<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://pinboard.in">
    <title>Pinboard (cshalizi)</title>
    <link>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/public/</link>
    <description>recent bookmarks from cshalizi</description>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01621459.2020.1775613"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/technology/your-online-attention-bought-in-an-instant-by-advertisers.html?_r=4&amp;"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4920"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.statschat.org.nz/2012/08/30/conclusions-of-difference-require-evidence-of-difference/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0187"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2007.005592.x/abstract"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://xkcd.com/882/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/06/27/fourteen-questions-about-selection-bias-circularity-nonindependence-etc/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://prefrontal.org/blog/2009/09/the-story-behind-the-atlantic-salmon/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://prefrontal.org/files/posters/Bennett-Salmon-2009.pdf"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.bepress.com/ucbbiostat/paper184/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.5263"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1551"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/multiple2.pdf"/>
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
  </channel><item rdf:about="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01621459.2020.1775613">
    <title>Detection of Local Differences in Spatial Characteristics Between Two Spatiotemporal Random Fields: Journal of the American Statistical Association: Vol 0, No 0</title>
    <dc:date>2020-11-20T15:35:15+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01621459.2020.1775613</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Comparing the spatial characteristics of spatiotemporal random fields is often at demand. However, the comparison can be challenging due to the high-dimensional feature and dependency in the data. We develop a new multiple testing approach to detect local differences in the spatial characteristics of two spatiotemporal random fields by taking the spatial information into account. Our method adopts a two-component mixture model for location wise p-values and then derives a new false discovery rate (FDR) control, called mirror procedure, to determine the optimal rejection region. This procedure is robust to model misspecification and allows for weak dependency among hypotheses. To integrate the spatial heterogeneity, we model the mixture probability as well as study the benefit if any of allowing the alternative distribution to be spatially varying. An EM-algorithm is developed to estimate the mixture model and implement the FDR procedure. We study the FDR control and the power of our new approach both theoretically and numerically, and apply the approach to compare the mean and teleconnection pattern between two synthetic climate fields. Supplementary materials for this article are available online."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB spatial_statistics spatio-temporal_statistics multiple_comparisons statistics to_read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:8240694f70ec/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:spatial_statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:spatio-temporal_statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:multiple_comparisons"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/technology/your-online-attention-bought-in-an-instant-by-advertisers.html?_r=4&amp;">
    <title>Your Online Attention, Bought in an Instant by Advertisers - NYTimes.com</title>
    <dc:date>2015-01-15T23:08:12+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/technology/your-online-attention-bought-in-an-instant-by-advertisers.html?_r=4&amp;</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Good account of the practices, but takes the accuracy of the algorithms on faith.  (The "Republicans in such-and-such a part of Texas just don't exercise" thing screams multiple-testing issues to me.)  Still, the idea that our for-profit mass surveillance mightn't work as well as its boosters hope is not exactly a great comfort.]]></description>
<dc:subject>data_mining advertising national_surveillance_state multiple_comparisons to_teach:data-mining</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:1acc579bf91d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:data_mining"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:advertising"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:national_surveillance_state"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:multiple_comparisons"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_teach:data-mining"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4920">
    <title>[1304.4920] A Practitioner's Guide to Multiple Testing Error Rates</title>
    <dc:date>2013-04-23T18:03:46+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4920</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["It is quite common in modern research, for a researcher to test many hypotheses. The statistical (frequentist) hypothesis testing framework, does not scale with the number of hypotheses in the sense that naively performing many hypothesis tests will probably yield many false findings. Indeed, statistical "significance" is evidence for the presence of a signal within the noise expected in a single test, not in a multitude. In order to protect himself from an uncontrolled number of erroneous findings, a researcher has to consider of the type or errors he wishes to avoid and select the adequate procedure for that particular error type and data structure. A quick search of the tag [multiple-comparisons] in the statistics Questions & Answers web site Cross Validates (this http URL) demonstrates the amount of confusion this task can actually cause. This was also a point made at the 2009 Multiple Comparisons conference in Tokyo. In an attempt to offer guidance, we review possible error types for multiple testing, and demonstrate them with some practical examples, which clarify the formalism. Finally, we include some notes on the software implementations of the methods discussed. 
