andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2011 andrew_gelman_stats-2011-1065 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: I’ve been told that if you download Google Currents to your iPad or Android device, you get a blog reader that beautifies the posts and makes it look more like a magazine. I don’t have a mobile phone myself but maybe those of you who do, will find this useful.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 I’ve been told that if you download Google Currents to your iPad or Android device, you get a blog reader that beautifies the posts and makes it look more like a magazine. [sent-1, score-1.481]
2 I don’t have a mobile phone myself but maybe those of you who do, will find this useful. [sent-2, score-0.9]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('currents', 0.48), ('mobile', 0.386), ('device', 0.348), ('download', 0.335), ('phone', 0.292), ('reader', 0.247), ('posts', 0.233), ('google', 0.217), ('told', 0.194), ('useful', 0.153), ('look', 0.124), ('makes', 0.122), ('find', 0.116), ('blog', 0.106), ('maybe', 0.106), ('ve', 0.081), ('get', 0.068), ('like', 0.052)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999994 1065 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-17-Read this blog on Google Currents
Introduction: I’ve been told that if you download Google Currents to your iPad or Android device, you get a blog reader that beautifies the posts and makes it look more like a magazine. I don’t have a mobile phone myself but maybe those of you who do, will find this useful.
2 0.26008973 322 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-06-More on the differences between drugs and medical devices
Introduction: Someone who works in statistics in the pharmaceutical industry (but prefers to remain anonymous) sent me this update to our discussion on the differences between approvals of drugs and medical devices: The ‘substantial equivalence’ threshold is a very outdated. Basically the FDA has to follow federal law and the law is antiquated and leads to two extraordinarily different paths for device approval. You could have a very simple but first-in-kind device with an easy to understand physiological mechanism of action (e.g. the FDA approved a simple tiny stent that would relieve pressure from a glaucoma patient’s eye this summer). This device would require a standard (likely controlled) trial at the one-sided 0.025 level. Even after the trial it would likely go to a panel where outside experts (e.g.practicing & academic MDs and statisticians) hear evidence from the company and FDA and vote on its safety and efficacy. FDA would then rule, consider the panel’s vote, on whether to appro
3 0.20440009 307 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-29-“Texting bans don’t reduce crashes; effects are slight crash increases”
Introduction: John Christie sends along this . As someone who owns neither a car nor a mobile phone, it’s hard for me to relate to this one, but it’s certainly a classic example for teaching causal inference.
4 0.1988841 48 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-23-The bane of many causes
Introduction: One of the newsflies buzzing around today is an article “Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study” . The results, shown in this pretty table below, appear to be inconclusive. A limited amount of cellphone radiation is good for your brain, but not too much? It’s unfortunate that the extremes are truncated. The commentary at Microwave News blames bias: The problem with selection bias –also called participation bias– became apparent after the brain tumor risks observed throughout the study were so low as to defy reason. If they reflect reality, they would indicate that cell phones confer immediate protection against tumors. All sides agree that this is extremely unlikely. Further analysis pointed to unanticipated differences between the cases (those with brain tumors) and the controls (the reference group). The second problem concerns how accurately study participants could recall the amount of t
5 0.16233276 587 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-24-5 seconds of every #1 pop single
Introduction: This is pretty amazing. Now I want to hear volume 3. Also is there a way to download this as I play it so I can listen when I’m offline? P.S. Typo in title fixed. P.P.S. I originally gave a different link but was led to the apparently more definitive link above (which allows direct download) from a commenter . Thanks!
6 0.15519518 314 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-03-Disconnect between drug and medical device approval
7 0.12792465 925 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-26-Ethnicity and Population Structure in Personal Naming Networks
8 0.1196505 53 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-26-Tumors, on the left, or on the right?
9 0.11884159 911 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-15-More data tools worth using from Google
10 0.11504261 795 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-10-Aleks says this is the future of visualization
11 0.11433648 1207 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-10-A quick suggestion
12 0.098576605 207 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-14-Pourquoi Google search est devenu plus raisonnable?
13 0.090355143 2124 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-05-Stan (quietly) passes 512 people on the users list
14 0.086299315 1964 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-01-Non-topical blogging
15 0.084649555 2232 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-03-What is the appropriate time scale for blogging—the day or the week?
