andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2012 andrew_gelman_stats-2012-1600 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: A blog commenter pointed me to this news article on Sudhir Venkatesh, a sociology professor here: He was the subject last year of a grueling investigation into a quarter-million dollars of spending that Columbia auditors said was insufficiently documented, misappropriated or outright fabricated. According to internal documents from that investigation, which were obtained by The New York Times, the auditors said that Professor Venkatesh directed $52,328 to someone without any “documented evidence of work performed.” He listed a dinner for 25 people, relating to research on professional baseball players; auditors found that only 8 people had attended . . . All told, auditors questioned expenses amounting to $241,364.83. . . . Professor Venkatesh said in a brief phone conversation in October that he had repaid $13,000. . . . “I have never been accused of fraud or embezzlement.” One thing that frustrates me with newspaper articles is when they don’t follow up. Venkatesh was
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 According to internal documents from that investigation, which were obtained by The New York Times, the auditors said that Professor Venkatesh directed $52,328 to someone without any “documented evidence of work performed. [sent-2, score-0.348]
2 ” He listed a dinner for 25 people, relating to research on professional baseball players; auditors found that only 8 people had attended . [sent-3, score-0.612]
3 All told, auditors questioned expenses amounting to $241,364. [sent-6, score-0.329]
4 “I have never been accused of fraud or embezzlement. [sent-15, score-0.17]
5 Venkatesh was accused of paying “$52,328 to the subject of one of his documentaries were for what auditors called ‘fabricated business purposes’” and billing a dinner for 25 people when only 8 attended. [sent-17, score-0.527]
6 The news article seems a bit misfocused, in that it has a lot about Venkatesh’s controversial research methods and only a little on his alleged embezzlement. [sent-20, score-0.132]
7 ” I don’t know how things are in the sociology department, but around campus my impression is that there has always been a lot of respect for interdisciplinary research. [sent-22, score-0.16]
8 It has nothing to do with interdisciplinary research or anything like that. [sent-26, score-0.134]
9 I figured he was back on the research track and that this was better for all concerned. [sent-30, score-0.208]
10 I don’t think I’d be a very good administrator myself, so I just figured Sudhir had been over his head. [sent-31, score-0.167]
11 I’ve only seen him once since, it was a year or so ago at a sociology seminar, but we were sitting in different areas of the room and I had to leave early, so we did not get a chance to speak. [sent-32, score-0.133]
12 When I later heard that hundreds of thousands of dollars were missing, that put a different spin on the story. [sent-33, score-0.28]
13 I had heard rumors of an investigation but I’d never known that there was an official document, dated Aug 4, 2011 (nearly a year and a half ago! [sent-34, score-0.387]
14 ) detailing $240,000 of questionable expenses including $50,000 for fabricated business purposes. [sent-35, score-0.224]
15 If, as Sudhir is quoted as saying in the news article, he’s only paid pack $13,000 of this, I assume more will happen. [sent-36, score-0.177]
16 Until seeing that news article today, all I’d heard were rumors. [sent-45, score-0.158]
17 ” He has no particular comment regarding the dinner listed for 25 people where only 8 attended, or the mysterious $52,328, but he does say that “The irony is that from 2010 onward . [sent-50, score-0.332]
18 Sudhir also writes that he is “deeply troubled that someone within the University’s administration selectively leaked private documents to the media. [sent-56, score-0.21]
19 ” I have no idea who leaked the documents—as noted above, before seeing this in the newspaper I’d only heard rumors that there had been an investigation—but, from my perspective, $240,000 of missing funds of which only $13,000 has been returned, that’s more “deeply troubling” than a leak. [sent-58, score-0.414]
20 It’s also a bit disturbing that a person who, at best, can’t keep track of hundreds of thousands of dollars, was in charge of an institute whose main function is to keep track of outside funding. [sent-59, score-0.34]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('sudhir', 0.611), ('iserp', 0.28), ('venkatesh', 0.255), ('auditors', 0.24), ('investigation', 0.152), ('dinner', 0.129), ('accused', 0.109), ('documents', 0.108), ('leaked', 0.102), ('administrator', 0.102), ('rumors', 0.102), ('fabricated', 0.089), ('expenses', 0.089), ('heard', 0.086), ('sociology', 0.086), ('track', 0.083), ('dollars', 0.083), ('documented', 0.082), ('attended', 0.074), ('interdisciplinary', 0.074), ('university', 0.072), ('news', 0.072), ('funds', 0.07), ('figured', 0.065), ('deeply', 0.065), ('professor', 0.065), ('charge', 0.063), ('fraud', 0.061), ('listed', 0.06), ('research', 0.06), ('quoted', 0.059), ('hundreds', 0.057), ('procedures', 0.056), ('thousands', 0.054), ('newspaper', 0.054), ('transmitted', 0.051), ('owes', 0.051), ('people', 0.049), ('department', 0.048), ('onward', 0.048), ('bradley', 0.048), ('freese', 0.048), ('grueling', 0.048), ('year', 0.047), ('saying', 0.046), ('frustrates', 0.046), ('irony', 0.046), ('accusing', 0.046), ('detailing', 0.046), ('messed', 0.044)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999994 1600 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-01-$241,364.83 – $13,000 = $228,364.83
