andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2013 andrew_gelman_stats-2013-1973 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Ben Hyde sends along this : Stuck in the middle of the supplemental data, reporting the total workup for their compounds, was this gem: Emma, please insert NMR data here! where are they? and for this compound, just make up an elemental analysis . . . I’m reminded of our recent discussions of coauthorship, where I argued that I see real advantages to having multiple people taking responsibility for the result. Jay Verkuilen responded: “On the flipside of collaboration . . . is diffusion of responsibility, where everybody thinks someone else ‘has that problem’ and thus things don’t get solved.” That’s what seems to have happened (hilariously) here.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Ben Hyde sends along this : Stuck in the middle of the supplemental data, reporting the total workup for their compounds, was this gem: Emma, please insert NMR data here! [sent-1, score-1.235]
2 and for this compound, just make up an elemental analysis . [sent-3, score-0.1]
3 I’m reminded of our recent discussions of coauthorship, where I argued that I see real advantages to having multiple people taking responsibility for the result. [sent-6, score-1.344]
4 Jay Verkuilen responded: “On the flipside of collaboration . [sent-7, score-0.171]
5 is diffusion of responsibility, where everybody thinks someone else ‘has that problem’ and thus things don’t get solved. [sent-10, score-0.855]
6 ” That’s what seems to have happened (hilariously) here. [sent-11, score-0.162]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('responsibility', 0.36), ('emma', 0.264), ('compounds', 0.264), ('coauthorship', 0.238), ('hyde', 0.238), ('supplemental', 0.238), ('diffusion', 0.23), ('insert', 0.217), ('compound', 0.212), ('collaboration', 0.171), ('advantages', 0.168), ('ben', 0.164), ('jay', 0.164), ('argued', 0.15), ('stuck', 0.143), ('thinks', 0.142), ('responded', 0.137), ('sends', 0.137), ('reminded', 0.132), ('middle', 0.131), ('everybody', 0.127), ('discussions', 0.124), ('reporting', 0.123), ('total', 0.122), ('happened', 0.108), ('please', 0.108), ('multiple', 0.101), ('else', 0.096), ('taking', 0.095), ('thus', 0.089), ('along', 0.087), ('real', 0.075), ('someone', 0.075), ('data', 0.072), ('recent', 0.068), ('things', 0.059), ('problem', 0.058), ('analysis', 0.057), ('seems', 0.054), ('make', 0.043), ('get', 0.037), ('people', 0.036), ('see', 0.035)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 1973 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-08-For chrissake, just make up an analysis already! We have a lab here to run, y’know?
Introduction: Ben Hyde sends along this : Stuck in the middle of the supplemental data, reporting the total workup for their compounds, was this gem: Emma, please insert NMR data here! where are they? and for this compound, just make up an elemental analysis . . . I’m reminded of our recent discussions of coauthorship, where I argued that I see real advantages to having multiple people taking responsibility for the result. Jay Verkuilen responded: “On the flipside of collaboration . . . is diffusion of responsibility, where everybody thinks someone else ‘has that problem’ and thus things don’t get solved.” That’s what seems to have happened (hilariously) here.
2 0.1335419 864 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-21-Going viral — not!
Introduction: Sharad explains : HIV/AIDS, like many other contagious diseases, exemplifies the common view of so-called viral propagation, growing from a few initial cases to millions through close person-to-person interactions. (Ironically, not all viruses in fact exhibit “viral” transmission patterns. For example, Hepatitis A often spreads through contaminated drinking water.[1]) By analogy to such biological epidemics, the diffusion of products and ideas is conventionally assumed to occur “virally” as well, as evidenced by prevailing theoretical frameworks (e.g., the cascade and threshold models) and an obsession in the marketing world for all things social. . . . Despite hundreds of papers written about diffusion, there is surprisingly little work addressing this fundamental empirical question. In a recent study, Duncan Watts, Dan Goldstein, and I [Goel] examined the adoption patterns of several different types of products diffusing over various online platforms — including Twitter, Face
Introduction: Economist Stan Liebowitz has a longstanding interest in the difficulties of flagging published research errors. Recently he wrote on the related topic of dishonest authorship: While not about direct research fraud, I thought you might be interested in this paper . It discusses the manner in which credit is given for economics articles, and I suspect it applies to many other areas as well. One of the conclusions is that the lack of complete proration per author will lead to excessive coauthorship, reducing overall research output by inducing the use of larger than efficient-sized teams. Under these circumstances, false authorship can be a response to the warped reward system and false authorship might improve research efficiency since it might keep actual research teams (as opposed to nominal teams) from being too large to produce research efficiently. One of the questions I rhetorically ask in the paper is whether anyone has ever been ‘punished’ for having their name included on
Introduction: Ben Hyde sends along this appealing image by Michael Paukner, which represents a nearly perfect distillation of “infographics”: Here are some of the comments on the linked page: Rather than redrawing the picture to make the lines more clear, I’d say: leave the graphic as is, and have a link to a set of statistical graphs that show where the different sorts of old trees are and what they look like. Let’s value the above image for its clean look and its clever Christmas-tree design, and once we have it, take advantage of viewers’ interest in the topic to show them more. P.S. See my comment below which I think further illuminates the appeal of this particular tree.