16 0.084498882 1559 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-02-The blog is back
17 0.082957938 2085 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-02-I’ve already written next year’s April Fools post!
18 0.077620246 1980 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-13-Test scores and grades predict job performance (but maybe not at Google)
19 0.077034749 1231 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-27-Attention pollution
20 0.076865569 570 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-12-Software request
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.067), (1, -0.037), (2, -0.039), (3, 0.023), (4, 0.045), (5, -0.014), (6, 0.031), (7, -0.02), (8, 0.015), (9, -0.037), (10, 0.007), (11, -0.023), (12, 0.041), (13, 0.003), (14, -0.017), (15, 0.05), (16, -0.003), (17, 0.006), (18, -0.028), (19, 0.008), (20, 0.004), (21, -0.035), (22, -0.036), (23, 0.023), (24, 0.012), (25, 0.02), (26, 0.006), (27, -0.009), (28, 0.019), (29, 0.027), (30, 0.011), (31, -0.02), (32, 0.016), (33, 0.017), (34, -0.009), (35, 0.022), (36, 0.007), (37, 0.042), (38, -0.006), (39, 0.0), (40, -0.039), (41, -0.041), (42, 0.043), (43, 0.076), (44, -0.023), (45, 0.02), (46, 0.014), (47, 0.034), (48, -0.007), (49, -0.082)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.93808955 1065 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-17-Read this blog on Google Currents
Introduction: I’ve been told that if you download Google Currents to your iPad or Android device, you get a blog reader that beautifies the posts and makes it look more like a magazine. I don’t have a mobile phone myself but maybe those of you who do, will find this useful.
2 0.73882413 927 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-26-R and Google Visualization
Introduction: Eric Tassone writes: Here’s something that may be of interest and useful to your readers, and which I [Tassone] am just now checking out myself. It links R and the Google Visualization API/Google Chart Tools to make Motion Charts (as used in the well known Hans Rosling TED talk) easier to create directly in R. The website is here , and here ‘s a blog about how to use it, including some R code that actually works (if the user has all the requisite libraries, of course) in your own browser.
3 0.6218366 220 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-20-Why I blog?
Introduction: There is sometimes a line of news, a thought or an article sufficiently aligned with the general topics on this blog that is worth sharing. I could have emailed it to a few friends who are interested. Or I could have gone through the relative hassle of opening up the blog administration interface, cleaned it up a little, added some thoughts and made it pretty to post on the blog. And then it’s poring through hundreds of spam messages, just to find two or three false positives in a thousand spams. Or, finding the links, ideas and comments reproduced on another blog without attribution or credit. Or, even, finding the whole blog mirrored on another website. It might seem all work and no fun, but what keeps me coming back is your comments: the discussions, the additional links, information and insights you provide, this is what makes it all worthwhile. Thanks, those of you who are commenters! And let us know what would make your life easier.
4 0.6035291 1084 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-26-Tweeting the Hits?
Introduction: Someone sent me an email saying that he liked my little essay, “Descriptive statistics aren’t just for losers.” I had no idea what he was talking about, but it sounded like the kind of thing I’d say, so I searched the blog and found this post , which indeed I really like! I thanked my correspondent for reminding me of this little article I’d forgotten, and he told me he just learned of it via someone’s tweet. This made me think: Maybe I should have a twitter feed of nothing but old blog entries. I could just go back to 2004 and then go gradually forward, tweeting the items that I judge to remain of interest. Does this make sense? Or is there a better way to do this? ALternatively, I could do it as a separate blog, but that seems a bit . . . recursive.
5 0.60033965 2085 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-02-I’ve already written next year’s April Fools post!
Introduction: Good to have gotten that one out of the way already. (Actually, I wrote it a few months ago. This post is itself in the monthlong+ queue.) I don’t know how easy it is to search this blog by date to find the Fools posts from previous years.
6 0.59958804 856 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-16-Our new improved blog! Thanks to Cord Blomquist
7 0.59887815 1421 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-19-Alexa, Maricel, and Marty: Three cellular automata who got on my nerves
9 0.59495682 1796 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-09-The guy behind me on line for the train . . .