"The emphasis of this manuscript is on the error-rates, and not on the procedures themselves. We do try to name several procedures in this manuscript where appropriate. P-value adjustment will not be discussed as it is procedure specific. I.e., it is the choice of a procedure that defines the p-value adjustment, and not the error rate itself. Simultaneous confidence intervals will, also, not be discussed."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB multiple_testing multiple_comparisons statistics hypothesis_testing to_teach:undergrad-ADA</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:46741465d0fb/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:multiple_testing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:multiple_comparisons"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:hypothesis_testing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_teach:undergrad-ADA"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.statschat.org.nz/2012/08/30/conclusions-of-difference-require-evidence-of-difference/">
    <title>Conclusions of difference require evidence of difference | Stats Chat</title>
    <dc:date>2012-08-30T13:12:44+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.statschat.org.nz/2012/08/30/conclusions-of-difference-require-evidence-of-difference/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["All this is leading up to a story in the Herald, where a group of genetics researchers claim that a well-studied variant in a gene called monoamine oxidase increases happiness in women, but not in men.  We know this is surprising, because the researcher said so — they were expecting a decrease in happiness, and they don’t seem to have been expecting a male:female difference.  The researchers say that the difference could be because of testosterone — and of course it could be, but they don’t present any evidence at all that it is.
"Anyway, as you will be expecting by now, I found the paper (the Herald gets points for giving the journal name), and it is possible to do a simple test for differences in `happiness’ effect between men and women. And there isn’t much evidence for a difference. For people who collect p-values: about 0.09 (Bayesian would get a similar conclusion after a lot more work). So, if we didn’t expect a benefit in  women and no difference in men, the data don’t give us much encouragement for believing that.
"Testing for differences isn’t the ideal solution — even better would be to fit a model that allows for a smooth variation between constant effect and separate effect — but testing for differences is a good precursor to putting out a press release about differences and trying for headlines all over the world. We can’t expect newspapers to weed this sort of thing out if scientists are encouraging it via press releases."]]></description>
<dc:subject>multiple_comparisons human_genetics bad_data_analysis methodological_advice why_oh_why_cant_we_have_a_better_academic_publishing_system re:neutral_model_of_inquiry</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:20a1dc92574a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:multiple_comparisons"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:human_genetics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:bad_data_analysis"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:methodological_advice"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:why_oh_why_cant_we_have_a_better_academic_publishing_system"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:neutral_model_of_inquiry"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0187">
    <title>[1207.0187] Discovering findings that replicate from a primary study of high dimension to a follow-up study</title>
    <dc:date>2012-07-09T18:48:52+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0187</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["We consider the problem of identifying whether findings replicate from one study of high dimension to another, when the primary study guides the selection of hypotheses to be examined in the follow-up study as well as when there is no division of roles into the primary and the follow-up study. We show that existing meta-analysis methods are not appropriate for this problem, and suggest novel methods instead. We prove that our multiple testing procedures control for appropriate error-rates. For FWER control, the only requirement is the independence of $p$-values across studies. For FDR control, we prove that if the $p$-values within each study are PRDS dependent or independent, the FDR of our novel procedures is controlled. We demonstrate the usefulness of these procedures via simulations and examples."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB multiple_testing multiple_comparisons meta-analysis high-dimensional_statistics statistics re:neutral_model_of_inquiry</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:23fdda82e67e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:multiple_testing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:multiple_comparisons"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:meta-analysis"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:high-dimensional_statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:re:neutral_model_of_inquiry"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2007.005592.x/abstract">
    <title>The optimal discovery procedure: a new approach to simultaneous significance testing - Storey - 2007 - Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) - Wiley Online Library</title>
    <dc:date>2012-02-22T18:09:29+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2007.005592.x/abstract</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The Neyman–Pearson lemma provides a simple procedure for optimally testing a single hypothesis when the null and alternative distributions are known. This result has played a major role in the development of significance testing strategies that are used in practice. Most of the work extending single-testing strategies to multiple tests has focused on formulating and estimating new types of significance measures, such as the false discovery rate. These methods tend to be based on p-values that are calculated from each test individually, ignoring information from the other tests. I show here that one can improve the overall performance of multiple significance tests by borrowing information across all the tests when assessing the relative significance of each one, rather than calculating p-values for each test individually. The ‘optimal discovery procedure’ is introduced, which shows how to maximize the number of expected true positive results for each fixed number of expected false positive results. The optimality that is achieved by this procedure is shown to be closely related to optimality in terms of the false discovery rate. The optimal discovery procedure motivates a new approach to testing multiple hypotheses, especially when the tests are related. As a simple example, a new simultaneous procedure for testing several normal means is defined; this is surprisingly demonstrated to outperform the optimal single-test procedure, showing that a method which is optimal for single tests may no longer be optimal for multiple tests. Connections to other concepts in statistics are discussed, including Stein's paradox, shrinkage estimation and the Bayesian approach to hypothesis testing."]]></description>
<dc:subject>to:NB statistics hypothesis_testing multiple_comparisons</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:05cca67f21cb/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:hypothesis_testing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:multiple_comparisons"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://xkcd.com/882/">
    <title>xkcd: Significant</title>
