andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2013 andrew_gelman_stats-2013-2085 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Good to have gotten that one out of the way already. (Actually, I wrote it a few months ago. This post is itself in the monthlong+ queue.) I don’t know how easy it is to search this blog by date to find the Fools posts from previous years.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Good to have gotten that one out of the way already. [sent-1, score-0.447]
2 ) I don’t know how easy it is to search this blog by date to find the Fools posts from previous years. [sent-4, score-1.487]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('monthlong', 0.503), ('fools', 0.454), ('gotten', 0.318), ('date', 0.308), ('posts', 0.244), ('search', 0.225), ('months', 0.221), ('previous', 0.221), ('easy', 0.176), ('post', 0.13), ('wrote', 0.126), ('find', 0.122), ('blog', 0.111), ('actually', 0.11), ('years', 0.109), ('good', 0.083), ('know', 0.08), ('way', 0.079), ('one', 0.05)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999994 2085 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-02-I’ve already written next year’s April Fools post!
Introduction: Good to have gotten that one out of the way already. (Actually, I wrote it a few months ago. This post is itself in the monthlong+ queue.) I don’t know how easy it is to search this blog by date to find the Fools posts from previous years.
2 0.12505719 1513 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-27-Estimating seasonality with a data set that’s just 52 weeks long
Introduction: Kaiser asks: Trying to figure out what are some keywords to research for this problem I’m trying to solve. I need to estimate seasonality but without historical data. What I have are multiple time series of correlated metrics (think department store sales, movie receipts, etc.) but all of them for 52 weeks only. I’m thinking that if these metrics are all subject to some underlying seasonality, I should be able to estimate that without needing prior years data. My reply: Can I blog this and see if the hive mind responds? I’m not an expert on this one. My first thought is to fit an additive model including date effects, with some sort of spline on the date effects along with day-of-week effects, idiosyncratic date effects (July 4th, Christmas, etc.), and possible interactions. Actually, I’d love to fit something like that in Stan, just to see how it turns out. It could be a tangled mess but it could end up working really well!
3 0.12014803 1964 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-01-Non-topical blogging
Introduction: On a day with four blog posts (and followed by a day with two more), econblogger Mark Thoma wrote : Every once in awhile I [Thoma] kind of need a bit of a break . . . I ran out of energy a few weeks ago . . . I’ll do my best until then, daily links at least somehow and short “echo” posts as usual, but I doubt I’ll have time to say much myself . . . [There's a reason I haven't missed a day posting to the blog in over eight years. When I first started, I was afraid that if I missed a day new readers would bail out . . . I realize a missed day won't kill the blog at this point, but it's still important to me to keep posting every day.] What I do is post once a day; when I write new posts, I schedule them for the future. I currently have approx 2-month lag. Sometimes I post 2 or 3 times in one day, if I have something topical or just something I feel like posting on. Overall, though, I find a benefit to the lag. Posts that are less topical (not tied to the news or to a current o
4 0.1160816 83 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-13-Silly Sas lays out old-fashioned statistical thinking
Introduction: People keep telling me that Sas isn’t as bad as everybody says, but then I see (from Christian Robert ) this listing from the Sas website of “disadvantages in using Bayesian analysis”: There is no correct way to choose a prior. Bayesian inferences require skills to translate prior beliefs into a mathematically formulated prior. If you do not proceed with caution, you can generate misleading results. . . . From a practical point of view, it might sometimes be difficult to convince subject matter experts who do not agree with the validity of the chosen prior. That is so tacky! As if least squares, logistic regressions, Cox models, and all those other likelihoods mentioned in the Sas documentation are so automatically convincing to subject matter experts. P.S. For some more serious objections to Bayesian statistics, see here and here . P.P.S. In case you’re wondering why I’m commenting on month-old blog entries . . . I have a monthlong backlog of entries, and I’m spooling
5 0.10465237 2232 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-03-What is the appropriate time scale for blogging—the day or the week?
Introduction: I post (approximately) once a day and don’t plan to change that. I have enough material to post more often—for example, I could intersperse existing blog posts with summaries of my published papers or of other work that I like; and, beyond this, we currently have a one-to-two-month backlog of posts—but I’m afraid that if the number of posts were doubled, the attention given to each would be roughly halved. Looking at it the other way, I certainly don’t want to reduce my level of posting. Sure, it takes time to blog, but these are things that are important for me to say. If I were to blog less frequently, it would only be because I was pouring all these words into a different vessel, for example a book. For now, though, I think it makes sense to blog and then collect the words later as appropriate. With blogging I get comments, and many of these comments are helpful—either directly (by pointing out errors in my thinking or linking to relevant software or literature) or indirec
6 0.089737244 1061 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-16-CrossValidated: A place to post your statistics questions
7 0.087267786 872 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-26-Blog on applied probability modeling
8 0.082957938 1065 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-17-Read this blog on Google Currents
9 0.079131387 882 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-31-Meanwhile, on the sister blog . . .
