andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2011 andrew_gelman_stats-2011-930 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Someone passed on to a message from his university library announcing that the journal “Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics” is no longer free. Librarians have to decide what to do, so I thought I’d offer the following consumer guide: Wiley Computational Statistics journal Wikipedia Frequency 6 issues per year Continuously updated Includes articles from Wikipedia? Yes Yes Cites the Wikipedia sources it uses? No Yes Edited by recipient of ASA Founders Award? Yes No Articles are subject to rigorous review? No Yes Errors, when discovered, get fixed? No Yes Number of vertices in n-dimensional hypercube? 2n 2 n Easy access to Brady Bunch trivia? No Yes Cost (North America) $1400-$2800 $0 Cost (UK) £986-£1972 £0 Cost (Europe) €1213-€2426 €0 The choice seems pretty clear to me! It’s funny for the Wiley journal to start charging now
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Someone passed on to a message from his university library announcing that the journal “Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics” is no longer free. [sent-1, score-0.501]
2 Librarians have to decide what to do, so I thought I’d offer the following consumer guide: Wiley Computational Statistics journal Wikipedia Frequency 6 issues per year Continuously updated Includes articles from Wikipedia? [sent-2, score-0.624]
3 Yes Yes Cites the Wikipedia sources it uses? [sent-3, score-0.074]
4 No Yes Edited by recipient of ASA Founders Award? [sent-4, score-0.133]
5 Yes No Articles are subject to rigorous review? [sent-5, score-0.093]
6 No Yes Number of vertices in n-dimensional hypercube? [sent-7, score-0.148]
7 2n 2 n Easy access to Brady Bunch trivia? [sent-8, score-0.082]
8 It’s funny for the Wiley journal to start charging now for access. [sent-10, score-0.377]
9 Unless they can convince Wikipedia to (a) charge at least $1401/year and (b) introduce errors into their articles to level the playing field, I think Wegman’s journal is going to have difficulty competing in the free market. [sent-11, score-1.002]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('wiley', 0.375), ('yes', 0.343), ('wikipedia', 0.319), ('cost', 0.197), ('journal', 0.19), ('articles', 0.165), ('computational', 0.149), ('hypercube', 0.148), ('vertices', 0.148), ('trivia', 0.133), ('recipient', 0.133), ('announcing', 0.125), ('brady', 0.125), ('asa', 0.125), ('founders', 0.119), ('errors', 0.118), ('uk', 0.116), ('continuously', 0.116), ('charging', 0.114), ('cites', 0.11), ('interdisciplinary', 0.107), ('convince', 0.104), ('edited', 0.101), ('north', 0.098), ('europe', 0.098), ('introduce', 0.097), ('updated', 0.097), ('consumer', 0.097), ('award', 0.096), ('wegman', 0.094), ('rigorous', 0.093), ('passed', 0.093), ('library', 0.093), ('frequency', 0.093), ('guide', 0.092), ('charge', 0.092), ('competing', 0.091), ('reviews', 0.09), ('discovered', 0.085), ('access', 0.082), ('market', 0.079), ('decide', 0.075), ('sources', 0.074), ('playing', 0.074), ('includes', 0.073), ('funny', 0.073), ('america', 0.072), ('unless', 0.071), ('difficulty', 0.071), ('uses', 0.07)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000001 930 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-28-Wiley Wegman chutzpah update: Now you too can buy a selection of garbled Wikipedia articles, for a mere $1400-$2800 per year!
Introduction: Someone passed on to a message from his university library announcing that the journal “Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics” is no longer free. Librarians have to decide what to do, so I thought I’d offer the following consumer guide: Wiley Computational Statistics journal Wikipedia Frequency 6 issues per year Continuously updated Includes articles from Wikipedia? Yes Yes Cites the Wikipedia sources it uses? No Yes Edited by recipient of ASA Founders Award? Yes No Articles are subject to rigorous review? No Yes Errors, when discovered, get fixed? No Yes Number of vertices in n-dimensional hypercube? 2n 2 n Easy access to Brady Bunch trivia? No Yes Cost (North America) $1400-$2800 $0 Cost (UK) £986-£1972 £0 Cost (Europe) €1213-€2426 €0 The choice seems pretty clear to me! It’s funny for the Wiley journal to start charging now
2 0.17469804 1118 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-14-A model rejection letter
Introduction: Howard Wainer sends in this rejection letter from Sir David Brewster of The Edinburgh Journal of Science to Charles Babbage: It is no inconsiderable degree of reluctance that I decline the offer of any Paper from you. I think, however, you will upon reconsideration of the subject be of the opinion that I have no other alternative. The subjects you propose for a series of Mathematical and Metaphysical Essays are so profound, that there is perhaps not a single subscriber to our Journal who could follow them. Nowadays, he could just submit to Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews . . .
