Ingo Rohlfing
LightNews LightNews
banner
ingorohlfing.bsky.social
Ingo Rohlfing
@ingorohlfing.bsky.social
4.5K followers 1.4K following 1.4K posts

I am here for all interesting and funny posts on the social sciences, broadly understood and including open science and meta science, academia, teaching and research. https://linktr.ee/ingorohlfing

Videos
Political science 30%
Sociology 17%
Posts Replies Media Videos

ingorohlfing.bsky.social
Ingo Rohlfing @ingorohlfing.bsky.social · 14h
Speaking from recent experience, it always makes sense to run checks and take precautions when data have been collected and edited manually, regardless of how careful one may have been during this stages. (thinking of leading/trailing white spaces, typos...). 2/

ingorohlfing.bsky.social
Ingo Rohlfing @ingorohlfing.bsky.social · 14h
There is no disagreement here, is it? The source of the problem is cultural and checks are a big part of the solution. Maybe it is automated checks, or other checks such as checking for the correct number of levels of a variable, or defensive programming, or maybe precautions such as tolower(). 1/

ingorohlfing.bsky.social
Ingo Rohlfing @ingorohlfing.bsky.social · 16h
Thanks. That's too bad. I am just speculating here, as I am not an IT expert: It sounds to me less than a threat and more like a hack CUP has to deal with. Why would one take websites offline or stop processing manuscripts as a precaution? Over several weeks?

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing, Ariadne Vromen, Margot C. Finn

resprofnews.bsky.social
Research Professional News @resprofnews.bsky.social · 17h
Turn to AI in research grant assessment ‘is inevitable’.

UKRI becomes first mover to explore automation for processing applications, as other British funders hesitate.

www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-r...

ingorohlfing.bsky.social
Ingo Rohlfing @ingorohlfing.bsky.social · 1d
I guess I am not the only one seeing the message "This part of Cambridge.org is currently unavailable." and more when trying to access a website from Cambridge UP. I think this is going on for weeks now. What's the issue with @universitypress.cambridge.org ?
Screenshot of inaccessible website stating: "This part of Cambridge.org is currently unavailable. We have implemented additional assurance measures for our systems. As a result, we have suspended some systems and services. We apologise for the disruption and are working to bring all services back online as quickly as possible. If you have an urgent query and need to get in touch with us, please use the help centre and contact us link below. https://help.cambridge.org/hc/en-gb"

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

janhove.bsky.social
Jan Vanhove @janhove.bsky.social · 2d
I wrote a thing: "On the justification of sampling-based statistics in randomised experiments." It's geared towards non-statisticians in the quantitative social sciences, and I'd love to get some feedback!

janhove.github.io/justificatio...
When popular statistical tools such as the $t$-test are taught, the narrative is one in which the data are sampled randomly from some population. Real studies employing random sampling are, however, much rarer than the ubiquity of these tools would suggest, and students may wonder what justifies their use in the absence of random sampling or even of a clear notion of what the population might be. Reassuringly, some of these tools can be understood in an altogether more common setting: experiments in which units are randomly assigned to conditions. This perspective clarifies why familiar procedures such as the $t$-test tend to perform reasonably well in randomised experiments, but also underscores a difference in the scope of inference afforded by random sampling versus random assignment. Furthermore, this perspective foregrounds flexible randomisation-based methods, whose validity follows from the study design and which, as I will suggest, represent a natural starting point for teaching statistical inference to non-mathematicians.

ingorohlfing.bsky.social
Ingo Rohlfing @ingorohlfing.bsky.social · 2d
Die letzte Staffel von Lost rangiert bei mir sehr weit oben bzw. unten.