Silver lining: my crappy data suggest a measure to estimate how contaminated your own crappy data are!
wildetruth.substack.com/p/lowered-ex...
Silver lining: my crappy data suggest a measure to estimate how contaminated your own crappy data are!
wildetruth.substack.com/p/lowered-ex...
wildetruth.substack.com/p/can-we-bel...
wildetruth.substack.com/p/can-we-bel...
I made one for mass screenings for low-prevalence problems: verawilde.github.io/rarity-roulette/policy/
Watch false positives accumulate year after year while your "99% accurate" test remains worse than a coin flip!
I made one for mass screenings for low-prevalence problems: verawilde.github.io/rarity-roulette/policy/
Watch false positives accumulate year after year while your "99% accurate" test remains worse than a coin flip!
Happy New Year! There's no goin' back.
Happy New Year! There's no goin' back.
If that’s you, too: you’re not alone. 🕯️
If that’s you, too: you’re not alone. 🕯️
It hath snowed
on my freshly planted windowboxes.
It hath snowed
on my freshly planted windowboxes.
"This one is in profile."
"This one is in profile."
It's an app to help visualize estimated hypothetical outcomes of mass screenings for low-prevalence problems.
More: wildetruth.substack.com/p/rarity-rou...
Would love feedback + feature requests.
It's an app to help visualize estimated hypothetical outcomes of mass screenings for low-prevalence problems.
More: wildetruth.substack.com/p/rarity-rou...
Would love feedback + feature requests.
Me: My baby says "hi," "hey," "Mama," "I go," and ("Are you gonna go get your brother?") "I'm gonna"!
Me: My baby says "hi," "hey," "Mama," "I go," and ("Are you gonna go get your brother?") "I'm gonna"!
Please send help.
Chocolate, flame-throwers --
every bit helps.
Please send help.
Chocolate, flame-throwers --
every bit helps.
Frustrated with how iterated screening models often throw away info, I fell into a Bayesian search rabbit hole so you don't have to!
Spoiler: it means different things to different people, and multilevel modeling may make more sense.
Frustrated with how iterated screening models often throw away info, I fell into a Bayesian search rabbit hole so you don't have to!
Spoiler: it means different things to different people, and multilevel modeling may make more sense.
wildetruth.substack.com/p/the-bear-t...
wildetruth.substack.com/p/the-bear-t...
But what if the epistemic structure of the problem is that of a mass screening for a low-prevalence problem? That would mean we can estimate type I and type II errors.
wildetruth.substack.com/p/abortion-a...
But what if the epistemic structure of the problem is that of a mass screening for a low-prevalence problem? That would mean we can estimate type I and type II errors.
wildetruth.substack.com/p/abortion-a...
That DAGs don't do: feedbacks, bias, private information, perverse incentives, moderation, and telling you where to cut the graph.
wildetruth.substack.com/p/these-are-...
That DAGs don't do: feedbacks, bias, private information, perverse incentives, moderation, and telling you where to cut the graph.
wildetruth.substack.com/p/these-are-...
arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10500
arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10500
wildetruth.substack.com/p/book-revie...
wildetruth.substack.com/p/book-revie...
wildetruth.substack.com/p/book-revie...
wildetruth.substack.com/p/book-revie...