July 2016

New in Human+AI collaboration

1. Systematic review: Does business coaching make a difference? In PLOSOne, Grover and Furnham present findings of their systematic review of coaching impacts within organizations. They found glimmers of hope for positive results from coaching, but also spotted numerous holes in research designs and data quality. Over the years, outcome measures have included job satisfaction,...
Read More
1. What new analytics are fueling baseball decisions? [I spoke at Nerd Nite SF about recent developments in baseball analytics. -Tracy Allison Altman, Ed.] Highlights from my talk: – Data science and baseball analytics are following similar trajectories. There’s more and more data, but people struggle to find predictive value. Oftentimes, executives are less familiar...
Read More
monitor showing code
1. Confusing correlation with causation is not the Cardinal Sin of data science, say Gregory Piatetsky (@kdnuggets) and Anmol Rajpurohit (@hey_anmol): It’s overfitting. Oftentimes, researchers “test numerous hypotheses without proper statistical control, until they happen to find something interesting and report it. Not surprisingly, next time the effect, which was (at least partly) due to...
Read More
People are recognizing the critical need for meta-research, or the ‘science of science’. One focus area is understanding whether research produces desired outcomes, and identifying how to ensure that truly happens going forward. Research impact assessment (RIA) is particularly important when holding organizations accountable for their management of public and donor funding. An RIA community...
Read More
1. Academics use crazy tricks for clickbait. Turn to @TheWinnower for an insightful analysis of academic article titles, and how their authors sometimes mimic techniques used for clickbait. Positively framed titles (those stating a specific finding) fare better than vague ones: For example, ‘smoking causes lung cancer’ vs. ‘the relationship between smoking and lung cancer’....
Read More
1. Know someone who effectively promotes evidence? Nominations are open for the 2016 John Maddox Prize for Standing up for Science, recognizing an individual who promotes sound science and evidence on a matter of public interest, facing difficulty or hostility in doing so. Researchers in any area of science or engineering, or those who work...
Read More

Museum musings.

Pondering the places where people interact with artificial intelligence: Collaboration on evidence-based decision-making, automation of data-driven processes, machine learning, things like that.

Recent Articles

finger pointing
19 August 2021
How to blame a robot for mistakes: Do your finger pointing properly.
photo of row of townhouses seen through fisheye camera lens
12 August 2020
How Human-in-the-Loop AI is Like House Hunters
coronavirus pandemic curve - johns hopkins
9 April 2020
Deciding while distancing: From data viz to the hard decisions.
soldiers looking at 3d map
26 February 2020
Will military ethics principles make AI GRRET again?
woman exiting revolving door
30 January 2020
Struggling to explain AI? Try this before|after strategy.