Group items tagged

"Significant Digits" is a daily digest of the numbers tucked inside the news by fivethirtyeight.com - e.g. in this issue 29 percent Percentage of Americans who regularly work weekends. Another 27 percent regularly work between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Maybe useful for understanding how important quantitative information is in the world around us.

'Significance' is a magazine published by the UK Royal Statistical Society and American Statistical Association. E.g. this article discusses the data we might use to analyse food security, thinking about what sources of data are available and the questions they might help us answer. "data on food insecurity is biased towards the environment in which it was created and the priorities of those who collect or commission it. Data from schools is concerned with reimbursement; government data might be focused on budgetary constraints or accountability; grocery stores could (if willing) tell us what food is bought, but not how it is used; meanwhile, non-profits are most interested in demonstrating impact to funders. There is a wide variety of data sets available, but very few are created with the intent to understand the real drivers of hunger and poverty. The data may be repurposed, but modellers must be especially careful to moderate the assumptions of each data set. ...... It is also especially important that those experiencing hunger and poverty are consulted when designing any data analysis project. The input of domain experts is crucial to the success of data science endeavours, and those experiencing poverty know the right questions to ask."

Ocean acidification is an inevitable consequence of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That's a matter of fact. We don't know exactly what will happen to complex marine ecosystems when faced with the additional stress of falling pH, but we do know those changes are happening and that they won't be good news.Freedom of speech, and of the press, is, of course, precious. Yet that freedom also brings responsibility. The Editors' Code of Practice - which IPSO says it upholds - requires the "highest professional standards". This includes taking care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text. In addition, a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.Is this just an honest opinion, a statement of fact or wilfully misleading and clever rhetoric? That depends on what is meant by "evidence". If it means quality research carried out by scientists with expertise in the field, the statement is factually incorrect. But if evidence includes anything said by non-experts, such as Delingpole, then that's an increase, right?

As an epidemiologist, I am interested in disease - and more specifically, who in a population currently has or might get that disease. What is their age, sex, or socioeconomic status? Where do they live? What can people do to limit their chances of getting sick? Questions exploring whether something is likely to happen or not can be answered with quantitative research. By counting and measuring, we quantify (measure) a phenomenon in our world, and present the results through percentages and averages. We use statistics to help interpret the significance of the results. While this approach is very important, it can't tell us everything about a disease and peoples' experiences of it. That's where qualitative data becomes important.

For decades, researchers and physicians tended to think about pregnancies as either planned or unplanned. But new data reveals that for a significant group of women, their feelings don't neatly fit into one category or another. As many as one-fifth of women who become pregnant aren't sure whether they want a baby. This fact may reshape how doctors and policymakers think about family planning. For women who are unsure, it doesn't seem enough for physicians to counsel them on pregnancy prevention or prenatal care. "In the past we thought of it as binary, you want to be pregnant or not, so you need contraception or a prenatal vitamin," said Maria Isabel Rodriguez, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Oregon Health and Science University whose research focuses on family planning and contraceptive policy. "But it's more of a continuum." The new data comes from a recent change in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's big survey of new mothers, now allowing them to answer a question about their pregnancy desires by saying "I wasn't sure." It shows that some women want to avoid making a decision about becoming pregnant, or have strong but mixed feelings about it.

The more serious problem with California's law is one of effect size. Health, and cancer, aren't binary. Consumers can't just be concerned with whether a danger exists; they also need to be concerned about the magnitude of that risk. Even if there's a statistically significant risk between huge quantities of coffee and some cancer (and that's not proven), it's very, very small. Cigarettes have a clear and easily measured negative impact on people's health. Acrylamide, especially the acrylamide in coffee, isn't even close. Warning labels should be applied when a danger is clear, a danger is large and a danger is avoidable. It's not clear that, with respect to acrylamide, any of these criteria are met. It's certainly not the case regarding coffee. Whatever the intentions of Proposition 65, this latest development could do more harm than good.

The conceptual, practical, and ethical issues surrounding "big data" and data in general begin at the very moment of data collection. Particularly when the data concern people, not enough attention is paid to the realities entangled within that significant moment and spreading out from it.1. Data sets are the results of their means of collection. It's easy to forget that the people collecting a data set, and how they choose to do it, directly determines the data set. An illustrative example can be found in the statistics for how many hate crimes were committed in the United States in 2012. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR), the number was 5,796. However, the Department of Justice's Bureau of Statistics reported 293,800 hate crimes.

There's a huge debate going on in social science right now. The question is simple, and strikes near the heart of all research: What counts as solid evidence? The answer matters because many disciplines are currently in the midst of a "replication crisis" where even textbook studies aren't holding up against rigorous retesting. ...

It is vital that public policy be driven by rigorous research. In the last decade key policy changes have had profound impacts on nightlife in Sydney's inner city and suburbs. The most significant and controversial of these has been the 2014 "lockout laws".

Many public conversations we have about science-related issues involve communicating risks: describing them, comparing them and trying to inspire action to avoid or mitigate them. Just think about the ongoing stream of news and commentary on health, alternative energy, food security and climate change. Good risk communication points out where we are doing hazardous things. It helps us better navigate crises. It also allows us to pre-empt and avoid danger and destruction. But poor risk communication does the opposite. It creates confusion, helplessness and, worst of all, pushes us to actively work against each other even when it's against our best interests to do so. So what's happening when risk communications go wrong?