10 0.07542491 1976 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-10-The birthday problem
11 0.07123588 2265 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-24-On deck this week
12 0.070308931 2054 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-07-Bing is preferred to Google by people who aren’t like me
13 0.068192102 1905 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-18-There are no fat sprinters
14 0.064751312 1357 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-01-Halloween-Valentine’s update
15 0.063204736 1311 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-10-My final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
16 0.061688684 207 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-14-Pourquoi Google search est devenu plus raisonnable?
18 0.060347833 1290 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-30-I suppose it’s too late to add Turing’s run-around-the-house-chess to the 2012 London Olympics?
19 0.059491724 2279 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-02-Am I too negative?
20 0.058951773 1933 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-10-Please send all comments to -dev-ripley
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.076), (1, -0.037), (2, -0.032), (3, 0.022), (4, 0.018), (5, -0.005), (6, 0.022), (7, -0.024), (8, 0.024), (9, -0.025), (10, 0.023), (11, 0.018), (12, 0.052), (13, 0.003), (14, -0.022), (15, 0.062), (16, -0.019), (17, 0.02), (18, -0.023), (19, 0.041), (20, 0.017), (21, 0.005), (22, -0.057), (23, 0.019), (24, 0.018), (25, 0.012), (26, -0.006), (27, 0.001), (28, 0.021), (29, -0.014), (30, 0.025), (31, -0.01), (32, 0.008), (33, -0.013), (34, -0.031), (35, -0.027), (36, 0.004), (37, 0.011), (38, 0.021), (39, -0.036), (40, -0.015), (41, -0.017), (42, 0.036), (43, -0.012), (44, 0.012), (45, 0.022), (46, 0.007), (47, -0.045), (48, -0.024), (49, -0.04)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97149843 2085 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-02-I’ve already written next year’s April Fools post!
Introduction: Good to have gotten that one out of the way already. (Actually, I wrote it a few months ago. This post is itself in the monthlong+ queue.) I don’t know how easy it is to search this blog by date to find the Fools posts from previous years.
2 0.7950229 1964 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-01-Non-topical blogging
Introduction: On a day with four blog posts (and followed by a day with two more), econblogger Mark Thoma wrote : Every once in awhile I [Thoma] kind of need a bit of a break . . . I ran out of energy a few weeks ago . . . I’ll do my best until then, daily links at least somehow and short “echo” posts as usual, but I doubt I’ll have time to say much myself . . . [There's a reason I haven't missed a day posting to the blog in over eight years. When I first started, I was afraid that if I missed a day new readers would bail out . . . I realize a missed day won't kill the blog at this point, but it's still important to me to keep posting every day.] What I do is post once a day; when I write new posts, I schedule them for the future. I currently have approx 2-month lag. Sometimes I post 2 or 3 times in one day, if I have something topical or just something I feel like posting on. Overall, though, I find a benefit to the lag. Posts that are less topical (not tied to the news or to a current o
3 0.78532404 104 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-22-Seeking balance
Introduction: I’m trying to temporarily kick the blogging habit as I seem to be addicted. I’m currently on a binge and my plan is to schedule a bunch of already-written entries at one per weekday and not blog anything new for awhile. Yesterday I fell off the wagon and posted 4 items, but maybe now I can show some restraint. P.S. In keeping with the spirit of this blog, I scheduled it to appear on 13 May, even though I wrote it on 15 Apr. Just about everything you’ve been reading on this blog for the past several weeks (and lots of forthcoming items) were written a month ago. The only exceptions are whatever my cobloggers have been posting and various items that were timely enough that I inserted them in the queue afterward. P.P.S I bumped it up to 22 Jun because, as of 14 Apr, I was continuing to write new entries. I hope to slow down soon! P.P.P.S. (20 June) I was going to bump it up again–the horizon’s now in mid-July–but I thought, enough is enough! Right now I think that about ha
4 0.76769745 91 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-16-RSS mess
Introduction: Apparently some of our new blog entries are appearing as old entries on the RSS feed, meaning that those of you who read the blog using RSS may be missing a lot of good stuff. We’re working on this. But, in the meantime, I recommend you click on the blog itself to see what’s been posted in the last few weeks. Enjoy.
5 0.7614817 220 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-20-Why I blog?
Introduction: There is sometimes a line of news, a thought or an article sufficiently aligned with the general topics on this blog that is worth sharing. I could have emailed it to a few friends who are interested. Or I could have gone through the relative hassle of opening up the blog administration interface, cleaned it up a little, added some thoughts and made it pretty to post on the blog. And then it’s poring through hundreds of spam messages, just to find two or three false positives in a thousand spams. Or, finding the links, ideas and comments reproduced on another blog without attribution or credit. Or, even, finding the whole blog mirrored on another website. It might seem all work and no fun, but what keeps me coming back is your comments: the discussions, the additional links, information and insights you provide, this is what makes it all worthwhile. Thanks, those of you who are commenters! And let us know what would make your life easier.
