Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
Skip to content
Home
Books
Blogroll
Sponsors
Authors
Feed
Sponsors
Columbia University
Department of Energy
Institute of Education Sciences
National Institute of Health
National Science Foundation
National Security Agency
Novartis
YouGov
Office of Naval Research
Sloan Foundation
Catalist
Google
Disney
Facebook
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Search for:
Recent Comments
Brandon Vaughan
on
Inference from an intervention with many outcomes, not using “statistical significance”
Sameera Daniels
on
Beyond forking paths: using multilevel modeling to figure out what can be learned from this survey experiment
Mark
on
Stan case studies
Sameera Daniels
on
Beyond forking paths: using multilevel modeling to figure out what can be learned from this survey experiment
Sam Warburton
on
Analyzing New Zealand fatal traffic crashes in Stan with added open-access science
Peter Ellis
on
Analyzing New Zealand fatal traffic crashes in Stan with added open-access science
Richard D. Morey
on
“Bayesian evidence synthesis”
Andrew
on
Beyond forking paths: using multilevel modeling to figure out what can be learned from this survey experiment
LemmusLemmus
on
Beyond forking paths: using multilevel modeling to figure out what can be learned from this survey experiment
Stephen Martin
on
“Bayesian evidence synthesis”
Wayne
on
Baseball, apple pie, and Stan
Eric de Souza
on
Beyond forking paths: using multilevel modeling to figure out what can be learned from this survey experiment
Sameera Daniels
on
Beyond forking paths: using multilevel modeling to figure out what can be learned from this survey experiment
Student
on
Beyond forking paths: using multilevel modeling to figure out what can be learned from this survey experiment
Richard D. Morey
on
“Bayesian evidence synthesis”
Carlos Ungil
on
Freelance orphans: “33 comparisons, 4 are statistically significant: much more than the 1.65 that would be expected by chance alone, so what’s the problem??”
Andrew
on
Freelance orphans: “33 comparisons, 4 are statistically significant: much more than the 1.65 that would be expected by chance alone, so what’s the problem??”
Brad Stiritz
on
Freelance orphans: “33 comparisons, 4 are statistically significant: much more than the 1.65 that would be expected by chance alone, so what’s the problem??”
Christopher
on
Baseball, apple pie, and Stan
Andrew
on
Freelance orphans: “33 comparisons, 4 are statistically significant: much more than the 1.65 that would be expected by chance alone, so what’s the problem??”
Categories
Administrative
Art
Bayesian Statistics
Causal Inference
Decision Theory
Economics
Literature
Miscellaneous Science
Miscellaneous Statistics
Multilevel Modeling
Political Science
Public Health
Sociology
Sports
Stan
Statistical computing
Statistical graphics
Teaching
Zombies