It would be a dream, there would be a R-based software, which I configure according to my study (type of data, limits for meaningful measurements, handling of outliers and missing measurements, test method etc.), which then reads my original measurement data and after some computing time the software provides me with the statistical analysis. All steps of the evaluation have to be defined before the start of the study and cannot be changed after the start of the study. Where could problems arise? Does anyone know of a suitable R-Package or software? Does anyone have the time and inclination to create a flexibly customizable package? greetings Adenener [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
This isn't an R code question and you posted in HTML, but briefly: Simulate data that could arise from your study, including missing and outliers, then write code that runs th analyses. Put the code in an open-science archive. Then run it as is when you actually have the data. There will probably be some hiccups depending on how good your simulation is, but that's the in-principle solution. On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:10 AM karl adenener <adenener at hotmail.com> wrote:> > It would be a dream, there would be a R-based software, which I configure according to my study (type of data, limits for meaningful measurements, handling of outliers and missing measurements, test method etc.), which then reads my original measurement data and after some computing time the software provides me with the statistical analysis. All steps of the evaluation have to be defined before the start of the study and cannot be changed after the start of the study. > > Where could problems arise? > Does anyone know of a suitable R-Package or software? > Does anyone have the time and inclination to create a flexibly customizable package? > > greetings > Adenener > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > R-help at r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.-- Patrick S. Malone, Ph.D., Malone Quantitative NEW Service Models: http://malonequantitative.com He/Him/His
It is a nice dream, but it is really abdicating ethical responsibility to the computer instead of the researcher. And I personally don't trust computers over people for this. What could go wrong? First, how do you guarantee that the statistical plan was locked in place before the data was collected? With your proposed system some people will still run a plan on their data, make changes, run again, etc. until they get what they want, then claim that the statistical plan came before the data that was used to tune it (I consider this unethical, but see no way for R or computers in general to prevent this without human oversight). Second, what if the data shows something that you did not anticipate? This methodology would prevent you doing Exploratory Data Analysis and adapting accordingly. If people start using this as a black box that is "blessed" by the package as purely "objective", then many will not even do any EDA and take the results as "True" when they are not even appropriate. Better would be a regular system for submitting your code to a clinical trial registry or some other pre-study registry so that other can compare what you did to what you claimed you were going to do. If you don't want to submit the entire code, you could submit an md5 hash to the registry, then others could check to see if the code ran (put into an online supplement) differs from the registered version. If the data show something unanticipated then you can show the original code and the modified code along with your reasoning and let the consumer decide if the changes were justified. This could still be worked around if someone was really motivated, but it is probably the best we will see. In my opinion the advantage of computers is not Artificial Intelligence, but rather Artificial Patience (most AI that I have seen is really doing a bunch of what I would consider to be boring, really fast so people don't have to). Leave the Intelligence to the people. On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:10 AM karl adenener <adenener at hotmail.com> wrote:> > It would be a dream, there would be a R-based software, which I configure according to my study (type of data, limits for meaningful measurements, handling of outliers and missing measurements, test method etc.), which then reads my original measurement data and after some computing time the software provides me with the statistical analysis. All steps of the evaluation have to be defined before the start of the study and cannot be changed after the start of the study. > > Where could problems arise? > Does anyone know of a suitable R-Package or software? > Does anyone have the time and inclination to create a flexibly customizable package? > > greetings > Adenener > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > R-help at r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.-- Gregory (Greg) L. Snow Ph.D. 538280 at gmail.com
Definitely a fortune:
"the advantage of computers is not Artificial
Intelligence, but rather Artificial Patience"
Greg Snow in response to a question about automated R-analysis.
Roger Koenker
r.koenker at ucl.ac.uk<mailto:r.koenker at ucl.ac.uk>
Honorary Professor of Economics
Department of Economics, UCL
Emeritus Professor of Economics
and Statistics, UIUC
On May 11, 2020, at 7:11 PM, Greg Snow <538280 at gmail.com<mailto:538280
at gmail.com>> wrote:
It is a nice dream, but it is really abdicating ethical responsibility
to the computer instead of the researcher. And I personally don't
trust computers over people for this.
What could go wrong?
First, how do you guarantee that the statistical plan was locked in
place before the data was collected? With your proposed system some
people will still run a plan on their data, make changes, run again,
etc. until they get what they want, then claim that the statistical
plan came before the data that was used to tune it (I consider this
unethical, but see no way for R or computers in general to prevent
this without human oversight).
Second, what if the data shows something that you did not anticipate?
This methodology would prevent you doing Exploratory Data Analysis and
adapting accordingly. If people start using this as a black box that
is "blessed" by the package as purely "objective", then many
will not
even do any EDA and take the results as "True" when they are not even
appropriate.
Better would be a regular system for submitting your code to a
clinical trial registry or some other pre-study registry so that other
can compare what you did to what you claimed you were going to do. If
you don't want to submit the entire code, you could submit an md5 hash
to the registry, then others could check to see if the code ran (put
into an online supplement) differs from the registered version. If
the data show something unanticipated then you can show the original
code and the modified code along with your reasoning and let the
consumer decide if the changes were justified.
This could still be worked around if someone was really motivated, but
it is probably the best we will see.
In my opinion the advantage of computers is not Artificial
Intelligence, but rather Artificial Patience (most AI that I have seen
is really doing a bunch of what I would consider to be boring, really
fast so people don't have to). Leave the Intelligence to the people.
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:10 AM karl adenener <adenener at
hotmail.com<mailto:adenener at hotmail.com>> wrote:
It would be a dream, there would be a R-based software, which I configure
according to my study (type of data, limits for meaningful measurements,
handling of outliers and missing measurements, test method etc.), which then
reads my original measurement data and after some computing time the software
provides me with the statistical analysis. All steps of the evaluation have to
be defined before the start of the study and cannot be changed after the start
of the study.
Where could problems arise?
Does anyone know of a suitable R-Package or software?
Does anyone have the time and inclination to create a flexibly customizable
package?
greetings
Adenener
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-help at r-project.org<mailto:R-help at r-project.org> mailing list -- To
UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
--
Gregory (Greg) L. Snow Ph.D.
538280 at gmail.com<mailto:538280 at gmail.com>
______________________________________________
R-help at r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> In my opinion the advantage of computers is not Artificial > Intelligence, but rather Artificial Patience (most AI that I have seen > is really doing a bunch of what I would consider to be boring, really > fast so people don't have to). Leave the Intelligence to the people.Hmmm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_in_video_games Also, I found the following while searching for battle chess: https://youtu.be/hBNG7444lOw (Warning: Contains aggressive chess tactics). Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Emacs have historical connections to AI research...?