andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2013 andrew_gelman_stats-2013-1770 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Here (from the Annals of Applied Statistics ). “Thus, arguably, all of Section 3 is wrong until proven otherwise.” As with retractions in general, it makes me wonder about the rest of this guy’s work. Dr. Anil Potti would be pooping in his pants spinning in his retirement .
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 “Thus, arguably, all of Section 3 is wrong until proven otherwise. [sent-2, score-0.355]
2 ” As with retractions in general, it makes me wonder about the rest of this guy’s work. [sent-3, score-0.689]
3 Anil Potti would be pooping in his pants spinning in his retirement . [sent-5, score-1.283]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('pants', 0.355), ('pooping', 0.335), ('spinning', 0.3), ('retractions', 0.3), ('potti', 0.3), ('anil', 0.286), ('annals', 0.275), ('retirement', 0.254), ('proven', 0.245), ('arguably', 0.235), ('rest', 0.165), ('section', 0.156), ('guy', 0.143), ('wonder', 0.133), ('thus', 0.12), ('applied', 0.119), ('wrong', 0.11), ('general', 0.091), ('makes', 0.091), ('statistics', 0.074), ('would', 0.039)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 1770 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-19-Retraction watch
Introduction: Here (from the Annals of Applied Statistics ). “Thus, arguably, all of Section 3 is wrong until proven otherwise.” As with retractions in general, it makes me wonder about the rest of this guy’s work. Dr. Anil Potti would be pooping in his pants spinning in his retirement .
2 0.14371581 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
3 0.10758242 1568 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-07-That last satisfaction at the end of the career
Introduction: I just finished reading an amusing but somewhat disturbing article by Mark Singer, a reporter for the New Yorker who follows in that magazine’s tradition of writing about amiable frauds. (For those who are keeping score at home, Singer employs a McKelway-style relaxed tolerance rather than Liebling-style pyrotechnics.) Singer’s topic was a midwestern dentist named Kip Litton who fradulently invented a side career for himself as a sub-3-hour marathoner. What was amazing was not so much that Litton lied about his accomplishments but, rather, the huge efforts that he undertook to support these lies. He went to faraway cities to not run marathons. He fabricated multiple personas on running message boards. He even invented an entire marathon and made up a list of participants. This got me thinking about Ed Wegman (sorry!), the statistician who got tangled in a series of plagiarism scandals . As with Litton, once Wegman was caught once, energetic people looked at the records and
4 0.1070639 436 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-29-Quality control problems at the New York Times
Introduction: I guess there’s a reason they put this stuff in the Opinion section and not in the Science section, huh? P.S. More here .
5 0.1036061 838 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-04-Retraction Watch
Introduction: Hey–there’s a whole blog devoted to retractions of journal articles! It’s pretty amazing. Some of it is your basic faked experiments, and then we know about the recent plagiarism example, also there’s an entire research institute in Germany that’s plagiarism-ridden and a journal called Applied Mathematics Letters that apparently will publish just about anything . I’ll publish in crap journals, but nothing that crappy!
8 0.063064478 498 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-02-Theoretical vs applied statistics
9 0.057037268 1601 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-01-A lifetime supply of . . .
10 0.053628832 1044 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-06-The K Foundation burns Cosma’s turkey
11 0.051872127 448 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-03-This is a footnote in one of my papers
12 0.050330333 2012 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-07-Job openings at American University
13 0.049603179 763 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-13-Inventor of Connect Four dies at 91
15 0.04902529 767 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-15-Error in an attribution of an error
16 0.048051953 1435 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-30-Retracted articles and unethical behavior in economics journals?
17 0.046495792 2159 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-04-“Dogs are sensitive to small variations of the Earth’s magnetic field”
18 0.046165027 2213 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-16-There’s no need for you to read this one
19 0.045477904 1486 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-07-Prior distributions for regression coefficients
20 0.044553153 361 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-21-Tenure-track statistics job at Teachers College, here at Columbia!
