andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2012 andrew_gelman_stats-2012-1394 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Those of you who know what I’m talking about, know what I’m talking about.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Those of you who know what I’m talking about, know what I’m talking about. [sent-1, score-2.63]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('talking', 0.917), ('know', 0.398)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 1394 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-27-99!
Introduction: Those of you who know what I’m talking about, know what I’m talking about.
2 0.33304435 745 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-04-High-level intellectual discussions in the Columbia statistics department
Introduction: In case anybody is wondering what we really spend our time talking about . . .
3 0.20170319 2329 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-11-“What should you talk about?”
Introduction: Tyler Cowen quotes Robin Hanson: If your main reason for talking is to socialize, you’ll want to talk about whatever everyone else is talking about. Like say the missing Malaysia Airlines plane. But if instead your purpose is to gain and spread useful insight, so that we can all understand more about things that matter, you’ll want to look for relatively neglected topics. . . . One advantage of having this blog on a lag of a month or two is that I can post things, knowing that when my discussion finally appears, it will no longer be topical. Indeed, this post is an example.
Introduction: In response to my remarks on his online book, Think Bayes, Allen Downey wrote: I [Downey] have a question about one of your comments: My [Gelman's] main criticism with both books is that they talk a lot about inference but not so much about model building or model checking (recall the three steps of Bayesian data analysis). I think it’s ok for an introductory book to focus on inference, which of course is central to the data-analytic process—but I’d like them to at least mention that Bayesian ideas arise in model building and model checking as well. This sounds like something I agree with, and one of the things I tried to do in the book is to put modeling decisions front and center. But the word “modeling” is used in lots of ways, so I want to see if we are talking about the same thing. For example, in many chapters, I start with a simple model of the scenario, do some analysis, then check whether the model is good enough, and iterate. Here’s the discussion of modeling
5 0.17154613 1007 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-13-At last, treated with the disrespect that I deserve
Introduction: I was at a work-related event today [actually, last month; these non-topical blog entries are on approximately one-month delay], but not connected to the statistics or political science departments. There were a few people there I knew well, and they were introducing me to others. Then at some point when I was talking with one of the more important people in the room, a sixtyish guy comes by and stands next to us. I put out my hand and introduce myself. He looks at me in puzzlement, spits out his first name, and without a pause starts talking to the person I’d been speaking with. After about a minute of talk, he walks away, and the important person and I continued our conversation. No big deal . . . but, I have to admit, I haven’t had that experience very often recently. I’m often at events where I know everyone (or almost everyone) and they know me, and I’m also often at events where I know very few people and have to introduce myself. But it’s rare to be somewhere where I’m
6 0.16714817 1463 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-19-It is difficult to convey intonation in typed speech
7 0.16528699 1499 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-16-Uri Simonsohn is speaking at Columbia tomorrow (Mon)
8 0.16019535 2283 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-06-An old discussion of food deserts
9 0.14053044 1433 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-28-LOL without the CATS
10 0.13434926 1064 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-16-The benefit of the continuous color scale
11 0.10584722 1579 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-16-Hacks, maps, and moon rocks: Recent items in the sister blog
13 0.095678665 1796 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-09-The guy behind me on line for the train . . .
14 0.093730599 1264 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-14-Learning from failure
15 0.093531847 2028 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-17-Online conference for young statistics researchers
16 0.092756256 1084 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-26-Tweeting the Hits?
18 0.082546562 1355 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-31-Lindley’s paradox
19 0.080609664 1590 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-26-I need a title for my book on ethics and statistics!!
20 0.076496348 1658 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-07-Free advice from an academic writing coach!
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.046), (1, -0.021), (2, -0.015), (3, 0.017), (4, 0.004), (5, -0.002), (6, 0.032), (7, -0.005), (8, 0.032), (9, -0.016), (10, 0.001), (11, -0.007), (12, 0.039), (13, 0.008), (14, 0.003), (15, 0.01), (16, -0.012), (17, 0.005), (18, -0.016), (19, 0.031), (20, -0.004), (21, -0.032), (22, 0.013), (23, 0.008), (24, -0.022), (25, 0.008), (26, -0.012), (27, -0.005), (28, -0.025), (29, 0.011), (30, 0.032), (31, -0.008), (32, 0.031), (33, -0.001), (34, -0.001), (35, -0.002), (36, -0.0), (37, -0.009), (38, -0.015), (39, 0.02), (40, 0.008), (41, -0.009), (42, 0.02), (43, -0.012), (44, 0.007), (45, 0.035), (46, -0.036), (47, -0.017), (48, -0.032), (49, 0.084)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96817148 1394 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-27-99!
Introduction: Those of you who know what I’m talking about, know what I’m talking about.
2 0.7236554 806 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-17-6 links
Introduction: The Browser asked me to recommend 6 articles for their readers. Here’s what I came up with. I really wanted to link to this one but it wouldn’t mean much to people who don’t know New York. I also recommended this (if you’ll forgive my reference to bowling), but I think it was too much of a primary source for their taste.
3 0.68729043 1433 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-28-LOL without the CATS
Introduction: Mayo points me to this discussion [link fixed] on parsimony by philosopher Elliott Sober. I don’t really understand what he’s talking about but I am posting the link here because it might interest some of you. P.S. More discussion on this from Mayo here .
4 0.66896349 1257 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-10-Statisticians’ abbreviations are even less interesting than these!
Introduction: From AC, AI, and AIH to WAHM, WOHM, and WM. P.S. That was all pretty pointless, so I’ll throw in this viral Jim Henson link (from the same source) for free.