5 0.09952452 1917 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-28-Econ coauthorship update
Introduction: The other day I posted some remarks on Stan Liebowitz’s analysis of coauthorship in economics. Liebowitz followed up with some more thoughts: I [Liebowitz] am not arguing for an increase or decrease in coauthorship, per se. I would prefer an efficient amount of coauthorship, whatever that is, and certainly it will vary by paper and by field. If you feel you are more productive with many coauthors, that is not in contrast to anything in my paper. My point is that you will pick the correct number of coauthors if you and your coauthors are given 1/n credit (assuming you believe each author contributed equally). If, however, all of the coauthors are given full credit for the paper (and I have evidence that, in economics at least, authors are far more likely to receive full credit than 1/n credit), authors will get credit for more papers if they use more coauthors than would otherwise be best for total research productivity. My criticism is in the inefficiency induced by not using 1/n
6 0.09151946 357 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-20-Sas and R
7 0.082259655 532 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-23-My Wall Street Journal story
8 0.06477198 2208 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-12-How to think about “identifiability” in Bayesian inference?
10 0.062722437 1724 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-16-Zero Dark Thirty and Bayes’ theorem
11 0.062292527 1336 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-22-Battle of the Repo Man quotes: Reid Hastie’s turn
12 0.061818808 2275 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-31-Just gave a talk
13 0.061521754 290 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-22-Data Thief
14 0.061454635 1989 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-20-Correcting for multiple comparisons in a Bayesian regression model
15 0.060458753 876 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-28-Vaguely related to the coke-dumping story
16 0.057915248 869 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-24-Mister P in Stata
17 0.056166403 1240 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-02-Blogads update
18 0.055573273 924 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-24-“Income can’t be used to predict political opinion”
19 0.055359237 843 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-07-Non-rant
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.081), (1, -0.018), (2, -0.013), (3, -0.002), (4, 0.018), (5, -0.008), (6, 0.002), (7, -0.004), (8, -0.011), (9, -0.014), (10, -0.016), (11, -0.006), (12, 0.004), (13, 0.009), (14, -0.005), (15, 0.02), (16, 0.018), (17, -0.019), (18, 0.004), (19, -0.013), (20, -0.007), (21, 0.002), (22, 0.032), (23, -0.022), (24, -0.039), (25, -0.004), (26, 0.027), (27, -0.022), (28, 0.02), (29, 0.001), (30, -0.006), (31, 0.015), (32, 0.005), (33, -0.014), (34, 0.02), (35, 0.024), (36, 0.017), (37, -0.03), (38, 0.013), (39, 0.052), (40, 0.01), (41, 0.022), (42, 0.011), (43, 0.005), (44, -0.036), (45, -0.005), (46, -0.048), (47, 0.035), (48, 0.022), (49, 0.024)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.89817864 1973 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-08-For chrissake, just make up an analysis already! We have a lab here to run, y’know?
Introduction: Ben Hyde sends along this : Stuck in the middle of the supplemental data, reporting the total workup for their compounds, was this gem: Emma, please insert NMR data here! where are they? and for this compound, just make up an elemental analysis . . . I’m reminded of our recent discussions of coauthorship, where I argued that I see real advantages to having multiple people taking responsibility for the result. Jay Verkuilen responded: “On the flipside of collaboration . . . is diffusion of responsibility, where everybody thinks someone else ‘has that problem’ and thus things don’t get solved.” That’s what seems to have happened (hilariously) here.
2 0.79317695 290 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-22-Data Thief
Introduction: John Transue sends along a link to this software for extracting data from graphs. I haven’t tried it out but it could be useful to somebody out there?
3 0.72885859 357 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-20-Sas and R
Introduction: Xian sends along this link that might be of interest to some of you.
4 0.71193385 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!
