andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2014 andrew_gelman_stats-2014-2290 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Mon : Transitioning to Stan Tues : When you believe in things that you don’t understand Wed : Looking for Bayesian expertise in India, for the purpose of analysis of sarcoma trials Thurs : If you get to the point of asking, just do it. But some difficulties do arise . . . Fri : One-tailed or two-tailed? Sat : Index or indicator variables Sun : Fooled by randomness
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Mon : Transitioning to Stan Tues : When you believe in things that you don’t understand Wed : Looking for Bayesian expertise in India, for the purpose of analysis of sarcoma trials Thurs : If you get to the point of asking, just do it. [sent-1, score-1.285]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('sarcoma', 0.318), ('transitioning', 0.3), ('india', 0.238), ('randomness', 0.234), ('fooled', 0.234), ('sun', 0.222), ('indicator', 0.22), ('fri', 0.217), ('mon', 0.213), ('tues', 0.213), ('thurs', 0.207), ('wed', 0.207), ('index', 0.19), ('trials', 0.187), ('expertise', 0.179), ('sat', 0.175), ('difficulties', 0.166), ('purpose', 0.165), ('arise', 0.162), ('asking', 0.151), ('stan', 0.139), ('variables', 0.116), ('looking', 0.102), ('believe', 0.1), ('understand', 0.094), ('bayesian', 0.083), ('things', 0.071), ('analysis', 0.068), ('point', 0.058), ('get', 0.045)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999988 2290 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-14-On deck this week
Introduction: Mon : Transitioning to Stan Tues : When you believe in things that you don’t understand Wed : Looking for Bayesian expertise in India, for the purpose of analysis of sarcoma trials Thurs : If you get to the point of asking, just do it. But some difficulties do arise . . . Fri : One-tailed or two-tailed? Sat : Index or indicator variables Sun : Fooled by randomness
2 0.3177225 2348 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-26-On deck this week
Introduction: Mon: WAIC and cross-validation in Stan! Tues: A whole fleet of gremlins: Looking more carefully at Richard Tol’s twice-corrected paper, “The Economic Effects of Climate Change” Wed: Just wondering Thurs: When you believe in things that you don’t understand Fri: I posted this as a comment on a sociology blog Sat: “Building on theories used to describe magnets, scientists have put together a model that captures something very different . . .” Sun: Why we hate stepwise regression
3 0.2977038 2240 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-10-On deck this week: Things people sent me
Introduction: Mon: Preregistration: what’s in it for you? Tues: What if I were to stop publishing in journals? Wed: Empirical implications of Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models Thurs: An Economist’s Guide to Visualizing Data Fri: The maximal information coefficient Sat: Problematic interpretations of confidence intervals Sun: The more you look, the more you find
4 0.28975284 2366 andrew gelman stats-2014-06-09-On deck this week
Introduction: Mon: I hate polynomials Tues: Spring forward, fall back, drop dead? Wed: Bayes in the research conversation Thurs: The health policy innovation center: how best to move from pilot studies to large-scale practice? Fri: Stroopy names Sat: He’s not so great in math but wants to do statistics and machine learning Sun: Comparing the full model to the partial model
5 0.27437001 2321 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-05-On deck this week
Introduction: Mon: Can we make better graphs of global temperature history? Tues: Priors I don’t believe Wed: Cause he thinks he’s so-phisticated Thurs: Discussion with Steven Pinker on research that is attached to data that are so noisy as to be essentially uninformative Fri: Combining forecasts: Evidence on the relative accuracy of the simple average and Bayesian model averaging for predicting social science problems Sat: What property is important in a risk prediction model? Discrimination or calibration? Sun: “What should you talk about?” Plus whatever the co-bloggers want to throw in. Right now I’m super-excited about wedge sampling but I’ll let you know more about that once the paper is done.