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.045), (1, -0.01), (2, -0.026), (3, 0.0), (4, -0.017), (5, 0.017), (6, 0.004), (7, 0.015), (8, -0.005), (9, 0.011), (10, 0.003), (11, -0.018), (12, -0.011), (13, 0.002), (14, -0.009), (15, -0.001), (16, -0.013), (17, 0.013), (18, 0.012), (19, -0.027), (20, 0.008), (21, 0.006), (22, 0.001), (23, -0.0), (24, 0.005), (25, 0.008), (26, -0.025), (27, 0.017), (28, -0.04), (29, 0.009), (30, 0.063), (31, 0.028), (32, -0.007), (33, 0.02), (34, -0.006), (35, -0.014), (36, -0.007), (37, -0.018), (38, -0.025), (39, 0.009), (40, -0.008), (41, -0.002), (42, -0.0), (43, -0.017), (44, 0.016), (45, -0.014), (46, 0.017), (47, 0.012), (48, -0.002), (49, -0.007)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.94496489 1770 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-19-Retraction watch
Introduction: Here (from the Annals of Applied Statistics ). “Thus, arguably, all of Section 3 is wrong until proven otherwise.” As with retractions in general, it makes me wonder about the rest of this guy’s work. Dr. Anil Potti would be pooping in his pants spinning in his retirement .
2 0.68442261 498 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-02-Theoretical vs applied statistics
Introduction: Anish Thomas writes: I was wondering if you could provide me with some guidance regarding statistical training. My background is in Industrial/Organizational Psychology, with an emphasis on Quantitative Psychology and currently working in the employee selection industry. I am considering pursuing a masters degree in Statistics. As l look through several program options, I am curious about the real difference between theoretical and applied Statistics. It would be very enlightening if you could shed some light on the difference. Specifically: 1. Is theoretical side more mathematically oriented (i.e., theorems and proofs) than applied? 2. Are the skills acquired in a ‘theoretical’ class difficult to transfer to the ‘applied’ side and vice versa? 3. I see theoretical statistics as the part that engages in developing the methods and applied statistics as pure application of the methods. Is this perception completely off base? My reply: 1. The difference between theoretic
3 0.68173349 2098 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-12-Plaig!
Introduction: This one is no big deal in the grand scheme of things, but . . . wow! Pretty blatant. Maybe someone could endow the Raymond Keene Chair of Cut-and-Paste in the statistics department at George Mason University. Anyway, say what you want about this dude, at least he’s classy. He steals not from Wikipedia but from Gary Kasparov:
Introduction: Xian pointed me to this recycling of a classic probability error. It’s too bad it was in the New York Times, but at least it was in the Opinion Pages, so I guess that’s not so bad. And, on the plus side, several of the blog commenters got the point. What I was wondering, though, was who was this “Yitzhak Melechson, a statistics professor at the University of Tel Aviv”? This is such a standard problem, I’m surprised to find a statistics professor making this mistake. I was curious what his area of research is and where he was trained. I started by googling Yitzhak Melechson but all I could find was this news story, over and over and over and over again. Then I found Tel Aviv University and navigated to its statistics department but couldn’t find any Melechson in the faculty list. Next stop: entering Melechson in the search engine at the Tel Aviv University website. It came up blank. One last try: I entered the Yitzhak Melechson into Google Scholar. Here’s what came up:
Introduction: For “humanity, devotion to truth and inspiring leadership” at Columbia College. Reading Jenny’s remarks (“my hugest and most helpful pool of colleagues was to be found not among the ranks of my fellow faculty but in the classroom. . . . we shared a sense of the excitement of the enterprise on which we were all embarked”) reminds me of the comment Seth made once, that the usual goal of university teaching is to make the students into carbon copies of the instructor, and that he found it to me much better to make use of the students’ unique strengths. This can’t always be true–for example, in learning to speak a foreign language, I just want to be able to do it, and my own experiences in other domains is not so relevant. But for a worldly subject such as literature or statistics or political science, then, yes, I do think it would be good for students to get involved and use their own knowledge and experiences. One other statement of Jenny’s caught my eye. She wrote: I [Je
6 0.62936836 1568 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-07-That last satisfaction at the end of the career
7 0.62438625 1816 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-21-Exponential increase in the number of stat majors
8 0.62409395 1236 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-29-Resolution of Diederik Stapel case
9 0.61003721 1324 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-16-Wikipedia author confronts Ed Wegman
10 0.59739959 361 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-21-Tenure-track statistics job at Teachers College, here at Columbia!