Introduction: A blog commenter pointed me to this news article on Sudhir Venkatesh, a sociology professor here: He was the subject last year of a grueling investigation into a quarter-million dollars of spending that Columbia auditors said was insufficiently documented, misappropriated or outright fabricated. According to internal documents from that investigation, which were obtained by The New York Times, the auditors said that Professor Venkatesh directed $52,328 to someone without any “documented evidence of work performed.” He listed a dinner for 25 people, relating to research on professional baseball players; auditors found that only 8 people had attended . . . All told, auditors questioned expenses amounting to $241,364.83. . . . Professor Venkatesh said in a brief phone conversation in October that he had repaid $13,000. . . . “I have never been accused of fraud or embezzlement.” One thing that frustrates me with newspaper articles is when they don’t follow up. Venkatesh was
2 0.25936016 1603 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-03-Somebody listened to me!
Introduction: Several months ago, I wrote : One challenge, though, is that uncovering the problem [of scientific fraud] and forcing the retraction is a near-thankless job. That’s one reason I don’t mind if Uri Simonsohn is treated as some sort of hero or superstar for uncovering multiple cases of research fraud. Some people might feel there’s something unseemly about Simonsohn doing this . . . OK, fine, but let’s talk incentives. If retractions are a good thing, and fraudsters and plagiarists are not generally going to retract on their own, then somebody’s going to have to do the hard work of discovering, exposing, and confronting scholarly misconduct. If these discoverers, exposers, and confronters are going to be attacked back by their targets (which would be natural enough) and they’re going to be attacked by the fraudsters’ friends and colleagues (also natural) and even have their work disparaged by outsiders who think they’re going too far, then, hey, they need some incentives in the othe
3 0.072918065 2245 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-12-More on publishing in journals
Introduction: I’m postponing today’s scheduled post (“Empirical implications of Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models”) to continue the lively discussion from yesterday, What if I were to stop publishing in journals? . An example: my papers with Basbøll Thomas Basbøll and I got into a long discussion on our blogs about business school professor Karl Weick and other cases of plagiarism copying text without attribution. We felt it useful to take our ideas to the next level and write them up as a manuscript, which ended up being logical to split into two papers. At that point I put some effort into getting these papers published, which I eventually did: To throw away data: Plagiarism as a statistical crime went into American Scientist and When do stories work? Evidence and illustration in the social sciences will appear in Sociological Methods and Research. The second paper, in particular, took some effort to place; I got some advice from colleagues in sociology as to where
Introduction: After posting on David Rubinstein’s remarks on his “cushy life” as a sociology professor at a public university, I read these remarks by some of Rubinstein’s colleagues at the University of Illinois, along with a response from Rubinstein. Before getting to the policy issues, let me first say that I think it must have been so satisfying, first for Rubinstein and then for his colleagues (Barbara Risman, William Bridges, and Anthony Orum) to publish these notes. We all have people we know and hate, but we rarely have a good excuse for blaring our feelings in public. (I remember when I was up for tenure, I was able to read the outside letters on my case (it’s a public university and they have rules), and one of the letter writers really hated my guts. I was surprised–I didn’t know the guy well (the letters were anonymized but it was clear from context who the letter writer was) but the few times we’d met, he’d been cordial enough–but there you have it. He must have been thrilled t
5 0.070699371 995 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-06-Statistical models and actual models
Introduction: A statistician friend reports the following conversation at a dinner party: My friend: “So what do you do?” A good looking fellow: “I do modeling. What about you?” My friend: “Actually, I do modeling too…” Which reminds me . . . on Halloween I went out trick-or-treating straight from work. I decided to tell people I was dressed as a “dork.” Everyone was amused. But next year I want to do a real costume.
