prljavi pokvareni prevaranti

[betty]

tip je inace trebalo u julu da pocne da radi na stanfordu kao associate professor. 

[Dagmar]

Znači šansa da će sad to mesto dobiti neki kreativac pada sa 100 na bijednih 50%

[rajka]

citav dan mi se twitter feed puni linkovima :) a retraction watch ljudima je pao sajt, jer su svi pohrlili da vide. 

 aha, meni vec drugi dan na twitteru, pa reko da okacim. a jeste socno:

 

The study received widespread media attention, including from This American Life, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post,  The Los Angeles Times, Science Friday, Vox, and HuffingtonPost,

 

 

mis'im decko je vec racunao na TED talk, garant.

[rajka]

samo jos ovo i necu vise:
 

When they began to encounter a number of statistical quirks, Green contacted LaCour’s dissertation adviser, Lynn Vavreck. On Monday, Vavreck met with LaCour to demand the raw survey data. After some delay, LaCour told her that he had accidentally deleted it. Later, when the head of U.C.L.A.’s political-science department called Qualtrics, the online survey platform used for the study, they said that they could find no evidence of a deletion: whatever data was collected in the account LaCour claimed to have used was, presumably, still there. (LaCour was also unable to provide the contact information for any of the respondents.) At Green’s behest, Vavreck had also looked further into the study’s financing. It turned out to be nonexistent. “He didn’t have any grants coming to him. He had a small one that he didn’t accept,” Green said. “There was no data, and no plausible way of getting the data.

 

 

http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/how-a-gay-marriage-study-went-wrong

 

kakva dileja....

[betty]

danas bi lacour trebalo da izda saopstenje. i dalje tvrdi da su podaci pravi, ali je unajmio advokata. u medjuvremenu je utvrdjeno da je izmislio i funding sources koji mu stoje u CV-u. 

[gospa buba]

ali eksidentli obrisao podatke. pas mu pojeo domaci

 

neke stvari se nikad ne menjaju -_-

[rajka]

danas bi lacour trebalo da izda saopstenje. i dalje tvrdi da su podaci pravi, ali je unajmio advokata. u medjuvremenu je utvrdjeno da je izmislio i funding sources koji mu stoje u CV-u. 

 

i najmanje jednu od nagrada, koja mu je bila na CV-ju pa je izbrisao. Izbrisao je i ceo grant section sada. 

 

tjah, here we go:

 

The lawyer for Michael LaCour, the controversial author of the study on gay marriages which was pulled by the journalScience, has admitted to the journal that the PhD student fabricated data.

 

 

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/56402/20150529/author-of-embattled-gay-marriage-study-admits-to-fabricating-data.htm

Edited May 29, 2015 by rajka

[betty]

dobro je, u suprotnom bi bilo bas ruzno. kao sa onim jensom forsterom, koji i dalje uporno tvrdi da nista nije mutio.

[betty]

a i science bi mogao malo da oladi sa too good to be true rezultatima. sad su objavili pilot studiju na jednu socijalno-psiholosku temu. ej, pilot studiju! naravno rezultati su skroz PC, tacno ono sto citalastvo zeli, a bogami i mediji. uzorak je taman toliki da je sansa da replikacija uspe mozda fifti-fifti, ukoliko je efekat stvaran. 

[betty]

za ljubitelje prljavih, pokvarenih prevaranata, dobar tekst o ovom slucaju. prati citav niz dogadjanja u poslednje dve godine, od formiranja prvog zrnca sumnje do otvorenog prozivanja. 

 

al da se vratim na Science, iz teksta izdvajam:

 

 

Part of why LaCour’s results were so noteworthy was that they flew in the face of just about every established tenet of political persuasion. While past research had shown canvassing can be effective at influencing people in certain ways, the sheer magnitude of effect LaCour had found in his study simply doesn’t happen — piles of previous research had shown that, all else being equal, human beings cling dearly to their political beliefs, and even when you can nudge them an inch to the left or right, people’s views are likely to snap back into place shortly after they hear whatever message you’ve so carefully and cleverly crafted. Not so in this case: When LaCour compared the before-and-after views on gay marriage in his study, he found that opinions had shifted about the distance between the average Georgian and the average Massachusettsian, and this effect appeared to have persisted for months.

 

So when LaCour and Green’s research was eventually published in December 2014 in Science, one of the leading peer-reviewed research publications in the world, it resonated far and wide.

 

 

pa jebemliga, kapiram da se huffington post odusevi nalazom koji je drugaciji od hrpe drugih istrazivanja, ali je tuzno kad sajens hoce isti hajp. 

[Dagmar]

Pa neće održati impact bez hajpa.

[betty]

pa znam, ali jedno je hajp zbog novog otkrica, a drugo je hajp zbog istrazivanja koje tvrdi suprotno od svih drugih istih takvih istrazivanja. 

[Dagmar]

Da, to je tačno, da je makar hajp zbog nečeg što bi moglo da bude istina...

[betty]

evo ga, odgovorio je. 23 strane. nisam jos pogledala. (direktan link ovde)

Edited May 30, 2015 by betty

[Budja]

a i science bi mogao malo da oladi sa too good to be true rezultatima. sad su objavili pilot studiju na jednu socijalno-psiholosku temu. ej, pilot studiju! naravno rezultati su skroz PC, tacno ono sto citalastvo zeli, a bogami i mediji. uzorak je taman toliki da je sansa da replikacija uspe mozda fifti-fifti, ukoliko je efekat stvaran. 

 

Ja sam sokiran da Science ne trazi i ne publikuje na vebsajtu raw data.

Casopisi tog ranga bi to morali da traze.