Stefano Sangiovanni
@stesangio.bsky.social
PhDing @NASP, University Of Milan
https://ste-sangiovanni.github.io/
Party Politics, Computational Methods, Valence Politics, Political Scandals. Just a nerd with some muddling through skills.
#Firstgen
https://ste-sangiovanni.github.io/
Party Politics, Computational Methods, Valence Politics, Political Scandals. Just a nerd with some muddling through skills.
#Firstgen
Reposted by Stefano Sangiovanni
Posting is correlated with affective polarization:
😡 The most partisan users — those who love their party and despise the other — are more likely to post about politics
🥊 The result? A loud angry minority dominates online politics, which itself can drive polarization (see doi.org/10.1073/pnas...)
😡 The most partisan users — those who love their party and despise the other — are more likely to post about politics
🥊 The result? A loud angry minority dominates online politics, which itself can drive polarization (see doi.org/10.1073/pnas...)
October 30, 2025 at 8:09 AM
Posting is correlated with affective polarization:
😡 The most partisan users — those who love their party and despise the other — are more likely to post about politics
🥊 The result? A loud angry minority dominates online politics, which itself can drive polarization (see doi.org/10.1073/pnas...)
😡 The most partisan users — those who love their party and despise the other — are more likely to post about politics
🥊 The result? A loud angry minority dominates online politics, which itself can drive polarization (see doi.org/10.1073/pnas...)
Congratulazioni Paride, complimenti! 🎉🎉
October 19, 2025 at 8:53 AM
Congratulazioni Paride, complimenti! 🎉🎉
Reposted by Stefano Sangiovanni
Checked a random one just for fun during my lunch break, same dataset: dmsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10....
In Supplement 2, sdLDL-c→WC (T2D) is β=0.008 with CI (−0.12, −0.14) 🤔🤔🤔
In Table 3 (WC), lbLDL-c is β=0.03 with CI (−0.03, 0.03) strange CIs?? 🤔
Thanks for your service Sophie!
In Supplement 2, sdLDL-c→WC (T2D) is β=0.008 with CI (−0.12, −0.14) 🤔🤔🤔
In Table 3 (WC), lbLDL-c is β=0.03 with CI (−0.03, 0.03) strange CIs?? 🤔
Thanks for your service Sophie!
September 19, 2025 at 9:22 AM
Checked a random one just for fun during my lunch break, same dataset: dmsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10....
In Supplement 2, sdLDL-c→WC (T2D) is β=0.008 with CI (−0.12, −0.14) 🤔🤔🤔
In Table 3 (WC), lbLDL-c is β=0.03 with CI (−0.03, 0.03) strange CIs?? 🤔
Thanks for your service Sophie!
In Supplement 2, sdLDL-c→WC (T2D) is β=0.008 with CI (−0.12, −0.14) 🤔🤔🤔
In Table 3 (WC), lbLDL-c is β=0.03 with CI (−0.03, 0.03) strange CIs?? 🤔
Thanks for your service Sophie!
Sounds like a great plan! Beyond the formatting typos, an LLM can instantly spot odd CIs or effects outside of them. I literally opened a random paper.. If I speak im in trouble 🥶
September 19, 2025 at 9:42 AM
Sounds like a great plan! Beyond the formatting typos, an LLM can instantly spot odd CIs or effects outside of them. I literally opened a random paper.. If I speak im in trouble 🥶
Checked a random one just for fun during my lunch break, same dataset: dmsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10....
In Supplement 2, sdLDL-c→WC (T2D) is β=0.008 with CI (−0.12, −0.14) 🤔🤔🤔
In Table 3 (WC), lbLDL-c is β=0.03 with CI (−0.03, 0.03) strange CIs?? 🤔
Thanks for your service Sophie!
In Supplement 2, sdLDL-c→WC (T2D) is β=0.008 with CI (−0.12, −0.14) 🤔🤔🤔
In Table 3 (WC), lbLDL-c is β=0.03 with CI (−0.03, 0.03) strange CIs?? 🤔
Thanks for your service Sophie!
September 19, 2025 at 9:22 AM
Checked a random one just for fun during my lunch break, same dataset: dmsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10....
In Supplement 2, sdLDL-c→WC (T2D) is β=0.008 with CI (−0.12, −0.14) 🤔🤔🤔
In Table 3 (WC), lbLDL-c is β=0.03 with CI (−0.03, 0.03) strange CIs?? 🤔
Thanks for your service Sophie!
In Supplement 2, sdLDL-c→WC (T2D) is β=0.008 with CI (−0.12, −0.14) 🤔🤔🤔
In Table 3 (WC), lbLDL-c is β=0.03 with CI (−0.03, 0.03) strange CIs?? 🤔
Thanks for your service Sophie!