5 0.67129791 1440 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-02-“A Christmas Carol” as applied to plagiarism
Introduction: John Mashey sends me this delightful video (not in English but it has subtitles) from the University of Bergen (link comes from this page from Elsevier but I don’t see any direct connection between the controversial academic publisher and the Bergen group). Part of me believes, deep down, that if someone were to send this link to Edward Wegman , he will repent, that he’ll just break down, confess, and apologize to everybody involved. I can’t understand the psychology of such people. I mean, I can understand someone being lazy enough to plagiarize and to deny if accused. But to keep denying after you’ve been caught and everyone knows you did it—I simply can’t see how someone can do that. But this surely reflects my nerd-like lack of understanding of human nature, more than anything else. It’s a bit scary that someone such as myself who has such poor intuitions about human behavior can become a prominent social scientist, but I suppose it takes all kinds. P.S. At least I’m
6 0.66631043 450 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-04-The Joy of Stats
7 0.63877624 975 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-27-Caffeine keeps your Mac awake
8 0.62483454 141 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-12-Dispute over counts of child deaths in Iraq due to sanctions
9 0.62270331 806 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-17-6 links
10 0.61859959 587 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-24-5 seconds of every #1 pop single
12 0.60987061 1931 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-09-“Frontiers in Massive Data Analysis”
13 0.60885364 2066 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-17-G+ hangout for test run of BDA course
14 0.6050514 1982 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-15-Blaming scientific fraud on the Kuhnians
15 0.59488517 869 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-24-Mister P in Stata
16 0.59375912 404 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-09-“Much of the recent reported drop in interstate migration is a statistical artifact”
17 0.58919805 1080 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-24-Latest in blog advertising
18 0.58327574 1257 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-10-Statisticians’ abbreviations are even less interesting than these!
19 0.58287495 1444 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-05-Those darn conservative egalitarians
20 0.58125794 1660 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-08-Bayesian, Permutable Symmetries
topicId topicWeight
[(16, 0.031), (24, 0.201), (44, 0.056), (95, 0.412), (99, 0.159)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.96650308 832 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-31-Even a good data display can sometimes be improved
Introduction: When I first saw this graphic, I thought “boy, that’s great, sometimes the graphic practically makes itself.” Normally it’s hard to use lots of different colors to differentiate items of interest, because there’s usually not an intuitive mapping between color and item (e.g. for countries, or states, or whatever). But the colors of crayons, what could be more perfect? So this graphic seemed awesome. But, as they discovered after some experimentation at datapointed.net there is an even BETTER possibility here. Click the link to see. Crayola Crayon colors by year
2 0.96627694 876 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-28-Vaguely related to the coke-dumping story
Introduction: Underground norms from Jay Livingston. P.S. The Coke story is here (and is followed up in the comments).
3 0.90303236 1820 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-23-Foundation for Open Access Statistics
Introduction: Now here’s a foundation I (Bob) can get behind: Foundation for Open Access Statistics (FOAS) Their mission is to “promote free software, open access publishing, and reproducible research in statistics.” To me, that’s like supporting motherhood and apple pie ! FOAS spun out of and is partially designed to support the Journal of Statistical Software (aka JSS , aka JStatSoft ). I adore JSS because it (a) is open access, (b) publishes systems papers on statistical software, (c) has fast reviewing turnaround times, and (d) is free for authors and readers. One of the next items on my to-do list is to write up the Stan modeling language and submit it to JSS . As a not-for-profit with no visible source of income, they are quite sensibly asking for donations (don’t complain — it beats $3K author fees or not being able to read papers).
4 0.90130621 520 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-17-R Advertised
Introduction: The R language is definitely going mainstream:
same-blog 5 0.88249427 1973 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-08-For chrissake, just make up an analysis already! We have a lab here to run, y’know?
Introduction: Ben Hyde sends along this : Stuck in the middle of the supplemental data, reporting the total workup for their compounds, was this gem: Emma, please insert NMR data here! where are they? and for this compound, just make up an elemental analysis . . . I’m reminded of our recent discussions of coauthorship, where I argued that I see real advantages to having multiple people taking responsibility for the result. Jay Verkuilen responded: “On the flipside of collaboration . . . is diffusion of responsibility, where everybody thinks someone else ‘has that problem’ and thus things don’t get solved.” That’s what seems to have happened (hilariously) here.
7 0.83772272 2101 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-15-BDA class 4 G+ hangout on air is on air
8 0.79829025 1862 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-18-uuuuuuuuuuuuugly
9 0.77725983 12 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-30-More on problems with surveys estimating deaths in war zones
10 0.76260144 1308 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-08-chartsnthings !
11 0.75276423 1164 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-13-Help with this problem, win valuable prizes
12 0.74600959 519 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-16-Update on the generalized method of moments
13 0.74378192 1086 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-27-The most dangerous jobs in America
14 0.72232991 266 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-09-The future of R
15 0.71009147 627 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-24-How few respondents are reasonable to use when calculating the average by county?
16 0.69926244 829 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-29-Infovis vs. statgraphics: A clear example of their different goals
17 0.69231921 2038 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-25-Great graphs of names
18 0.68663096 1667 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-10-When you SHARE poorly researched infographics…
19 0.67230511 2135 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-15-The UN Plot to Force Bayesianism on Unsuspecting Americans (penalized B-Spline edition)
20 0.65204859 1737 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-25-Correlation of 1 . . . too good to be true?