andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2012 andrew_gelman_stats-2012-1301 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Pawel Sobkowicz writes: How many zombies do you know?’ Using indirect survey methods to measure alien attacks and outbreaks of the undead, Arxiv preprint arXiv:1003.6087, 2010 I hope you would find interesting the following paper, recently posted on arXiv: Aliens on Earth. Are reports of close encounters correct?, arXiv:1203.6805 This is soooooo much better than getting links to bad graphs or to papers on sex ratios!
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Pawel Sobkowicz writes: How many zombies do you know? [sent-1, score-0.222]
2 ’ Using indirect survey methods to measure alien attacks and outbreaks of the undead, Arxiv preprint arXiv:1003. [sent-2, score-1.094]
3 6087, 2010 I hope you would find interesting the following paper, recently posted on arXiv: Aliens on Earth. [sent-3, score-0.507]
4 6805 This is soooooo much better than getting links to bad graphs or to papers on sex ratios! [sent-6, score-0.667]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('arxiv', 0.66), ('undead', 0.252), ('alien', 0.237), ('aliens', 0.227), ('encounters', 0.227), ('preprint', 0.219), ('attacks', 0.195), ('indirect', 0.178), ('zombies', 0.176), ('ratios', 0.162), ('sex', 0.129), ('links', 0.115), ('posted', 0.11), ('measure', 0.104), ('reports', 0.103), ('correct', 0.099), ('hope', 0.098), ('close', 0.097), ('graphs', 0.093), ('survey', 0.088), ('papers', 0.086), ('recently', 0.08), ('getting', 0.076), ('bad', 0.074), ('methods', 0.073), ('following', 0.066), ('interesting', 0.064), ('find', 0.061), ('better', 0.055), ('using', 0.052), ('paper', 0.052), ('many', 0.046), ('know', 0.04), ('much', 0.039), ('writes', 0.038), ('would', 0.028)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999994 1301 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-05-Related to z-statistics
Introduction: Pawel Sobkowicz writes: How many zombies do you know?’ Using indirect survey methods to measure alien attacks and outbreaks of the undead, Arxiv preprint arXiv:1003.6087, 2010 I hope you would find interesting the following paper, recently posted on arXiv: Aliens on Earth. Are reports of close encounters correct?, arXiv:1203.6805 This is soooooo much better than getting links to bad graphs or to papers on sex ratios!
2 0.18797503 1273 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-20-Proposals for alternative review systems for scientific work
Introduction: I recently became aware of two new entries in the ever-popular genre of, Our Peer-Review System is in Trouble; How Can We Fix It? Political scientist Brendan Nyhan, commenting on experimental and empirical sciences more generally, focuses on the selection problem that positive rather then negative findings tend to get published, leading via the statistical significance filter to an overestimation of effect sizes. Nyhan recommends that data-collection protocols be published ahead of time, with the commitment to publish the eventual results: In the case of experimental data, a better practice would be for journals to accept articles before the study was conducted. The article should be written up to the point of the results section, which would then be populated using a pre-specified analysis plan submitted by the author. The journal would then allow for post-hoc analysis and interpretation by the author that would be labeled as such and distinguished from the previously submit
3 0.18389535 725 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-21-People kept emailing me this one so I think I have to blog something
Introduction: Here and here , for example. I just hope they’re using our survey methods and aren’t trying to contact the zombies face-to-face!
4 0.15018378 1809 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-17-NUTS discussed on Xi’an’s Og
Introduction: Xi’an’s Og (aka Christian Robert’s blog) is featuring a very nice presentation of NUTS by Marco Banterle, with discussion and some suggestions. I’m not even sure how they found Michael Betancourt’s paper on geometric NUTS — I don’t see it on the arXiv yet, or I’d provide a link.
5 0.12799318 2244 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-What if I were to stop publishing in journals?
Introduction: In our recent discussion of modes of publication, Joseph Wilson wrote, “The single best reform science can make right now is to decouple publication from career advancement, thereby reducing the number of publications by an order of magnitude and then move to an entirely disjointed, informal, online free-for-all communication system for research results.” My first thought on this was: Sure, yeah, that makes sense. But then I got to thinking: what would it really mean to decouple publication from career advancement? This is too late for me—I’m middle-aged and have no career advancement in my future—but it got me thinking more carefully about the role of publication in the research process, and this seemed worth a blog (the simplest sort of publication available to me). However, somewhere between writing the above paragraphs and writing the blog entry, I forgot exactly what I was going to say! I guess I should’ve just typed it all in then. In the old days I just wouldn’t run this
6 0.12493005 2245 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-12-More on publishing in journals
7 0.11911055 1393 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-26-The reverse-journal-submission system
8 0.092229508 1974 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-08-Statistical significance and the dangerous lure of certainty
9 0.089894965 618 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-18-Prior information . . . about the likelihood
10 0.089529499 1671 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-13-Preregistration of Studies and Mock Reports
11 0.083759353 1928 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-06-How to think about papers published in low-grade journals?