5 0.65544099 380 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-29-“Bluntly put . . .”
Introduction: Oof! (if you’ll forgive my reference to bowling) What’s funny to me, though, is the phrase, “she’s not nearly as smart as she seems to think she is.” I mean, doesn’t that describe most people? (Link from here .) P.S. I hate to spell things out, Jeff, but . . . I hope you caught the Douglas Ginsburg reference!
6 0.6395421 2329 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-11-“What should you talk about?”
7 0.61920732 2283 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-06-An old discussion of food deserts
9 0.59389782 691 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-03-Psychology researchers discuss ESP
10 0.59382361 664 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-16-Dilbert update: cartooning can give you the strength to open jars with your bare hands
11 0.57614928 1012 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-16-Blog bribes!
12 0.57318044 745 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-04-High-level intellectual discussions in the Columbia statistics department
13 0.56594837 103 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-22-Beach reads, Proust, and income tax
14 0.56311607 1982 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-15-Blaming scientific fraud on the Kuhnians
16 0.56194186 2066 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-17-G+ hangout for test run of BDA course
17 0.55833966 889 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-04-The acupuncture paradox
18 0.5562942 1351 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-29-A Ph.D. thesis is not really a marathon
19 0.5539552 2198 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-04-Special discount on Stan! $999 cheaper than Revolution R!
20 0.55248743 1354 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-30-“I didn’t marry a horn, I married a man”
topicId topicWeight
[(15, 0.4), (99, 0.176)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.96305549 439 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-30-Of psychology research and investment tips
Introduction: A few days after “ Dramatic study shows participants are affected by psychological phenomena from the future ,” (see here ) the British Psychological Society follows up with “ Can psychology help combat pseudoscience? .” Somehow I’m reminded of that bit of financial advice which says, if you want to save some money, your best investment is to pay off your credit card bills.
same-blog 2 0.93213952 1394 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-27-99!
Introduction: Those of you who know what I’m talking about, know what I’m talking about.
3 0.88266218 908 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-14-Type M errors in the lab
Introduction: Jeff points us to this news article by Asher Mullard: Bayer halts nearly two-thirds of its target-validation projects because in-house experimental findings fail to match up with published literature claims, finds a first-of-a-kind analysis on data irreproducibility. An unspoken industry rule alleges that at least 50% of published studies from academic laboratories cannot be repeated in an industrial setting, wrote venture capitalist Bruce Booth in a recent blog post. A first-of-a-kind analysis of Bayer’s internal efforts to validate ‘new drug target’ claims now not only supports this view but suggests that 50% may be an underestimate; the company’s in-house experimental data do not match literature claims in 65% of target-validation projects, leading to project discontinuation. . . . Khusru Asadullah, Head of Target Discovery at Bayer, and his colleagues looked back at 67 target-validation projects, covering the majority of Bayer’s work in oncology, women’s health and cardiov
4 0.82679909 834 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-01-I owe it all to the haters
Introduction: Sometimes when I submit an article to a journal it is accepted right away or with minor alterations. But many of my favorite articles were rejected or had to go through an exhausting series of revisions. For example, this influential article had a very hostile referee and we had to seriously push the journal editor to accept it. This one was rejected by one or two journals before finally appearing with discussion. This paper was rejected by the American Political Science Review with no chance of revision and we had to publish it in the British Journal of Political Science, which was a bit odd given that the article was 100% about American politics. And when I submitted this instant classic (actually at the invitation of the editor), the referees found it to be trivial, and the editor did me the favor of publishing it but only by officially labeling it as a discussion of another article that appeared in the same issue. Some of my most influential papers were accepted right
5 0.79999995 2278 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-01-Association for Psychological Science announces a new journal
Introduction: The Association for Psychological Science, the leading organization of research psychologists, announced a long-awaited new journal, Speculations on Psychological Science . From the official APS press release: Speculations on Psychological Science, the flagship journal of the Association for Psychological Science, will publish cutting-edge research articles, short reports, and research reports spanning the entire spectrum of the science of psychology. We anticipate that Speculations on Psychological Science will be the highest ranked empirical journal in psychology. We recognize that many of the most noteworthy published claims in psychology and related fields are not well supported by data, hence the need for a journal for the publication of such exciting speculations without misleading claims of certainty. - Sigmund Watson, Prof. (Ret.) Miskatonic University, and editor-in-chief, Speculations on Psychological Science I applaud this development. Indeed, I’ve been talking ab
6 0.78781003 1624 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-15-New prize on causality in statstistics education
7 0.78383523 1081 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-24-Statistical ethics violation
9 0.75373709 1541 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-19-Statistical discrimination again
10 0.72391063 1794 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-09-My talks in DC and Baltimore this week
11 0.71413535 133 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-08-Gratuitous use of “Bayesian Statistics,” a branding issue?
12 0.71033573 945 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-06-W’man < W’pedia, again
13 0.7091831 1908 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-21-Interpreting interactions in discrete-data regression
14 0.66701621 1833 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-30-“Tragedy of the science-communication commons”
15 0.66370893 762 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-13-How should journals handle replication studies?
16 0.65518701 1800 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-12-Too tired to mock
17 0.65293455 1499 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-16-Uri Simonsohn is speaking at Columbia tomorrow (Mon)
18 0.65150487 1998 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-25-A new Bem theory
19 0.6335299 1888 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-08-New Judea Pearl journal of causal inference
20 0.62686831 1393 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-26-The reverse-journal-submission system