For the fifth day of Cards Against Humanity Saves America, we used your money to fund one year of monthly public opinion polls. We’ll ask the American people about their social and political views, what they think of the president, and their pee-pee habits.
In fact, we secretly started polling three months ago. What a delightful surprise!
To conduct our polls in a scientifically rigorous manner, we’ve partnered with Survey Sampling International — a professional research firm — to contact a nationally representative sample of the American public. For the first three polls, we interrupted people’s dinners on both their cell phones and landlines, and a total of about 3,000 adults didn’t hang up immediately. We examined the data for statistically significant correlations, and boy did we find some stuff.
Hilarious. I think I’m going to use their data in class some time. Too bad it doesn’t include respondents’ location.
I recently came across O’Reilly’s R for Data Science by Hadley Wickham and Garrett Grolemund. From cross-reading some of the chapters, it is a very easily digestible intro to R and it also goes into topics such as cleaning up data (something most books suggest to happen automagically). It doesn’t go very deep into the statistical capabilities of R, though.
The privilege that techies have enjoyed for years is starting to erode. It’s taking them some time to see what other people are seeing, but if VCs, media critics, and people adjacent to the industry are starting to get it, then it’s time to make a change. Right?
The results of our our evaluation of the RG Score were rather discouraging: while there are some innovative ideas in the way ResearchGate approached the measure, we also found that the RG Score ignores a number of fundamental bibliometric guidelines and that ResearchGate makes basic mistakes in the way the score is calculated. We deem these shortcomings to be so problematic that the RG Score should not be considered as a measure of scientific reputation in its current form.
Interesting read about reverse engineering the blackbox ResearchGate score. I have considered that score useless for a long time and think about closing my account every time they send me one of those annoying emails. But unfortunately RG has become so widely used that they drive a considerable number of readers to my papers, so I guess I’ll just keep on putting up with these annoyances. I just hope people don’t start taking that score seriously.
Handy tool if you want to cite a book, but are too lazy to put together the BibTex entry yourself. To comply with the Amazon API that it uses to generate the BibTex code, the entry includes the link to the book on Amazon, but that’s easy enough to remove.