12 0.081215091 2231 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-03-Running into a Stan Reference by Accident
13 0.079182275 248 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-01-Ratios where the numerator and denominator both change signs
14 0.077942736 1120 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-15-Fun fight over the Grover search algorithm
15 0.073202901 826 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-27-The Statistics Forum!
16 0.071141034 1074 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-20-Reading a research paper != agreeing with its claims
17 0.067868046 263 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-08-The China Study: fact or fallacy?
18 0.066949144 110 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-26-Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics
19 0.065146029 1878 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-31-How to fix the tabloids? Toward replicable social science research
20 0.060892157 1435 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-30-Retracted articles and unethical behavior in economics journals?
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.079), (1, -0.016), (2, -0.013), (3, -0.037), (4, 0.011), (5, -0.03), (6, -0.019), (7, -0.049), (8, -0.016), (9, -0.032), (10, 0.078), (11, -0.025), (12, -0.017), (13, 0.047), (14, 0.008), (15, -0.004), (16, -0.002), (17, 0.023), (18, -0.023), (19, 0.02), (20, -0.006), (21, 0.011), (22, 0.002), (23, 0.014), (24, 0.006), (25, 0.017), (26, -0.005), (27, 0.011), (28, 0.015), (29, 0.023), (30, 0.002), (31, -0.003), (32, 0.023), (33, -0.015), (34, -0.017), (35, -0.008), (36, 0.057), (37, 0.009), (38, -0.042), (39, 0.029), (40, 0.025), (41, 0.042), (42, 0.028), (43, 0.011), (44, 0.012), (45, -0.019), (46, 0.019), (47, -0.017), (48, 0.011), (49, 0.019)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97194517 1301 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-05-Related to z-statistics
Introduction: Pawel Sobkowicz writes: How many zombies do you know?’ Using indirect survey methods to measure alien attacks and outbreaks of the undead, Arxiv preprint arXiv:1003.6087, 2010 I hope you would find interesting the following paper, recently posted on arXiv: Aliens on Earth. Are reports of close encounters correct?, arXiv:1203.6805 This is soooooo much better than getting links to bad graphs or to papers on sex ratios!
2 0.71911216 1120 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-15-Fun fight over the Grover search algorithm
Introduction: Joshua Vogelstein points me to this blog entry by Robert Tucci, diplomatically titled “Unethical or Really Dumb (or both) Scientists from University of Adelaide ‘Rediscover’ My Version of Grover’s Algorithm”: The Chappell et al. paper has 24 references but does not refer to my paper, even though their paper and mine are eerily similar. Compare them yourself. With the excellent Google and ArXiv search engines, I [Tucci] would say there is zero probability that none of its five authors knew about my paper before they wrote theirs. Chappell responds in the comments: Your paper is timestamped 2010; however the results of our paper was initially presented at the Cairns CQIQC conference in July 2008. . . . The intention of our paper is not a research article. It is a tutorial paper. . . . We had not seen your paper before. Our paper is based on the standard Grover search, not a fixed point search. Hence, your paper did not come to our attention, as we were not concerned with
3 0.71660835 1393 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-26-The reverse-journal-submission system
Introduction: I’ve whined before in this space that some of my most important, innovative, and influential papers are really hard to get published. I’ll go through endless hassle with a journal or sometimes several journals until I find some place willing to publish. It’s just irritating. I was thinking about this recently because a colleague and I just finished a paper that I love love love. But I can’t figure out where to submit it. This is a paper for which I would prefer the so-called reverse-journal-submission approach. Instead of sending the paper to journal after journal after journal, waiting years until an acceptance (recall that, unless you’re Bruno Frey, you’re not allowed to submit the same paper to multiple journals simultaneously), you post the paper on a public site, and then journals compete to see who gets to publish it. I think that system would work well with a paper like this which is offbeat but has a nontrivial chance of becoming highly influential. P.S. Just to clar
4 0.6999228 172 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-30-Why don’t we have peer reviewing for oral presentations?
Introduction: Panos Ipeirotis writes in his blog post : Everyone who has attended a conference knows that the quality of the talks is very uneven. There are talks that are highly engaging, entertaining, and describe nicely the research challenges and solutions. And there are talks that are a waste of time. Either the presenter cannot present clearly, or the presented content is impossible to digest within the time frame of the presentation. We already have reviewing for the written part. The program committee examines the quality of the written paper and vouch for its technical content. However, by looking at a paper it is impossible to know how nicely it can be presented. Perhaps the seemingly solid but boring paper can be a very entertaining presentation. Or an excellent paper may be written by a horrible presenter. Why not having a second round of reviewing, where the authors of accepted papers submit their presentations (slides and a YouTube video) for presentation to the conference.