6 0.06968227 989 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-03-This post does not mention Wegman
7 0.069384366 2255 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-19-How Americans vote
8 0.067529403 1755 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-09-Plaig
10 0.061555043 32 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-14-Causal inference in economics
11 0.059298601 2234 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-05-Plagiarism, Arizona style
12 0.059234317 719 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-19-Everything is Obvious (once you know the answer)
14 0.057005301 18 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-06-$63,000 worth of abusive research . . . or just a really stupid waste of time?
15 0.05694763 956 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-13-Hey, you! Don’t take that class!
16 0.055803459 1832 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-29-The blogroll
17 0.055266161 2301 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-22-Ticket to Baaaaarf
18 0.054826707 722 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-20-Why no Wegmania?
20 0.053270377 1100 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-05-Freakonomics: Why ask “What went wrong?”
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.131), (1, -0.078), (2, -0.035), (3, 0.001), (4, -0.02), (5, 0.031), (6, 0.026), (7, 0.004), (8, -0.011), (9, 0.024), (10, -0.012), (11, -0.027), (12, 0.01), (13, -0.001), (14, -0.034), (15, 0.015), (16, 0.02), (17, -0.005), (18, 0.02), (19, -0.007), (20, 0.003), (21, -0.01), (22, 0.015), (23, 0.011), (24, 0.005), (25, -0.033), (26, -0.042), (27, -0.009), (28, 0.004), (29, 0.002), (30, 0.001), (31, 0.016), (32, 0.002), (33, 0.027), (34, -0.008), (35, -0.016), (36, 0.03), (37, -0.007), (38, 0.003), (39, 0.002), (40, -0.011), (41, 0.002), (42, 0.024), (43, -0.01), (44, -0.005), (45, -0.014), (46, -0.01), (47, 0.005), (48, -0.007), (49, -0.025)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97053868 1600 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-01-$241,364.83 – $13,000 = $228,364.83
Introduction: A blog commenter pointed me to this news article on Sudhir Venkatesh, a sociology professor here: He was the subject last year of a grueling investigation into a quarter-million dollars of spending that Columbia auditors said was insufficiently documented, misappropriated or outright fabricated. According to internal documents from that investigation, which were obtained by The New York Times, the auditors said that Professor Venkatesh directed $52,328 to someone without any “documented evidence of work performed.” He listed a dinner for 25 people, relating to research on professional baseball players; auditors found that only 8 people had attended . . . All told, auditors questioned expenses amounting to $241,364.83. . . . Professor Venkatesh said in a brief phone conversation in October that he had repaid $13,000. . . . “I have never been accused of fraud or embezzlement.” One thing that frustrates me with newspaper articles is when they don’t follow up. Venkatesh was
2 0.82087028 1480 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-02-“If our product is harmful . . . we’ll stop making it.”
Introduction: After our discussion of the sad case of Darrell Huff, the celebrated “How to Lie with Statistics” guy who had a lucrative side career disparaging the link between smoking and cancer, I was motivated to follow John Mashey’s recommendation and read the book, Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition, by historian Robert Proctor. My first stop upon receiving the book was the index, in particular the entry for Rubin, Donald B. I followed the reference to pages 440-442 and found the description of Don’s activities to be accurate, neither diminished nor overstated, to the best of my knowledge. Rubin is the second-most-famous statistician to have been paid by the cigarette industry, but several other big and small names have been on the payroll at one time or another. Here’s a partial list . Just including the people I know or have heard of: Herbert Solomon, Stanford Richard Tweedie, Bond U Arnold Zellner, U of Chicago Paul Switzer, S
3 0.80844104 1484 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-05-Two exciting movie ideas: “Second Chance U” and “The New Dirty Dozen”
Introduction: I have a great idea for a movie. Actually two movies based on two variants of a similar idea. It all started when I saw this story: Dr. Anil Potti, the controversial cancer researcher whose work at Duke University led to lawsuits from patients, is now a medical oncologist at the Cancer Center of North Dakota in Grand Forks. When asked about Dr. Potti’s controversial appointment, his new boss said : If a guy can’t get a second chance here in North Dakota, where he trained, man, you can’t get a second chance anywhere. (Link from Retraction Watch , of course.) Potti’s boss is also quoted as saying, “Most, if not all, his patients have loved him.” On the other hand, the news article reports: “The North Carolina medical board’s website lists settlements against Potti of at least $75,000.” I guess there’s no reason you can’t love a guy and still want a juicy malpractice settlement. Second Chance U I don’t give two poops about Dr. Anil Potti. But seeing the above s
4 0.80654722 1153 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-04-More on the economic benefits of universities
