A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors
1–10 of 221 posts
Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors
#2This coupled with the Automatic Statistician (https://www.automaticstatistician.com/index/) will help fix a lot of biases and human errors that creep into scientific research.
Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors
#3I find it very disconcerting that people are trying to fend off criticism of previously published studies by calling it "bullying" or sometimes worse. What do feelings have to do with science?
Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors
#4Here's the GitHub page:
https://github.com/MicheleNuijten/statcheck
And if you're curious how it works, as I was:
Statcheck uses regular expressions to find statistical results in APA format. When a statistical result deviates from APA format, statcheck will not find it. The APA formats that statcheck uses are: t(df) = value, p = value; F(df1,df2) = value, p = value; r(df) = value, p = value; [chi]2 (df, N = value) = value, p = value (N is optional, delta G is also included); Z = value, p = value. All regular expressions take into account that test statistics and p values may be exactly (=) or inexactly () reported. Different spacing has also been taken into account.
Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors
#5I find it very disconcerting that people are trying to fend off criticism of previously published studies by calling it "bullying" or sometimes worse. What do feelings have to do with science?
Right. If you can't handle critique (or embarrassment from invalidated conclusions), don't publish. Write in your diary instead.
Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors
#6I find it very disconcerting that people are trying to fend off criticism of previously published studies by calling it "bullying" or sometimes worse. What do feelings have to do with science?
Right. If you can't handle critique (or embarrassment from invalidated conclusions), don't publish. Write in your diary instead.
Exactly. This isn't even subjective critique, it's math. Your math is right or it's wrong. Lastly from what I can tell there isn't even any value judgement attached, simply a notification of incorrect math.
Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors
#7I find it very disconcerting that people are trying to fend off criticism of previously published studies by calling it "bullying" or sometimes worse. What do feelings have to do with science?
Objectivity is listed as a problem with science curriculum. Welcome to the future.
http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2467&co...
Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors
#8I find it very disconcerting that people are trying to fend off criticism of previously published studies by calling it "bullying" or sometimes worse. What do feelings have to do with science?
> What do feelings have to do with science?
When the science in question is psychology, feelings have everything to do with it.
Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors
#9I find it very disconcerting that people are trying to fend off criticism of previously published studies by calling it "bullying" or sometimes worse. What do feelings have to do with science?
[deleted]
Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors
#10Here's the GitHub page: https://github.com/MicheleNuijten/statcheck And if you're curious how it works, as I was: Statcheck uses regular expressions to find statistical results in APA format. When a statistical result deviates from APA format, statcheck will not find it. The APA formats that statcheck uses are: t(df) = value, p = value; F(df1,df2) = value, p = value; r(df) = value, p = value; [chi]2 (df, N = value) =…
> When a statistical result deviates from APA format, statcheck will not find it.
Incentive for authors to obfuscate their math?