6 0.70201707 856 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-16-Our new improved blog! Thanks to Cord Blomquist
7 0.69193119 2088 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-04-Recently in the sister blog
8 0.6858176 1065 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-17-Read this blog on Google Currents
9 0.68293846 790 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-08-Blog in motion
10 0.68078256 1561 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-04-Someone is wrong on the internet
11 0.66618991 2232 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-03-What is the appropriate time scale for blogging—the day or the week?
12 0.65909058 1709 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-06-The fractal nature of scientific revolutions
13 0.65897483 871 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-26-Be careful what you control for . . . you just might get it!
14 0.65819168 2126 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-07-If I could’ve done it all over again
15 0.65752345 1567 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-07-Election reports
16 0.65260315 1084 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-26-Tweeting the Hits?
17 0.65253484 3 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-26-Bayes in the news…in a somewhat frustrating way
18 0.64989311 313 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-03-A question for psychometricians
19 0.64577639 570 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-12-Software request
20 0.64196527 771 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-16-30 days of statistics
topicId topicWeight
[(16, 0.049), (23, 0.068), (72, 0.157), (97, 0.099), (99, 0.422)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96452469 2085 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-02-I’ve already written next year’s April Fools post!
Introduction: Good to have gotten that one out of the way already. (Actually, I wrote it a few months ago. This post is itself in the monthlong+ queue.) I don’t know how easy it is to search this blog by date to find the Fools posts from previous years.
2 0.92790335 1244 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-03-Meta-analyses of impact evaluations of aid programs
Introduction: Eva Vivalt points me to this . I don’t know anything about it, but I am intrigued by the idea of a meta-analysis being done outside of the usual channels.
Introduction: I was just reading an old post and came across this example which I’d like to share with you again: Here’s a story of R-squared = 1%. Consider a 0/1 outcome with about half the people in each category. For.example, half the people with some disease die in a year and half live. Now suppose there’s a treatment that increases survival rate from 50% to 60%. The unexplained sd is 0.5 and the explained sd is 0.05, hence R-squared is 0.01.
4 0.92125672 68 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-03-…pretty soon you’re talking real money.
Introduction: A New York Times article reports the opening of a half-mile section of bike path, recently built along the west side of Manhattan at a cost of $16M, or roughly $30 million per mile. That’s about $5700 per linear foot. Kinda sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? Well, $30 million per mile for about one car-lane mile is a lot, but it’s not out of line compared to other urban highway construction costs. The Doyle Drive project in San Francisco — a freeway to replace the current old and deteriorating freeway approach to the Golden Gate Bridge — is currently under way at $1 billion for 1.6 miles…but hey, it will have six lanes each way, so that isn’t so bad, at $50 million per lane-mile. And there are other components to the project, too, not just building the highway (there will also be bike paths, landscaping, on- and off-ramps, and so on). All in all it seems roughly in line with the New York bike lane project. Speaking of the Doyle Drive project, one expense was the cost of movin
5 0.91894472 550 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-02-An IV won’t save your life if the line is tangled
Introduction: Alex Tabarrok quotes Randall Morck and Bernard Yeung on difficulties with instrumental variables. This reminded me of some related things I’ve written. In the official story the causal question comes first and then the clever researcher comes up with an IV. I suspect that often it’s the other way around: you find a natural experiment and look at the consequences that flow from it. And maybe that’s not such a bad thing. See section 4 of this article . More generally, I think economists and political scientists are currently a bit overinvested in identification strategies. I agree with Heckman’s point (as I understand it) that ultimately we should be building models that work for us rather than always thinking we can get causal inference on the cheap, as it were, by some trick or another. (This is a point I briefly discuss in a couple places here and also in my recent paper for the causality volume that Don Green etc are involved with.) I recently had this discussion wi
6 0.91573954 25 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-10-Two great tastes that taste great together
7 0.91403502 1079 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-23-Surveys show Americans are populist class warriors, except when they aren’t
8 0.91358894 1179 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-21-“Readability” as freedom from the actual sensation of reading
9 0.90937096 84 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-14-Is it 1930?
10 0.90695244 1381 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-16-The Art of Fielding
11 0.90614653 1313 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-11-Question 1 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
13 0.90470684 1288 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-29-Clueless Americans think they’ll never get sick
14 0.90363079 1434 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-29-FindTheData.org
15 0.90338767 860 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-18-Trolls!
16 0.90311998 756 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-10-Christakis-Fowler update
17 0.90226352 1813 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-19-Grad students: Participate in an online survey on statistics education
18 0.9022612 1602 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-01-The purpose of writing
19 0.90224457 174 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-01-Literature and life
20 0.90215737 180 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-03-Climate Change News