11 0.59557915 755 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-09-Recently in the award-winning sister blog
13 0.57758808 479 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-20-WWJD? U can find out!
14 0.56928068 400 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-08-Poli sci plagiarism update, and a note about the benefits of not caring
15 0.56792879 722 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-20-Why no Wegmania?
17 0.56691128 1442 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-03-Double standard? Plagiarizing journos get slammed, plagiarizing profs just shrug it off
18 0.56468695 1590 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-26-I need a title for my book on ethics and statistics!!
19 0.56260622 1282 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-26-Bad news about (some) statisticians
20 0.56224102 1867 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-22-To Throw Away Data: Plagiarism as a Statistical Crime
topicId topicWeight
[(14, 0.281), (15, 0.078), (22, 0.055), (24, 0.093), (63, 0.116), (86, 0.037), (99, 0.157)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.88426882 1770 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-19-Retraction watch
Introduction: Here (from the Annals of Applied Statistics ). “Thus, arguably, all of Section 3 is wrong until proven otherwise.” As with retractions in general, it makes me wonder about the rest of this guy’s work. Dr. Anil Potti would be pooping in his pants spinning in his retirement .
2 0.79168993 2344 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-23-The gremlins did it? Iffy statistics drive strong policy recommendations
Introduction: Recently in the sister blog . Yet another chapter in the continuing saga, Don’t Trust Polynomials. P.S. More here .
3 0.76953781 755 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-09-Recently in the award-winning sister blog
Introduction: In case you haven’t been following: - Top ten excuses for plagiarism - Why I won’t be sad to see Anthony Weiner retire - U.S. voter participation has not fallen steadily over the past few decades - Scott Adams had an interesting idea
4 0.76742387 1724 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-16-Zero Dark Thirty and Bayes’ theorem
Introduction: A moviegoing colleague writes: I just watched the movie Zero Dark Thirty about the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. What struck me about it was: (1) Bayes theorem underlies the whole movie; (2) CIA top brass do not know Bayes theorem (at least as portrayed in the movie). Obviously one does not need to know physics to play billiards, but it helps with the reasoning. Essentially, at some point the key CIA agent locates what she strongly believes is OBL’s hidding place in Pakistan. Then it takes the White House some 150 days to make the decision to attack the compound. Why so long? And why, even on the eve of the operation, were senior brass only some 60% OBL was there? Fear of false positives is the answer. After all, the compound could belong to a drug lord, or some other terrorist. Here is the math: There are two possibilities, according to movie: OBL is in a compound (C) in a city or he is in the mountains in tribal regions. Say P(OBL in C) = 0.5. A diagnosis is made on
5 0.74072886 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.
6 0.7291851 130 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-07-A False Consensus about Public Opinion on Torture
7 0.71336752 1051 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-10-Towards a Theory of Trust in Networks of Humans and Computers
8 0.69180977 824 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-26-Milo and Milo
10 0.66687763 1696 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-29-The latest in economics exceptionalism
11 0.66031778 1471 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-27-Why do we never see a full decision analysis for a clinical trial?
12 0.64117897 245 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-31-Predicting marathon times
13 0.6145153 745 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-04-High-level intellectual discussions in the Columbia statistics department
14 0.60684043 2237 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-08-Disagreeing to disagree
15 0.60620451 1236 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-29-Resolution of Diederik Stapel case
16 0.59231889 1078 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-22-Tables as graphs: The Ramanujan principle
17 0.58821785 293 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-23-Lowess is great
18 0.58609235 1303 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-06-I’m skeptical about this skeptical article about left-handedness
19 0.58074158 102 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-21-Why modern art is all in the mind
20 0.58066505 1316 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-12-black and Black, white and White