word, it was a meritocracy. That’s interesting—and revealing. Here’s what I get when I look up “meritocracy” in the dictionary : 1 : a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement 2 : leadership selected on the basis of intellectual criteria Nothing here about “hardworking” or “virtuous.” In a meritocracy, you can be as hardworking as John Kruk or as virtuous as Kobe Bryant and you’ll still get ahead—if you have the talent and achievement. Throwing in “hardworking” and “virtuous”

3 0.95020902 1700 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-31-Snotty reviewers

Introduction: I had a submission a couple years ago that was rejected by a journal. One of the reviewers began with the following snotty aside: In this manuscript Gelman and Shalizi (there’s no anonymity here; this thing has been floating around the web for some time) . . . Actually, we posted it on the same day we submitted it to the journal. But double-blindness allowed the reviewer to act as if we had done something wrong! And, even if it had been “floating around the web for some time,” that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps it just meant that the article had previously been rejected by a bad-attitude reviewer!

same-blog 4 0.94463038 879 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-29-New journal on causal inference

Introduction: Judea Pearl is starting an (online) Journal of Causal Inference. The first issue is planned for Fall 2011 and the website is now open for submissions. Here’s the background (from Pearl): Existing discipline-specific journals tend to bury causal analysis in the language and methods of traditional statistical methodologies, creating the inaccurate impression that causal questions can be handled by routine methods of regression, simultaneous equations or logical implications, and glossing over the special ingredients needed for causal analysis. In contrast, Journal of Causal Inference highlights both the uniqueness and interdisciplinary nature of causal research. In addition to significant original research articles, Journal of Causal Inference also welcomes: 1) Submissions that synthesize and assess cross-disciplinary methodological research 2) Submissions that discuss the history of the causal inference field and its philosophical underpinnings 3) Unsolicited short communi

5 0.94135165 385 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-31-Wacky surveys where they don’t tell you the questions they asked

Introduction: Maria Wolters writes: The parenting club Bounty, which distributes their packs through midwives, hospitals, and large UK supermarket and pharmacy chains, commissioned a fun little survey for Halloween from the company OnePoll . Theme: Mothers as tricksters – tricking men into fathering their babies. You can find a full smackdown courtesy of UK-based sex educator and University College London psychologist Petra Boynton here . (One does wonder how a parenting club with such close links to the UK National Health Service thought a survey on this topic was at all appropriate, but that’s another rant.) So far, so awful, but what I [Wolters] thought might grab your attention was the excuse OnePoll offered for their work in their email to Petra. (Petra is very well known in the UK, and so was able to get a statement from the polling company.) Here it is in its full glory, taken from Petra’s post: As the agency which commissioned this research and distributed the resulting new

6 0.93579531 145 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-13-Statistical controversy regarding human rights violations in Colomnbia

7 0.92236006 1398 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-28-Every time you take a sample, you’ll have to pay this guy a quarter

8 0.92031384 1161 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-10-If an entire article in Computational Statistics and Data Analysis were put together from other, unacknowledged, sources, would that be a work of art?

9 0.91853833 477 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-20-Costless false beliefs

10 0.91406387 1216 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-17-Modeling group-level predictors in a multilevel regression

11 0.90870923 504 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-05-For those of you in the U.K., also an amusing paradox involving the infamous hookah story

12 0.90866083 92 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-17-Drug testing for recipents of NSF and NIH grants?

13 0.9074623 2123 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-04-Tesla fires!

14 0.89975905 2001 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-29-Edgar Allan Poe was a statistician

15 0.89625216 1804 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-15-How effective are football coaches?

16 0.89245093 2317 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-04-Honored oldsters write about statistics

17 0.89105046 1964 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-01-Non-topical blogging

18 0.8898145 1413 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-11-News flash: Probability and statistics are hard to understand

19 0.88790309 2167 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-10-Do you believe that “humans and other living things have evolved over time”?

20 0.88539702 2340 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-20-Thermodynamic Monte Carlo: Michael Betancourt’s new method for simulating from difficult distributions and evaluating normalizing constants