3 0.17361005 1324 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-16-Wikipedia author confronts Ed Wegman
Introduction: Wegman: “It’s not reprinted 100 percent like you had it.” Wikipedia guy: “No, you added another paragraph at the end and you changed the headline. . . . You even copied the typos that I’ve corrected on my website. It was taken verbatim and reprinted in your paper.” The original author got a check for $500 but, unfortunately, no free subscription to “Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics” (a $1400-$2800 value ). P.S. To those who think I’m being mean to Wegman: I haven’t yet heard that he’s apologized to the people whose work he copied without attribution, or to the people who spent their time tracking all this down, or to the U.S. Congress for misrepresenting his expertise in his official report. Everyone makes mistakes, and just about everyone has ethical lapses at times. But when you get caught you’re supposed to make apology and restitution.
4 0.16690637 640 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-31-Why Edit Wikipedia?
Introduction: Zoe Corbyn’s article for The Guardian (UK), titled Wikipedia wants more contributions from academics , and the followup discussion on Slashdot got me thinking about my own Wikipedia edits. The article quotes Dario Taraborelli, a research analyst for the Wikimedia Foundation, as saying “Academics are trapped in this paradox of using Wikipedia but not contributing,” Huh? I’m really wondering what man-in-the-street wrote all the great stats stuff out there. And what’s the paradox? I use lots of things without contributing to them. Taraborelli is further quoted as saying “The Wikimedia Foundation is looking at how it might capture expert conversation about Wikipedia content happening on other websites and feed it back to the community as a way of providing pointers for improvement.” This struck home. I recently went through the entry for latent Dirichlet allocation and found a bug in their derivation. I wrote up a revised derivation and posted it on my own blog .
5 0.12055205 904 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-13-My wikipedia edit
Introduction: The other day someone mentioned my complaint about the Wikipedia article on “Bayesian inference” (see footnote 1 of this article ) and he said I should fix the Wikipedia entry myself. And so I did . I didn’t have the energy to rewrite the whole article–in particular, all of its examples involve discrete parameters, whereas the Bayesian problems I work on generally have continuous parameters, and its “mathematical foundations” section focuses on “independent identically distributed observations x” rather than data y which can have different distributions. It’s just a wacky, unbalanced article. But I altered the first few paragraphs to get rid of the stuff about the posterior probability that a model is true. I much prefer the Scholarpedia article on Bayesian statistics by David Spiegelhalter and Kenneth Rice, but I couldn’t bring myself to simply delete the Wikipedia article and replace it with the Scholarpedia content. Just to be clear: I’m not at all trying to disparage
6 0.10667561 1026 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-25-Bayes wikipedia update
7 0.093629554 120 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-30-You can’t put Pandora back in the box
8 0.087122425 933 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-30-More bad news: The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals
9 0.082165368 836 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-03-Another plagiarism mystery
10 0.082142934 2245 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-12-More on publishing in journals
11 0.081826836 2319 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-05-Can we make better graphs of global temperature history?
13 0.08058209 901 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-12-Some thoughts on academic cheating, inspired by Frey, Wegman, Fischer, Hauser, Stapel
14 0.079240993 1339 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-23-Learning Differential Geometry for Hamiltonian Monte Carlo
15 0.078008235 2111 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-23-Tables > figures yet again
16 0.077539191 178 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-03-(Partisan) visualization of health care legislation
17 0.07714463 58 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-29-Stupid legal crap
18 0.077079289 879 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-29-New journal on causal inference
19 0.074504793 2098 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-12-Plaig!
20 0.074498616 1915 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-Huh?
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.103), (1, -0.045), (2, -0.046), (3, -0.027), (4, -0.02), (5, 0.009), (6, 0.01), (7, -0.059), (8, -0.022), (9, 0.001), (10, 0.067), (11, -0.043), (12, -0.036), (13, 0.032), (14, 0.016), (15, -0.018), (16, 0.047), (17, 0.028), (18, 0.021), (19, -0.017), (20, 0.024), (21, 0.051), (22, 0.051), (23, 0.008), (24, 0.028), (25, -0.015), (26, -0.034), (27, 0.013), (28, -0.041), (29, -0.013), (30, 0.015), (31, 0.028), (32, -0.014), (33, 0.027), (34, 0.0), (35, -0.009), (36, -0.022), (37, -0.023), (38, 0.019), (39, 0.059), (40, -0.037), (41, -0.045), (42, -0.038), (43, 0.03), (44, -0.017), (45, 0.005), (46, -0.018), (47, -0.011), (48, -0.008), (49, -0.015)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97471327 930 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-28-Wiley Wegman chutzpah update: Now you too can buy a selection of garbled Wikipedia articles, for a mere $1400-$2800 per year!