Introduction: Last year my commenters and I discussed Ed Glaeser’s claim that the way to create a great city is to “create a great university and wait 200 years.” I passed this on to urbanist Richard Florida and received the following response: This is a tough one with lots of causality issues. Generally speaking universities make places stronger. But this is mainly the case for smaller, college towws. Boulder, Ann Arbor and so on, which also have very high human capital levels and high levels of creative, knowledge and professional workers. For big cities the issue is mixed. Take Pittsburgh with CMU and Pitt or Baltimore with Hopkins, or St Louis. The list goes on and on. Kevin Stolarick and I framed this very crudely as a transmitter reciever issue. The university in a city like this can generate a lot of signal, in terms of innovation or even human capital and the city may not receive it or push it away. A long ago paper by Mike Fogarty showed how innovations in Pittsburgh and Cl
5 0.79786479 970 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-24-Bell Labs
Introduction: Sining Chen told me they’re hiring in the statistics group at Bell Labs . I’ll do my bit for economic stimulus by announcing this job (see below). I love Bell Labs. I worked there for three summers, in a physics lab in 1985-86 under the supervision of Loren Pfeiffer, and by myself in the statistics group in 1990. I learned a lot working for Loren. He was a really smart and driven guy. His lab was a small set of rooms—in Bell Labs, everything’s in a small room, as they value the positive externality of close physical proximity of different labs, which you get by making each lab compact—and it was Loren, his assistant (a guy named Ken West who kept everything running in the lab), and three summer students: me, Gowton Achaibar, and a girl whose name I’ve forgotten. Gowtan and I had a lot of fun chatting in the lab. One day I made a silly comment about Gowton’s accent—he was from Guyana and pronounced “three” as “tree”—and then I apologized and said: Hey, here I am making fun o
6 0.78653455 1058 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-14-Higgs bozos: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are spinning in their graves
7 0.78486913 1603 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-03-Somebody listened to me!
8 0.78357649 2323 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-07-Cause he thinks he’s so-phisticated
10 0.77601385 1421 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-19-Alexa, Maricel, and Marty: Three cellular automata who got on my nerves
11 0.77357668 1007 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-13-At last, treated with the disrespect that I deserve
12 0.76939207 167 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-27-Why don’t more medical discoveries become cures?
13 0.76569825 2282 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-05-Bizarre academic spam
14 0.76485115 411 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-13-Ethical concerns in medical trials
15 0.76445323 2148 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-25-Spam!
16 0.76385671 2313 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-30-Seth Roberts
17 0.76234382 1533 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-14-If x is correlated with y, then y is correlated with x
19 0.75615174 1621 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-13-Puzzles of criminal justice
20 0.75515401 386 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-01-Classic probability mistake, this time in the (virtual) pages of the New York Times
topicId topicWeight
[(1, 0.022), (15, 0.018), (16, 0.074), (21, 0.02), (24, 0.079), (27, 0.015), (36, 0.034), (39, 0.012), (43, 0.012), (56, 0.043), (57, 0.014), (63, 0.019), (74, 0.013), (75, 0.013), (76, 0.131), (77, 0.015), (86, 0.01), (89, 0.019), (93, 0.012), (99, 0.254)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.95434749 1835 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-02-7 ways to separate errors from statistics
Introduction: Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers have been inspired by the recent Reinhardt and Rogoff debacle to list “six ways to separate lies from statistics” in economics research: 1. “Focus on how robust a finding is, meaning that different ways of looking at the evidence point to the same conclusion.” 2. Don’t confuse statistical with practical significance. 3. “Be wary of scholars using high-powered statistical techniques as a bludgeon to silence critics who are not specialists.” 4. “Don’t fall into the trap of thinking about an empirical finding as ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ At best, data provide an imperfect guide.” 5. “Don’t mistake correlation for causation.” 6. “Always ask ‘so what?’” I like all these points, especially #4, which I think doesn’t get said enough. As I wrote a few months ago, high-profile social science research aims for proof, not for understanding—and that’s a problem. My addition to the list If you compare my title above to that of Stevenson
2 0.9502995 1850 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-10-The recursion of pop-econ
Introduction: Dave Berri posted the following at the Freakonomics blog: The “best” picture of 2012 was Argo. At least that’s the film that won the Oscar for best picture. According to the Oscars, the decision to give this award to Argo was made by the nearly 6,000 voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. . . . In other words, this choice is made by the “experts.” There is, though, another group that we could have listened to on Sunday night. That group would be the people who actually spend money to go to the movies. . . . According to that group, Marvel’s the Avengers was the “best” picture in 2012. With domestic revenues in excess of $600 million, this filmed earned nearly $200 million more than any other picture. And when we look at world-wide revenues, this film brought in more than $1.5 billion. . . . Despite what seems like a clear endorsement by the customers of this industry, the Avengers was ignored by the Oscars. Perhaps this is just because I am an econo
3 0.94203335 337 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-12-Election symposium at Columbia Journalism School
Introduction: Here’s the announcement: ELECTIONS 2010 How sustainable is the current Republican coalition? Why has support for the Democratic Party taken a nosedive? Has there been a fundamental change in political conflict since Obama took office? How might policy (health care, TARP, the stimulus) influence election outcomes? Join J-School Prof. TOM EDSALL and a bevy of some of the quickest political minds around for an examination of the upcoming November elections: * BEN SMITH & MAGGIE HABERMAN of Politico * CHARLES BLOW of the New York Times * MELINDA HENNEBERGER of Politics Daily * SAM STEIN of the Huffington Post * J-School Prof. TODD GITLIN and * Columbia University political scientists ANDREW GELMAN & BOB ERIKSON. This lecture is sponsored in part by the Sevellon Brown Lecture Fund. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12 * 7 P.M. Journalism School Lecture Hall
same-blog 4 0.94147468 1600 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-01-$241,364.83 – $13,000 = $228,364.83
Introduction: A blog commenter pointed me to this news article on Sudhir Venkatesh, a sociology professor here: He was the subject last year of a grueling investigation into a quarter-million dollars of spending that Columbia auditors said was insufficiently documented, misappropriated or outright fabricated. According to internal documents from that investigation, which were obtained by The New York Times, the auditors said that Professor Venkatesh directed $52,328 to someone without any “documented evidence of work performed.” He listed a dinner for 25 people, relating to research on professional baseball players; auditors found that only 8 people had attended . . . All told, auditors questioned expenses amounting to $241,364.83. . . . Professor Venkatesh said in a brief phone conversation in October that he had repaid $13,000. . . . “I have never been accused of fraud or embezzlement.” One thing that frustrates me with newspaper articles is when they don’t follow up. Venkatesh was
Introduction: Sandeep Baliga writes : [In a recent study , Gilles Duranton and Matthew Turner write:] For interstate highways in metropolitan areas we [Duranton and Turner] find that VKT (vehicle kilometers traveled) increases one for one with interstate highways, confirming the fundamental law of highway congestion.’ Provision of public transit also simply leads to the people taking public transport being replaced by drivers on the road. Therefore: These findings suggest that both road capacity expansions and extensions to public transit are not appropriate policies with which to combat traffic congestion. This leaves congestion pricing as the main candidate tool to curb traffic congestion. To which I reply: Sure, if your goal is to curb traffic congestion . But what sort of goal is that? Thinking like a microeconomist, my policy goal is to increase people’s utility. Sure, traffic congestion is annoying, but there must be some advantages to driving on that crowded road or pe
6 0.9374665 300 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-28-A calibrated Cook gives Dems the edge in Nov, sez Sandy
7 0.93410045 1551 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-28-A convenience sample and selected treatments
8 0.9326992 283 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-17-Vote Buying: Evidence from a List Experiment in Lebanon
9 0.92491484 1351 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-29-A Ph.D. thesis is not really a marathon
10 0.92453128 257 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-04-Question about standard range for social science correlations
11 0.9231323 51 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-26-If statistics is so significantly great, why don’t statisticians use statistics?
12 0.92149109 32 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-14-Causal inference in economics
15 0.91155398 922 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-24-Economists don’t think like accountants—but maybe they should
16 0.91110682 1105 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-08-Econ debate about prices at a fancy restaurant
17 0.90186536 1818 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-22-Goal: Rules for Turing chess
18 0.8993383 608 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-12-Single or multiple imputation?
19 0.89880335 2246 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-13-An Economist’s Guide to Visualizing Data