    <dc:date>2011-04-06T11:53:04+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://xkcd.com/882/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[... and this goes on the office doors of statisticians everywhere.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>funny:geeky funny:because_its_true xkcd hypothesis_testing multiple_comparisons cartoons</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:fe488dd96112/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:funny:geeky"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:funny:because_its_true"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:xkcd"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:hypothesis_testing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:multiple_comparisons"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:cartoons"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/06/27/fourteen-questions-about-selection-bias-circularity-nonindependence-etc/">
    <title>[citation needed]» Blog Archive » fourteen questions about selection bias, circularity, nonindependence, etc.</title>
    <dc:date>2010-06-28T17:58:53+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/06/27/fourteen-questions-about-selection-bias-circularity-nonindependence-etc/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We don't appear to subscribe, but presumably I could write some of them for a copy...  --- ETA: Received, thanks to T.D.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>fmri multiple_comparisons neuroscience neural_data_analysis statistics estimation hypothesis_testing</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:8c0a0b44db1a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:fmri"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:multiple_comparisons"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:neuroscience"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:neural_data_analysis"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:estimation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:hypothesis_testing"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://prefrontal.org/blog/2009/09/the-story-behind-the-atlantic-salmon/">
    <title>Prefrontal.org » The Story Behind the Atlantic Salmon</title>
    <dc:date>2009-09-19T11:47:46+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://prefrontal.org/blog/2009/09/the-story-behind-the-atlantic-salmon/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Making of the poster.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>fmri neuroscience bad_data_analysis funny:academic funny:malicious statistics hypothesis_testing multiple_comparisons to_teach:data-mining salmon to:blog multiple_testing</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:eb377a66c400/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:fmri"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:neuroscience"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:bad_data_analysis"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:funny:academic"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:funny:malicious"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:hypothesis_testing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:multiple_comparisons"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_teach:data-mining"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:salmon"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:blog"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:multiple_testing"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://prefrontal.org/files/posters/Bennett-Salmon-2009.pdf">
    <title>&quot;Neural correlates of interspecies perspective taking in the post-mortem Atlantic Salmon: An argument for multiple comparisons correction&quot;</title>
    <dc:date>2009-09-19T11:47:16+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://prefrontal.org/files/posters/Bennett-Salmon-2009.pdf</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>fmri neuroscience bad_data_analysis funny:academic funny:malicious statistics hypothesis_testing multiple_comparisons to_teach:data-mining salmon to:blog</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:00b848ee3feb/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:fmri"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:neuroscience"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:bad_data_analysis"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:funny:academic"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:funny:malicious"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:hypothesis_testing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:multiple_comparisons"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_teach:data-mining"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:salmon"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:blog"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.bepress.com/ucbbiostat/paper184/">
    <title>Test Statistics Null Distributions in Multiple Testing: Simulation Studies and Applications to Genomics</title>
    <dc:date>2009-07-10T22:23:56+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.bepress.com/ucbbiostat/paper184/</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>statistics hypothesis_testing multiple_comparisons</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:b96195c3629e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:hypothesis_testing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:multiple_comparisons"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.5263">
    <title>[0906.5263] Multiple Hypothesis Testing in Pattern Discovery</title>
    <dc:date>2009-07-03T14:41:25+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.5263</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>statistics hypothesis_testing multiple_comparisons data_mining to:NB to_teach:data-mining</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:df0e87adf65f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:hypothesis_testing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:multiple_comparisons"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:data_mining"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to:NB"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:to_teach:data-mining"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1551">
    <title>[0904.1551] Effects of statistical dependence on multiple testing under a hidden Markov model</title>
    <dc:date>2009-06-21T01:48:51+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1551</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><dc:subject>hypothesis_testing statistics multiple_comparisons markov_models in_NB</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:bea93d3c0982/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:hypothesis_testing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:multiple_comparisons"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:markov_models"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:in_NB"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/multiple2.pdf">
    <title>Why we (usually) don’t have to worry about multiple comparisons</title>
    <dc:date>2008-03-21T18:09:17+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/multiple2.pdf</link>
    <dc:creator>cshalizi</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[My initial reaction is one of skepticism, despite my respect for Andy.  To work through.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>statistics multiple_comparisons gelman.andrew via:arthegall have_read hill.jennifer hierarchical_statistical_models</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/b:9788bd7d3ebb/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:multiple_comparisons"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:gelman.andrew"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:via:arthegall"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:have_read"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:hill.jennifer"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:cshalizi/t:hierarchical_statistical_models"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>