Introduction: Someone passed on to a message from his university library announcing that the journal “Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics” is no longer free. Librarians have to decide what to do, so I thought I’d offer the following consumer guide: Wiley Computational Statistics journal Wikipedia Frequency 6 issues per year Continuously updated Includes articles from Wikipedia? Yes Yes Cites the Wikipedia sources it uses? No Yes Edited by recipient of ASA Founders Award? Yes No Articles are subject to rigorous review? No Yes Errors, when discovered, get fixed? No Yes Number of vertices in n-dimensional hypercube? 2n 2 n Easy access to Brady Bunch trivia? No Yes Cost (North America) $1400-$2800 $0 Cost (UK) £986-£1972 £0 Cost (Europe) €1213-€2426 €0 The choice seems pretty clear to me! It’s funny for the Wiley journal to start charging now
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
3 0.68376625 1915 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-Huh?
Introduction: I received the following bizarre email: Apr 26, 2013 Dear Andrew Gelman You are receiving this notice because you have published a paper with the American Journal of Public Health within the last few years. Currently, content on the Journal is closed access for the first 2 years after publication, and then freely accessible thereafter. On June 1, 2013, the Journal will be extending its closed-access window from 2 years to 10 years. Extending this window will close public access to your article via the Journal web portal, but public access will still be available via the National Institutes of Health PubMedCentral web portal. If you would like to make your article available to the public for free on the Journal web portal, we are extending this limited time offer of open access at a steeply discounted rate of $1,000 per article. If interested in purchasing this access, please contact Brian Selzer, Publications Editor, at brian.selzer@apha.org Additionally, you may purchas
4 0.6830247 1118 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-14-A model rejection letter
Introduction: Howard Wainer sends in this rejection letter from Sir David Brewster of The Edinburgh Journal of Science to Charles Babbage: It is no inconsiderable degree of reluctance that I decline the offer of any Paper from you. I think, however, you will upon reconsideration of the subject be of the opinion that I have no other alternative. The subjects you propose for a series of Mathematical and Metaphysical Essays are so profound, that there is perhaps not a single subscriber to our Journal who could follow them. Nowadays, he could just submit to Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews . . .
5 0.67743415 945 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-06-W’man < W’pedia, again
Introduction: Blogger Deep Climate looks at another paper by the 2002 recipient of the American Statistical Association’s Founders award. This time it’s not funny, it’s just sad. Here’s Wikipedia on simulated annealing: By analogy with this physical process, each step of the SA algorithm replaces the current solution by a random “nearby” solution, chosen with a probability that depends on the difference between the corresponding function values and on a global parameter T (called the temperature), that is gradually decreased during the process. The dependency is such that the current solution changes almost randomly when T is large, but increasingly “downhill” as T goes to zero. The allowance for “uphill” moves saves the method from becoming stuck at local minima—which are the bane of greedier methods. And here’s Wegman: During each step of the algorithm, the variable that will eventually represent the minimum is replaced by a random solution that is chosen according to a temperature
6 0.67142999 371 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-26-Musical chairs in econ journals
7 0.66874605 902 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-12-The importance of style in academic writing
8 0.66576999 883 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-01-Arrow’s theorem update
9 0.65926415 838 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-04-Retraction Watch
10 0.6454758 1321 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-15-A statistical research project: Weeding out the fraudulent citations
12 0.63308221 2353 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-30-I posted this as a comment on a sociology blog
13 0.63249713 834 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-01-I owe it all to the haters
14 0.62659818 722 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-20-Why no Wegmania?
15 0.62476903 675 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-22-Arrow’s other theorem
16 0.62365657 1324 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-16-Wikipedia author confronts Ed Wegman
17 0.61957407 860 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-18-Trolls!
