andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2014 andrew_gelman_stats-2014-2237 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: I was going to post yet one more discussion of our discussion of the discussion of the discussion of some paper that I don’t really care about, but then I was like, aaaahh, what’s the point? So instead here’s a pointer to the first paper I ever published. It’s the very last one on this list . The backstory is here , and here’s a poorly labeled graph for you to laugh at: Enjoy.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 I was going to post yet one more discussion of our discussion of the discussion of the discussion of some paper that I don’t really care about, but then I was like, aaaahh, what’s the point? [sent-1, score-2.523]
2 So instead here’s a pointer to the first paper I ever published. [sent-2, score-0.91]
3 The backstory is here , and here’s a poorly labeled graph for you to laugh at: Enjoy. [sent-4, score-1.41]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('discussion', 0.413), ('backstory', 0.381), ('pointer', 0.368), ('poorly', 0.315), ('laugh', 0.311), ('labeled', 0.257), ('enjoy', 0.223), ('paper', 0.176), ('list', 0.166), ('care', 0.165), ('yet', 0.158), ('ever', 0.148), ('graph', 0.146), ('instead', 0.136), ('last', 0.121), ('post', 0.109), ('going', 0.108), ('one', 0.084), ('first', 0.082), ('point', 0.077), ('really', 0.071), ('like', 0.046)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 2237 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-08-Disagreeing to disagree
Introduction: I was going to post yet one more discussion of our discussion of the discussion of the discussion of some paper that I don’t really care about, but then I was like, aaaahh, what’s the point? So instead here’s a pointer to the first paper I ever published. It’s the very last one on this list . The backstory is here , and here’s a poorly labeled graph for you to laugh at: Enjoy.
Introduction: From 2.5 years ago . Read all the comments; the discussion is helpful.
3 0.13135582 710 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-14-Missed Friday the 13th Zombie Plot Update
Introduction: The revised paper plot13.pdf Slightly improved figures figure13.pdf And just the history part from my thesis – that some find interesting. (And to provide a selfish wiki meta-analysis entry pointer) JustHistory.pdf I have had about a dozen friends read this or earlier versions – they split into finding it interesting (and pragmatic) versus incomprehensible. The reason for that may or may not point to ways to make it clearer. K?
4 0.096069105 953 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-11-Steve Jobs’s cancer and science-based medicine
Introduction: Interesting discussion from David Gorski (which I found via this link from Joseph Delaney). I don’t have anything really to add to this discussion except to note the value of this sort of anecdote in a statistics discussion. It’s only n=1 and adds almost nothing to the literature on the effectiveness of various treatments, but a story like this can help focus one’s thoughts on the decision problems.
5 0.095105775 1032 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-28-Does Avastin work on breast cancer? Should Medicare be paying for it?
Introduction: Discussion by a panel of experts at the Statistics Forum .
6 0.094650187 2269 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-27-Beyond the Valley of the Trolls
7 0.092749059 109 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-25-Classics of statistics
8 0.08899574 1433 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-28-LOL without the CATS
9 0.088154234 1050 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-10-Presenting at the econ seminar
10 0.083975852 61 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-31-A data visualization manifesto
11 0.083610035 1848 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-09-A tale of two discussion papers
12 0.081546828 2303 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-23-Thinking of doing a list experiment? Here’s a list of reasons why you should think again
13 0.079661675 472 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-17-So-called fixed and random effects
14 0.078513466 2144 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-23-I hate this stuff
15 0.077293105 2266 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-25-A statistical graphics course and statistical graphics advice
16 0.077160731 577 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-16-Annals of really really stupid spam
17 0.076831684 1389 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-23-Larry Wasserman’s statistics blog
18 0.076786876 2233 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-04-Literal vs. rhetorical
19 0.074858814 1800 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-12-Too tired to mock
20 0.070684396 433 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-27-One way that psychology research is different than medical research
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.103), (1, -0.037), (2, -0.033), (3, 0.004), (4, 0.029), (5, -0.092), (6, -0.012), (7, -0.024), (8, 0.01), (9, -0.045), (10, 0.04), (11, 0.045), (12, 0.001), (13, 0.026), (14, 0.034), (15, -0.006), (16, -0.013), (17, 0.017), (18, -0.05), (19, 0.028), (20, 0.033), (21, 0.028), (22, 0.001), (23, -0.024), (24, -0.001), (25, 0.024), (26, -0.024), (27, 0.055), (28, 0.002), (29, -0.008), (30, 0.015), (31, -0.022), (32, -0.025), (33, -0.043), (34, -0.03), (35, -0.065), (36, 0.004), (37, 0.02), (38, 0.006), (39, 0.042), (40, 0.008), (41, -0.023), (42, 0.006), (43, -0.057), (44, -0.033), (45, 0.005), (46, 0.006), (47, -0.048), (48, -0.027), (49, 0.008)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.98463416 2237 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-08-Disagreeing to disagree
Introduction: I was going to post yet one more discussion of our discussion of the discussion of the discussion of some paper that I don’t really care about, but then I was like, aaaahh, what’s the point? So instead here’s a pointer to the first paper I ever published. It’s the very last one on this list . The backstory is here , and here’s a poorly labeled graph for you to laugh at: Enjoy.