Introduction: The other day we discussed that paper on ovulation and voting (you may recall that the authors reported a scattered bunch of comparisons, significance tests, and p-values, and I recommended that they would’ve done better to simply report complete summaries of their data, so that readers could see the comparisons of interest in full context), and I was thinking a bit more about why I was so bothered that it was published in Psychological Science, which I’d thought of as a serious research journal. My concern isn’t just that that the paper is bad—after all, lots of bad papers get published—but rather that it had nothing really going for it, except that it was headline bait. It was a survey done on Mechanical Turk, that’s it. No clever design, no clever questions, no care in dealing with nonresponse problems, no innovative data analysis, no nothing. The paper had nothing to offer, except that it had no obvious flaws. Psychology is a huge field full of brilliant researchers.
6 0.67792749 1928 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-06-How to think about papers published in low-grade journals?
7 0.66781312 1538 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-17-Rust
8 0.66544324 1137 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-24-Difficulties in publishing non-replications of implausible findings
9 0.64947587 109 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-25-Classics of statistics
10 0.64717203 5 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-27-Ethical and data-integrity problems in a study of mortality in Iraq
11 0.6460731 2244 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-What if I were to stop publishing in journals?
12 0.64034593 1916 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-The weirdest thing about the AJPH story
13 0.62849414 2233 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-04-Literal vs. rhetorical
14 0.62773311 675 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-22-Arrow’s other theorem
15 0.62638015 1429 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-26-Our broken scholarly publishing system
16 0.61969304 2095 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-09-Typo in Ghitza and Gelman MRP paper
17 0.61938357 1854 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-13-A Structural Comparison of Conspicuous Consumption in China and the United States
18 0.61881179 1917 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-28-Econ coauthorship update
19 0.61808932 883 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-01-Arrow’s theorem update
20 0.61730397 2004 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-01-Post-publication peer review: How it (sometimes) really works
topicId topicWeight
[(2, 0.075), (16, 0.093), (24, 0.04), (52, 0.332), (95, 0.021), (99, 0.268)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.92709482 914 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-16-meta-infographic
Introduction: “Most Popular Infographics you can find around the web” by designer and illustrator Alberto Antoniazzi.
same-blog 2 0.87539935 1301 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-05-Related to z-statistics
Introduction: Pawel Sobkowicz writes: How many zombies do you know?’ Using indirect survey methods to measure alien attacks and outbreaks of the undead, Arxiv preprint arXiv:1003.6087, 2010 I hope you would find interesting the following paper, recently posted on arXiv: Aliens on Earth. Are reports of close encounters correct?, arXiv:1203.6805 This is soooooo much better than getting links to bad graphs or to papers on sex ratios!
3 0.84377104 1256 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-10-Our data visualization panel at the New York Public Library
Introduction: In case you couldn’t come to our panel (with Kaiser Fung, Mark Hansen, Tahir Hemphill, Manuel Lima, and Jonathan Stray, and organized by Isabel Draves), here’s the video:
4 0.83722234 1246 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-04-Data visualization panel at the New York Public Library this evening!
Introduction: I’ll be participating in a panel (along with Kaiser Fung, Mark Hansen, Tahir Hemphill, and Manuel Lima), “What Makes Good Data Visualization?”, at the 42nd St. library this evening. The event is organized by Isabel Walcott Draves and is part of the Leaders in Software and Art series. This article with Antony Unwin should be relevant (although I won’t be “presenting”; I’ll be part of a panel and we’ll be having a wide-ranging conversation).
Introduction: Mark Palko points me to a news article by Zack Beauchamp on Jason Richwine, the recent Ph.D. graduate from Harvard’s policy school who left the conservative Heritage Foundation after it came out that his Ph.D. thesis was said to be all about the low IQ’s of Hispanic immigrants. Heritage and others apparently thought this association could discredit their anti-immigration-reform position. Richwine’s mentor Charles Murray was unhappy about the whole episode. Beauchamp’s article is worth reading in that it provides some interesting background, in particular by getting into the details of the Ph.D. review process. In a sense, Beauchamp is too harsh. Flawed Ph.D. theses get published all the time. I’d say that most Ph.D. theses I’ve seen are flawed: usually the plan is to get the papers into shape later, when submitting them to journals. If a student doesn’t go into academia, the thesis typically just sits there and is rarely followed up on. I don’t know the statistics o
6 0.8092736 223 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-21-Statoverflow
7 0.80910921 1686 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-21-Finite-population Anova calculations for models with interactions
8 0.78888911 104 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-22-Seeking balance
9 0.78844529 1531 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-12-Elderpedia
10 0.78648067 485 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-25-Unlogging
11 0.784073 889 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-04-The acupuncture paradox
12 0.75634968 546 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-31-Infovis vs. statistical graphics: My talk tomorrow (Tues) 1pm at Columbia
13 0.75436521 1020 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-20-No no no no no
14 0.7489388 2276 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-31-On deck this week
16 0.73183274 948 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-10-Combining data from many sources
17 0.7135731 786 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-04-Questions about quantum computing
18 0.71036291 82 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-12-UnConMax – uncertainty consideration maxims 7 +-- 2
19 0.7080695 1369 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-06-Your conclusion is only as good as your data