10 0.59233576 570 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-12-Software request
11 0.59206897 1342 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-24-The Used TV Price is Too Damn High
12 0.58884943 1432 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-27-“Get off my lawn”-blogging
13 0.587946 1530 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-11-Migrating your blog from Movable Type to WordPress
14 0.58349007 2088 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-04-Recently in the sister blog
15 0.58218551 1207 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-10-A quick suggestion
16 0.57458705 207 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-14-Pourquoi Google search est devenu plus raisonnable?
17 0.57241613 91 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-16-RSS mess
18 0.55153954 1709 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-06-The fractal nature of scientific revolutions
19 0.54676133 1559 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-02-The blog is back
20 0.54607689 2054 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-07-Bing is preferred to Google by people who aren’t like me
topicId topicWeight
[(24, 0.071), (45, 0.276), (54, 0.077), (99, 0.37)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.9513706 999 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-09-I was at a meeting a couple months ago . . .
Introduction: . . . and I decided to amuse myself by writing down all the management-speak words I heard: “grappling” “early prototypes” “technology platform” “building block” “machine learning” “your team” “workspace” “tagging” “data exhaust” “monitoring a particular population” “collective intelligence” “communities of practice” “hackathon” “human resources . . . technologies” Any one or two or three of these phrases might be fine, but put them all together and what you have is a festival of jargon. A hackathon, indeed.
2 0.94605976 206 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-13-Indiemapper makes thematic mapping easy
Introduction: Arthur Breitman writes: I had to forward this to you when I read about it… My reply: Interesting; thanks. Things like this make me feel so computer-incompetent! The younger generation is passing me by…
3 0.94202721 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.
4 0.93982768 1407 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-06-Statistical inference and the secret ballot
Introduction: Ring Lardner, Jr.: [In 1936] I was already settled in Southern California, and it may have been that first exercise of the franchise that triggered the FBI surveillance of me that would last for decades. I had assumed, of course, that I was enjoying the vaunted American privilege of the secret ballot. On a wall outside my polling place on Wilshire Boulevard, however, was a compilation of the district’s registered voters: Democrats, a long list of names; Republicans, a somewhat lesser number; and “Declines to State,” one, “Ring W. Lardner, Jr.” The day after the election, alongside those lists were published the results: Roosevelt, so many; Landon, so many; Browder, one.
5 0.91607606 673 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-20-Upper-income people still don’t realize they’re upper-income
Introduction: Catherine Rampell highlights this stunning Gallup Poll result: 6 percent of Americans in households earning over $250,000 a year think their taxes are “too low.” Of that same group, 26 percent said their taxes were “about right,” and a whopping 67 percent said their taxes were “too high.” OK, fine. Most people don’t like taxes. No surprise there. But get this next part: And yet when this same group of high earners was asked whether “upper-income people” paid their fair share in taxes, 30 percent said “upper-income people” paid too little, 30 percent said it was a “fair share,” and 38 percent said it was too much. 30 percent of these upper-income people say that upper-income people pay too little, but only 6 percent say that they personally pay too little. 38% say that upper-income people pay too much, but 67% say they personally pay too much. Rampell attributes this to people’s ignorance about population statistics–these 250K+ families just don’t realize t
6 0.91410667 1015 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-17-Good examples of lurking variables?
7 0.91308701 1031 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-27-Richard Stallman and John McCarthy
8 0.90963095 735 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-28-New app for learning intro statistics
9 0.90895909 1504 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-20-Could someone please lock this guy and Niall Ferguson in a room together?
10 0.9084146 1325 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-17-More on the difficulty of “preaching what you practice”
11 0.90546238 192 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-08-Turning pages into data
12 0.89943588 573 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-14-Hipmunk < Expedia, again
13 0.89773476 69 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-04-A Wikipedia whitewash
14 0.88845849 2189 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-28-History is too important to be left to the history professors
15 0.88428462 1854 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-13-A Structural Comparison of Conspicuous Consumption in China and the United States
16 0.88347763 449 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-04-Generalized Method of Moments, whatever that is
17 0.8815487 362 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-22-A redrawing of the Red-Blue map in November 2010?
18 0.87820625 791 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-08-Censoring on one end, “outliers” on the other, what can we do with the middle?
same-blog 19 0.87477052 1065 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-17-Read this blog on Google Currents
20 0.87457281 728 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-24-A (not quite) grand unified theory of plagiarism, as applied to the Wegman case