2 0.67285573 1951 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-22-Top 5 stat papers since 2000?
Introduction: Jeff Leek writes: I just wrote this post about what the 5 most influential papers in statistics from 2000-2010. I would be really curious to know your list too? Scarily enough I can’t think of any truly influential papers from that decade. I suppose this means I’m getting old! P.S. I did once make a list of the top 5 unpublished papers in statistics .
3 0.66403693 631 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-28-Explaining that plot.
Introduction: With some upgrades from a previous post . And with a hopefully clear 40+ page draft paper (see page 16). Drawing Inference – Literally and by Individual Contribution.pdf Comments are welcome, though my reponses may be delayed. (Working on how to best render the graphs.) K? p.s. Plot was modified so that it might be better interpreted without reading any of the paper – though I would not suggest that – reading at least pages 1 to 17 is recomended.
4 0.65854472 1250 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-07-Hangman tips
Introduction: Jeff pointed me to this article by Nick Berry. It’s kind of fun but of course if you know your opponent will be following this strategy you can figure out how to outwit it. Also, Berry writes that ETAOIN SHRDLU CMFWYP VBGKQJ XZ is the “ordering of letter frequency in English language.” Indeed this is the conventional ordering but nobody thinks it’s right anymore. See here (with further discussion here ). I wonder what corpus he’s using. P.S. Klutz was my personal standby.
5 0.65520686 2363 andrew gelman stats-2014-06-07-“Does researching casual marijuana use cause brain abnormalities?”
Introduction: David Austin points me to a wonderfully-titled post by Lior Pachter criticizing a recent paper on the purported effects of cannabis use. Not the paper criticized here . Someone should send this all to David Brooks. I’ve heard he’s interested in the latest scientific findings, and I know he’s interested in marijuana.
6 0.65014756 2279 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-02-Am I too negative?
7 0.6435228 1120 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-15-Fun fight over the Grover search algorithm
8 0.64344245 109 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-25-Classics of statistics
10 0.63010693 1393 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-26-The reverse-journal-submission system
11 0.62956649 2246 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-13-An Economist’s Guide to Visualizing Data
12 0.62099397 1078 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-22-Tables as graphs: The Ramanujan principle
13 0.62090552 1764 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-15-How do I make my graphs?
14 0.61851156 1809 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-17-NUTS discussed on Xi’an’s Og
15 0.61679727 1011 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-15-World record running times vs. distance
16 0.61536777 2244 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-What if I were to stop publishing in journals?
17 0.61094683 2283 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-06-An old discussion of food deserts
18 0.61012346 2232 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-03-What is the appropriate time scale for blogging—the day or the week?
19 0.60922897 915 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-17-(Worst) graph of the year
20 0.60595721 172 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-30-Why don’t we have peer reviewing for oral presentations?
topicId topicWeight
[(14, 0.108), (15, 0.095), (24, 0.229), (47, 0.054), (78, 0.046), (98, 0.075), (99, 0.209)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.89752579 1471 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-27-Why do we never see a full decision analysis for a clinical trial?
