lederhosen: (Default)
[personal profile] lederhosen
Back when I was a postgrad student, my reaction to a high R2 value* was "Yay, it works!" Now it's more like "It's a trick. Get an axe."

(Seriously, I am pleasantly surprised when admin data shows any sort of correlation to theory at all. Predicting admin data with R2=0.85 from a simple rule of thumb? That's just unsettling.)

*Translation: the data follows a nice straight line.

Date: 2009-03-24 12:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nefaria.livejournal.com
> the data follows a nice straight line

And we all know that a straight line usually precedes a bad joke.

Date: 2009-03-24 07:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] culfinriel.livejournal.com
I get very suspicious of papers with high R2 values that don't let you have enough data to double check it yourself. Biology is not that accomodating.

Date: 2009-03-24 08:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lederhosen.livejournal.com
Yeah, I have not-so-happy memories of having to retract* my 'authorship' from a couple of presentations that did exactly that. I hope my experiences weren't typical, but these days I assume all data analysis is guilty until proven innocent, and I'm rarely disappointed.

*here meaning "point out that I never actually granted it in the first place, and wasn't about to change that position".

Profile

lederhosen: (Default)
lederhosen

February 2017

S M T W T F S
    1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Mar. 25th, 2017 11:33 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios