Corlett, P.R., Mollick, J.A. & Kober, H. Meta-analysis of human prediction error for incentives, perception, cognition, and action. Neuropsychopharmacol. (2022).

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-021-01264-3

URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-021-01264-3

Hello! I am getting into a Survey Research for doing satisfaction research. I am kindly asking for a help with my situation. I am advanced "tech user" with "101 university statistics" knowledge, willing to learn.

I need to deliver custom surveys to a customers, that would be super accessible with great experience (for example I like Typeform), and then I need to do some basic, but surprisingly not accessible data visualizations for gaining insights and presentations (for example standard SPSS stuff like error bars, scatterplots).

I am unable to find any service, that would have both functionalities. Do I need buy both survey software like Typeform and SPSS, and doing all the exports and imports, or is there something integrated? If not, would you recommend going SPSS or is there something more accessible for not-that-expert statistician?

All I need is visualizations, and perhaps statistical significances between two identical surveys (like before and after). Subscription based software preferred, but not necessary.

Thank you in advance.

I have conducted an experiment with the purpose to determine the acid dissociation constant of creatine monohydrate through analysis of the pH curves read by a pH electrode. The methodology and analysis of the experiment are as follows (it’s kind of a lot so bear with me):

Creatine monohydrate powder will be dissolved in a 10cm^(3) solution of 0.1M HCl with a few drops of phenolphthalein indicator and titrated with 0.1M NaOH. A pH probe monitors the change in pH which will be used to determine the neuralization and half neutralization points. With reference to the Henderson Hasselbalch equation, the pH at the half equivalence points is the pKa of the amino acid.

Now that the methodology is clear, this is how I calculated the propagation of error. The table below shows the data collected in the experiment:

>Is the uncertainty is the average mass of creatine also 0.001g? since (3*(0.001))/3 = 0.001

The uncertainty of the neutralization volume should be 0.020ml since it is the same as the uncertainty of the initial volume read from the burrete but to calculate the uncertainty value of the average volume:

>do I take V(max)-V(min)/(number of trials)=(9.830-9.810)/3 = 0.006 or is it just 0.020 as well?

Alright now digging into the ugly stuff, When we plot the data we have we get a graph that looks similar to this:

https://preview.redd.it/bx6t9isnqo681.png?width=533&format=png&auto=webp&s=91289510f045ae365f8c08bb6b8168588209af3a

The uncertainty of the pH and NaOH is easy to calculate so added errors bars are easy. The confusing part is when we create the first derivative of this graph. I know it will plot the slopes of this graph and thus the equivalence and half equivalence points will be peaks such as the graph below

https://preview.redd.it/wczx7abcro681.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=942dac37fc92b847a883da58bff50bb45e839e3a

But how do I add errors bars for this graph? For the horizontal error bars, it's simply the uncertainty of the volume of NaOH. But what about the vertical? my supervisor required me to do so and I attempted to do it but he told me it's incorrect. This is my attempt: 📷

my rationale is that since the derivative of pH and derivative of Volume is divided then I should add the relative unc

Anyone else has this problem? I guess it will go away on its own, but just wanted to check.

Hello!

These results are based on the data gathered to fill in the blanks for a larger project on MEs that is planned. So far we have the creation date (or year) for over 200 Mandela Effects. (If anyone else is compiling a list of these and is willing to share, please contact us!) Here, we use this data to demonstrate why it's statistically unlikely that Mandela Effects are the result of errors in memory.

Here's the idea. If Mandela Effects are created either at the moment (or moments) after you encounter the subject, then there should be no connection to the time the subject itself was created. For example, if I "misremembered" the witches chant from Shakespeare's Macbeth:

>>"Double ,double, toil and trouble"

Is there any connection to the fact that it was published in 1606? Does the fact that my friend who shares this ME yet saw it 2 years before me change that date? Hypothetically, if one publishing company made a mistake (Like printing "B"s instead of "D"s) that people claim is the cause of the propagation of this Mandela Effect, could that affect what year Macbeth was written? I don't think so.

#In other words, we believe there is no mechanism available to your memory that would allow for any kind of "selection" to occur which could possibly affect or be influenced by the date the subject was created.

Try any example and variation you want, but I haven't been able to come up with a possible connection. If you do, please share it. But first, to isolate the subject even more, use only the last digit of the year it was created. Why? Presumably, if Mandela Effects are related to memory, then anything in living memory would be affected by this bias. So things from the 60s or 70s or 80s or 90s or 00s would have a disproportionate presence. Even more so for the 1900s! (Possibly 1800s if you're blessed with extreme longevity. To your health!) Anyway, the point is, I don't believe there's a possible connection that can be drawn from Mandela Effects being due to errors in memory and the last digit of the year the targeted subject was created.

#So the null hypothesis here is that the last resulting digit of the creation year, 0 to 9, should be evenly distributed among the group.

To demonstrate this, I'll provide some controls and identify factors that could throw this off.