6 0.26147082 2276 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-31-On deck this week
7 0.24491346 2331 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-12-On deck this week
8 0.23541608 2339 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-19-On deck this week
9 0.22851884 2206 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-10-On deck this week
10 0.2233136 2253 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-17-On deck this week: Revisitings
11 0.22305441 2298 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-21-On deck this week
12 0.21758018 2356 andrew gelman stats-2014-06-02-On deck this week
13 0.21656676 2285 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-07-On deck this week
14 0.20201935 2222 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-24-On deck this week
15 0.19299699 2310 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-28-On deck this week
17 0.16985065 2214 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-17-On deck this week
18 0.16922218 2265 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-24-On deck this week
19 0.14061368 2264 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-24-On deck this month
20 0.13220567 2296 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-19-Index or indicator variables
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.069), (1, 0.044), (2, -0.052), (3, 0.021), (4, 0.012), (5, 0.055), (6, -0.05), (7, -0.085), (8, 0.019), (9, -0.112), (10, -0.116), (11, 0.344), (12, 0.113), (13, 0.249), (14, 0.029), (15, -0.039), (16, 0.062), (17, 0.05), (18, 0.091), (19, -0.046), (20, -0.058), (21, 0.07), (22, 0.011), (23, 0.071), (24, 0.015), (25, -0.092), (26, 0.07), (27, 0.035), (28, -0.045), (29, 0.05), (30, 0.009), (31, 0.043), (32, 0.02), (33, 0.061), (34, -0.01), (35, -0.019), (36, -0.026), (37, -0.001), (38, -0.044), (39, 0.007), (40, 0.07), (41, -0.014), (42, -0.029), (43, 0.038), (44, 0.011), (45, -0.015), (46, 0.041), (47, 0.047), (48, 0.019), (49, 0.042)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97963935 2290 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-14-On deck this week
Introduction: Mon : Transitioning to Stan Tues : When you believe in things that you don’t understand Wed : Looking for Bayesian expertise in India, for the purpose of analysis of sarcoma trials Thurs : If you get to the point of asking, just do it. But some difficulties do arise . . . Fri : One-tailed or two-tailed? Sat : Index or indicator variables Sun : Fooled by randomness
2 0.88357639 2298 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-21-On deck this week
Introduction: Mon : Ticket to Baaaath Tues : Ticket to Baaaaarf Wed : Thinking of doing a list experiment? Here’s a list of reasons why you should think again Thurs : An open site for researchers to post and share papers Fri : Questions about “Too Good to Be True” Sat : Sleazy sock puppet can’t stop spamming our discussion of compressed sensing and promoting the work of Xiteng Liu Sun : White stripes and dead armadillos
3 0.85154027 2240 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-10-On deck this week: Things people sent me
Introduction: Mon: Preregistration: what’s in it for you? Tues: What if I were to stop publishing in journals? Wed: Empirical implications of Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models Thurs: An Economist’s Guide to Visualizing Data Fri: The maximal information coefficient Sat: Problematic interpretations of confidence intervals Sun: The more you look, the more you find
4 0.84394735 2276 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-31-On deck this week
Introduction: Mon : The most-cited statistics papers ever Tues : American Psychological Society announces a new journal Wed : Am I too negative? Thurs : As the boldest experiment in journalism history, you admit you made a mistake Fri : The Notorious N.H.S.T. presents: Mo P-values Mo Problems Sat : Bizarre academic spam Sun : An old discussion of food deserts
5 0.83372992 2348 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-26-On deck this week
Introduction: Mon: WAIC and cross-validation in Stan! Tues: A whole fleet of gremlins: Looking more carefully at Richard Tol’s twice-corrected paper, “The Economic Effects of Climate Change” Wed: Just wondering Thurs: When you believe in things that you don’t understand Fri: I posted this as a comment on a sociology blog Sat: “Building on theories used to describe magnets, scientists have put together a model that captures something very different . . .” Sun: Why we hate stepwise regression
6 0.82327968 2310 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-28-On deck this week
7 0.80968815 2366 andrew gelman stats-2014-06-09-On deck this week
8 0.79647338 2356 andrew gelman stats-2014-06-02-On deck this week
9 0.79130477 2206 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-10-On deck this week
10 0.78399622 2331 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-12-On deck this week
11 0.75273442 2285 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-07-On deck this week
12 0.75156814 2253 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-17-On deck this week: Revisitings
13 0.73486131 2214 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-17-On deck this week
14 0.73160428 2321 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-05-On deck this week
15 0.70273691 2339 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-19-On deck this week
16 0.67680573 2265 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-24-On deck this week
17 0.65428901 165 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-27-Nothing is Linear, Nothing is Additive: Bayesian Models for Interactions in Social Science
18 0.61599189 2222 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-24-On deck this week
19 0.60870129 2264 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-24-On deck this month
20 0.58925867 679 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-25-My talk at Stanford on Tuesday
topicId topicWeight
[(16, 0.03), (24, 0.106), (43, 0.037), (47, 0.095), (71, 0.07), (76, 0.051), (85, 0.071), (89, 0.129), (96, 0.038), (98, 0.037), (99, 0.19)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.94837683 2290 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-14-On deck this week
