Twitter is kind of a big deal. Not just out there in the world at large, but also in the research community, which loves the kind of structured metadata you can retrieve for every tweet. A lot of researchers rely heavily on twitter to model social networks, information propagation, persuasion, and all kinds of interesting … Continue reading estimating the influence of a tweet–now with 33% more causal inference!
I’m working on a TOP SEKKRIT* project involving large-scale data mining of the psychology literature. I don’t have anything to say about the TOP SEKKRIT* project just yet, but I will say that in the process of extracting certain information I needed in order to do certain things I won’t talk about, I ended up … Continue reading what do you get when you put 1,000 psychologists together in one journal?
Many (most?) regular readers of this blog have probably been to at least one academic conference. Some of you even have the misfortune of attending conferences regularly. And a still-smaller fraction of you scholarly deviants might conceivably even enjoy the freakish experience. You know, that whole thing where you get to roam around the streets … Continue reading unconference in Leipzig! no bathroom breaks!
In the process of writing a short piece for the APS Observer, I was fiddling around with Google Correlate earlier this evening. It’s a very neat toy, but if you think neuroimaging or genetics have a big multiple comparisons problem, playing with Google Correlate for a few minutes will put things in perspective. Here’s a … Continue reading the neuroinformatics of Neopets
UPDATE 2/8/2012: Simon & Tibshirani posted a critical commentary on this paper here. See additional thoughts here. Real-world data are messy. Relationships between two variables can take on an infinite number of forms, and while one doesn’t see, say, umbrella-shaped data very often, strange things can happen. When scientists talk about correlations or associations between … Continue reading large-scale data exploration, MIC-style
Several people left enlightening comments on my last post about the ADHD-200 Global Competition results, so I thought I’d bump some of them up and save you the trip back there (though the others are worth reading too!), since they’re salient to some of the issues raised in the last post. Matthew Brown, the project … Continue reading more on the ADHD-200 competition results
UPDATE 10/13: a number of commenters left interesting comments below addressing some of the issues raised in this post. I expand on some of them here. The ADHD-200 Global Competition, announced earlier this year, was designed to encourage researchers to develop better tools for diagnosing mental health disorders on the basis of neuroimaging data: The … Continue reading brain-based prediction of ADHD–now with 100% fewer brains!
I’m hanging out in Boston for a few days, so blogging will probably be sporadic or nonexistent. Which is to say, you probably won’t notice any difference. The last post on the Dunning-Kruger effect somehow managed to rack up 10,000 hits in 48 hours; but that was last week. Today I looked at my stats … Continue reading elsewhere on the net, vacation edition
Some neat stuff from the past week or so: If you’ve ever wondered how to go about getting a commentary on an article published in a peer-reviewed journal, wonder no longer… you can’t. Or rather, you can, but it may not be worth your trouble. Rick Trebino explains. [new to me via A.C. Thomas, though … Continue reading in brief…
Continuing along on their guided tour of Data I Wish I Had Access To, the OKCupid folks have posted another set of interesting figures on their blog. This time, they make the case for dating older women, suggesting that men might get more bang for their buck (in a literal sense, I suppose) by trying … Continue reading the OKCupid guide to dating older women