18 0.61610514 1916 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-The weirdest thing about the AJPH story
19 0.61330134 1435 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-30-Retracted articles and unethical behavior in economics journals?
topicId topicWeight
[(5, 0.012), (9, 0.022), (16, 0.052), (24, 0.098), (27, 0.27), (36, 0.016), (43, 0.019), (48, 0.027), (56, 0.014), (59, 0.012), (63, 0.035), (66, 0.015), (86, 0.045), (96, 0.021), (99, 0.233)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.94820529 802 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-13-Super Sam Fuld Needs Your Help (with Foul Ball stats)
Introduction: I was pleasantly surprised to have my recreational reading about baseball in the New Yorker interrupted by a digression on statistics. Sam Fuld of the Tampa Bay Rays, was the subjet of a Ben McGrath profile in the 4 July 2011 issue of the New Yorker , in an article titled Super Sam . After quoting a minor-league trainer who described Fuld as “a bit of a geek” (who isn’t these days?), McGrath gets into that lovely New Yorker detail: One could have pointed out the more persuasive and telling examples, such as the fact that in 2005, after his first pro season, with the Class-A Peoria Chiefs, Fuld applied for a fall internship with Stats, Inc., the research firm that supplies broadcasters with much of the data anad analysis that you hear in sports telecasts. After a description of what they had him doing, reviewing footage of games and cataloguing, he said “I thought, They have a stat for everything, but they don’t have any stats regarding foul balls.” Fuld’s
2 0.93887603 1490 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-09-I’m still wondering . . .
Introduction: Why can’t I buy train and plane tickets through Amazon? That would be so much more convenient than the current system where I have to keep entering information into the damn forms over and over again.
3 0.92174911 347 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-17-Getting arm and lme4 running on the Mac
Introduction: Our “arm” package in R requires Doug Bates’s “lme4″ which fits multilevel models. lme4 is currently having some problems on the Mac. But installation on the Mac can be done; it just takes a bit of work. I have two sets of instructions below. From Yu-Sung: If you have MAC OS DVD, you should install developer X code packages from it. Otherwise, install them from here . After this, do the following in R: install.packages(“lme4″, type = “source”) Then you will have lme4 in R and you can install arm without a problem. And, from David Ozonoff: I installed the lme4 package via the Package Installer but this didn’t work, of course. I then installed, via this link , gfortran which seemed to put the libraries in the right place (I had earlier installed via Fink the gcc42 compiler, so I’m not sure if this is required or not). I then ran, in R, this: install.packages(c(“Matrix”,”lme4″), repos=”http://R-Forge.R-project.org”) This does not appear to work since it wi
same-blog 4 0.91888607 930 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-28-Wiley Wegman chutzpah update: Now you too can buy a selection of garbled Wikipedia articles, for a mere $1400-$2800 per year!
Introduction: Someone passed on to a message from his university library announcing that the journal “Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics” is no longer free. Librarians have to decide what to do, so I thought I’d offer the following consumer guide: Wiley Computational Statistics journal Wikipedia Frequency 6 issues per year Continuously updated Includes articles from Wikipedia? Yes Yes Cites the Wikipedia sources it uses? No Yes Edited by recipient of ASA Founders Award? Yes No Articles are subject to rigorous review? No Yes Errors, when discovered, get fixed? No Yes Number of vertices in n-dimensional hypercube? 2n 2 n Easy access to Brady Bunch trivia? No Yes Cost (North America) $1400-$2800 $0 Cost (UK) £986-£1972 £0 Cost (Europe) €1213-€2426 €0 The choice seems pretty clear to me! It’s funny for the Wiley journal to start charging now
5 0.87659562 134 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-08-“What do you think about curved lines connecting discrete data-points?”
Introduction: John Keltz writes: What do you think about curved lines connecting discrete data-points? (For example, here .) The problem with the smoothed graph is it seems to imply that something is going on in between the discrete data points, which is false. However, the straight-line version isn’t representing actual events either- it is just helping the eye connect each point. So maybe the curved version is also just helping the eye connect each point, and looks better doing it. In my own work (value-added modeling of achievement test scores) I use straight lines, but I guess I am not too bothered when people use smoothing. I’d appreciate your input. Regular readers will be unsurprised that, yes, I have an opinion on this one, and that this opinion is connected to some more general ideas about statistical graphics. In general I’m not a fan of the curved lines. They’re ok, but I don’t really see the point. I can connect the dots just fine without the curves. The more general id
6 0.86606115 1727 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-19-Beef with data
7 0.85441327 465 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-13-$3M health care prediction challenge
8 0.85377562 1472 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-28-Migrating from dot to underscore
9 0.84957743 173 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-31-Editing and clutch hitting
10 0.84570813 343 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-15-?
11 0.84075415 708 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-12-Improvement of 5 MPG: how many more auto deaths?
12 0.83134377 1255 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-10-Amtrak sucks
14 0.80936962 1238 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-31-Dispute about ethics of data sharing
15 0.80191541 1982 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-15-Blaming scientific fraud on the Kuhnians
16 0.79519737 804 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-15-Static sensitivity analysis
17 0.78754818 2079 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-27-Uncompressing the concept of compressed sensing
18 0.780007 341 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-14-Confusion about continuous probability densities
20 0.7774325 1113 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-11-Toshiro Kageyama on professionalism