Introduction: Mon : Transitioning to Stan Tues : When you believe in things that you don’t understand Wed : Looking for Bayesian expertise in India, for the purpose of analysis of sarcoma trials Thurs : If you get to the point of asking, just do it. But some difficulties do arise . . . Fri : One-tailed or two-tailed? Sat : Index or indicator variables Sun : Fooled by randomness
2 0.86103362 407 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-11-Data Visualization vs. Statistical Graphics
Introduction: I have this great talk on the above topic but nowhere to give it. Here’s the story. Several months ago, I was invited to speak at IEEE VisWeek. It sounded like a great opportunity. The organizer told me that there were typically about 700 people in the audience, and these are people in the visualization community whom I’d like to reach but normally wouldn’t have the opportunity to encounter. It sounded great, but I didn’t want to fly most of the way across the country by myself, so I offered to give the talk by videolink. I was surprised to get a No response: I’d think that a visualization conference, of all things, would welcome a video talk. In the meantime, though, I’d thought a lot about what I’d talk about and had started preparing something. Once I found out I wouldn’t be giving the talk, I channeled the efforts into an article which, with the collaboration of Antony Unwin, was completed about a month ago. It would take very little effort to adapt this graph-laden a
3 0.83672714 1756 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-10-He said he was sorry
Introduction: Yes, it can be done : Hereby I contact you to clarify the situation that occurred with the publication of the article entitled *** which was published in Volume 11, Issue 3 of *** and I made the mistake of declaring as an author. This chapter is a plagiarism of . . . I wish to express and acknowledge that I am solely responsible for this . . . I recognize the gravity of the offense committed, since there is no justification for so doing. Therefore, and as a sign of shame and regret I feel in this situation, I will publish this letter, in order to set an example for other researchers do not engage in a similar error. No more, and to please accept my apologies, Sincerely, *** P.S. Since we’re on Retraction Watch already, I’ll point you to this unrelated story featuring a hilarious photo of a fraudster, who in this case was a grad student in psychology who faked his data and “has agreed to submit to a three-year supervisory period for any work involving funding from the
4 0.83511567 833 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-31-Untunable Metropolis
Introduction: Michael Margolis writes: What are we to make of it when a Metropolis-Hastings step just won’t tune? That is, the acceptance rate is zero at expected-jump-size X, and way above 1/2 at X-exp(-16) (i.e., machine precision ). I’ve solved my practical problem by writing that I would have liked to include results from a diffuse prior, but couldn’t. But I’m bothered by the poverty of my intuition. And since everything I’ve read says this is an issue of efficiency, rather than accuracy, I wonder if I could solve it just by running massive and heavily thinned chains. My reply: I can’t see how this could happen in a well-specified problem! I suspect it’s a bug. Otherwise try rescaling your variables so that your parameters will have values on the order of magnitude of 1. To which Margolis responded: I hardly wrote any of the code, so I can’t speak to the bug question — it’s binomial kriging from the R package geoRglm. And there are no covariates to scale — just the zero and one
Introduction: I remember in 4th grade or so, the teacher would give us a list of vocabulary words each week and we’d have to show we learned them by using each in a sentence. We quickly got bored and decided to do the assignment by writing a single sentence using all ten words. (Which the teacher hated, of course.) The above headline is in that spirit, combining blog posts rather than vocabulary words. But that only uses two of the entries. To really do the job, I’d need to throw in bivariate associations, ecological fallacies, high-dimensional feature selection, statistical significance, the suddenly unpopular name Hilary, snotty reviewers, the contagion of obesity, and milk-related spam. Or we could bring in some of the all-time favorites, such as Bayesians, economists, Finland, beautiful parents and their daughters, goofy graphics, red and blue states, essentialism in children’s reasoning, chess running, and zombies. Putting 8 of these in a single sentence (along with Glenn Hubbard
6 0.83130002 1215 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-16-The “hot hand” and problems with hypothesis testing
7 0.82431352 459 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-09-Solve mazes by starting at the exit
8 0.81901944 1991 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-21-BDA3 table of contents (also a new paper on visualization)
9 0.81507933 1160 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-09-Familial Linkage between Neuropsychiatric Disorders and Intellectual Interests
10 0.81361711 2243 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-The myth of the myth of the myth of the hot hand
11 0.81153733 1855 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-13-Stan!
12 0.81088817 275 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-14-Data visualization at the American Evaluation Association
13 0.80965424 566 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-09-The boxer, the wrestler, and the coin flip, again
14 0.80906844 2321 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-05-On deck this week
15 0.80773795 1320 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-14-Question 4 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
16 0.80318773 231 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-24-Yet another Bayesian job opportunity
17 0.80238783 813 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-21-Scrabble!
18 0.79917657 1572 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-10-I don’t like this cartoon
19 0.79858094 1628 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-17-Statistics in a world where nothing is random
20 0.797153 1477 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-30-Visualizing Distributions of Covariance Matrices