Introduction: Peter Thall writes: Some years ago, after I gave a talk at Columbia that you attended, you told me that you would like to see a decision-theoretic analysis formulated and carried out to completion by Donald Berry, who had been quite vocal for some time about the importance of such a “fully Bayesian” analysis. I do not work with Berry. But, in recent years I have begun to do utility-based clinical trial design. The trial described in the attached paper [by Thall and Hoang Nguyen] enrolled its first child very recently. While the methodology is not terribly sophisticated, I consider this to be one of the most ethical trials that I have designed. The utility was elicited from the two trial PIs. When we had the pre-trial start-up meeting, a third oncologist looked hard at the utility table, and he said that he agreed completely with the numerical utilities. I doubt that this trial will cure this type of brain tumor, but I do think that the design gives the children a better
same-blog 2 0.89360279 2237 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-08-Disagreeing to disagree
Introduction: I was going to post yet one more discussion of our discussion of the discussion of the discussion of some paper that I don’t really care about, but then I was like, aaaahh, what’s the point? So instead here’s a pointer to the first paper I ever published. It’s the very last one on this list . The backstory is here , and here’s a poorly labeled graph for you to laugh at: Enjoy.
3 0.89265037 2188 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-27-“Disappointed with your results? Boost your scientific paper”
Introduction: This , sent in by Ben Bolker, is just tooooo funny. Click on the above image to see more clearly. In addition to the quote I used in the above title, there’s also this: +10.000 correlations/min Sooner than later, your future discovery will pop up. and this: The most relevant conclusions in your scientific paper are concealed under the experimental data but you simply cannot see them. All they need is to pipe in a Mechanical Turk request form on one end and a Psychological Science submission form on the other, and they’ll have the complete package!
4 0.87826395 1800 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-12-Too tired to mock
Introduction: Someone sent me an email with the subject line “A terrible infographic,” and it went on from there: “Given some of your recent writing on infovis, I thought you might get a kick out of this . . . I’m certainly sympathetic to their motivations, but some of these plots do not aid understanding… To pick on a few in particular, the first plot attached, cropped from the infographic, is a strange alternative to a bar plot. For the second attachment, I still don’t understand what they’ve plotted. . . .” I agree with everything he wrote, but this point I think I’m getting too exhausted to laugh at graphs unless there is an obvious political bias to point to.
5 0.87218046 278 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-15-Advice that might make sense for individuals but is negative-sum overall
Introduction: There’s a lot of free advice out there. As I wrote a couple years ago, it’s usually presented as advice to individuals, but it’s also interesting to consider the possible total effects if the advice is taken. For example, Nassim Taleb has a webpage that includes a bunch of one-line bits of advice (scroll to item 132 on the linked page). Here’s his final piece of advice: If you dislike someone, leave him alone or eliminate him; don’t attack him verbally. I’m a big Taleb fan (search this blog to see), but this seems like classic negative-sum advice. I can see how it can be a good individual strategy to keep your mouth shut, bide your time, and then sandbag your enemies. But it can’t be good if lots of people are doing this. Verbal attacks are great, as long as there’s a chance to respond. I’ve been in environments where people follow Taleb’s advice, saying nothing and occasionally trying to “eliminate” people, and it’s not pretty. I much prefer for people to be open
6 0.87196624 183 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-04-Bayesian models for simultaneous equation systems?
7 0.87101942 1224 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-21-Teaching velocity and acceleration
10 0.868388 197 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-10-The last great essayist?
11 0.86807144 803 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-14-Subtleties with measurement-error models for the evaluation of wacky claims
12 0.86761796 414 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-14-“Like a group of teenagers on a bus, they behave in public as if they were in private”
14 0.86693013 1584 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-19-Tradeoffs in information graphics
16 0.8658492 1999 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-27-Bayesian model averaging or fitting a larger model
17 0.8655827 1062 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-16-Mr. Pearson, meet Mr. Mandelbrot: Detecting Novel Associations in Large Data Sets
18 0.86494869 2143 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-22-The kluges of today are the textbook solutions of tomorrow.
19 0.8622843 801 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-13-On the half-Cauchy prior for a global scale parameter