First, we removed anything extremely old, i.e. anything that ends in "BC". Otherwise, the 0's would be over represented since those dates are all estimat

Or is it part of MSc in math (or physics, mechanics etc. where non-linear system are used in practise)?

Thanks

How do you write T = 1.25578 s ± 0.1247 s keeping one significant digit in the error?

My guess would be T= 1s ± 0.1 s but the number of decimal places don't match.

In another group discussion, someone brought up linguistics and I thought this topic might be too interesting to get buried in another thread.

Having tremendous interest in linguistics but zero expertise, I find the audio clip fascinating yet maddening because it's just too short for my brain to effectively process. Sometimes I think I hear a very slight difference in the way he says "down the hill," which sounds more like a South Midland American subregional dialect than what I'm familiar with, which is more of an Inland Northern American regional dialect. To my inexpert ears, there's a smidgen of difference in his pronunciation despite Delphi being only about a 2-hr drive from where I spent my formative years.

Linguistic research of regional and super-regional American dialects is both qualitative and quantitative so, as dumb a this might sound if you haven't spent much time down that rabbit hole, it's definitely "a thing." It would be interesting to know how LE has approached this from a forensic linguistics perspective, which is not an uncommon investigative approach, no? There should be value in expert analysis, especially if additional audio reveals more clues though vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar.

Potential value would be in using methodology vs guesswork to get a better feel for where (geographically) BG has spent the majority of his life. Obviously, this wouldn't necessarily mean it would help pinpoint where BG lives now but I think if it were possible to know that BG speaks with a dialect that indicates he's likely to have grown up in region X, it does provide value in that it could give LE another data point where seemingly few exist.

What do you think?

[Edit: itchy trigger finger typing errors]

I am running a thermal simulation analysis in ABAQUS with the convergence error "Too many increments made for this step".

Assuming that I have to maintain the actual mesh, is it better to increase the number of increments or the size of increment (minInc)? Also, should deltmx be closer to 0 or 1?

Thank you

Thyme waits for Noam, man.

When scrolling through this subreddit I get the impression, that most of you like to focus on phonetics and phonology or historical linguistics the most. To test this assumption I created this poll:

What field of linguistics are most interested about?

Because I couldn't extend the poll further you can upvote my comment for psycho- and neurolinguistics.

Thanks for your time. (I hope my field subdivision make sense to you)

View Poll

Edit Thank you all for such an enormous resource list

Be aware, we are tracking a number of cases where a DSM Common issue from the 20 July 2021 auto update is causing thread exceptions for certain DSMs on QRadar 7.4.x versions. These errors can occur when Traffic Analysis (TA) is enabled and events can route to store due to thread exceptions in ECS-EC for the Event Parser. Development is working on an updated jar file to resolve this issue, but wanted to post a link to the flash notice for this issue. If there are questions, let me know. The resolution to this issue will require a software RPM or jar to officially resolve. Attempting to uninstall the DSM Common RPM if you are on QRadar 7.4.x does not resolve the problem, but everyone can review to see if events are being routed to storage on their appliance or confirm if you are hitting this issue.

Documentation

• QRadar: Overview of auto update issue for 20 July 2021 (IJ33892)
• QRadar 7.4.x: Auto update 20 July 2021 and traffic analysis errors for DSM Common RPM

RPM that introduced the issue:

• DSMCommon-7.4-20210624145517.noarch.rpm

UPDATE

Auto Update servers and IBM Fix Central have files posted to resolve this issue. See the latest version of the flash notice for details (latest version date July 22 @ 9:30PM EDT).

You can also use this command to help determine if you experienced the auto update issue:select count(*) from events where devicetype = 147 and utf8(payload) like '%Exception was uncaught in thread%Event Parser%' last 3 DAYS

I am doing a lab report, something to do with viscosity. I watered down my equation to something manageable, below is my equation.

My equation

This is the error which I have derived, but I have a feeling that it's wrong, it can't be this simple.

My derived error

If someone has an input, please do help.

tl;dr - I assume linguistics is a relatively unpopular field. Why? Can we change this? How? (I hope this isn't too off topic for r/linguistics, it's a bit meta; I also hope that it doesn't come off as soapboxing, I'm genuinely interested in hearing people's thoughts.)

Compare the number of members in r/linguistics to r/philosophy or r/psychology. Compare the number of undergraduate majors across these three fields, or the number of academic departments specializing in these and related fields at universities and colleges across North America and perhaps the world. Most don't even offer a linguistics major, let alone have a dedicated linguistics department staffed by actual linguists. Given all this, I take it for granted that linguistics is a relatively unpopular field.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that language itself is very popular. People love learning factoids about the world's languages or etymology, they love riddles and language puzzles (crosswords, wordle!), they love language jokes and puns, they love creative uses of language (poetry, rap and other song lyrics, literature/fiction, aphorisms, inspiring oration).

One reason I am asking: I'm wondering whether our field is doomed to obscurity, or if we can turn this around. I.e. is this for deep and immutable reasons, or maybe just because our field is young (see point 1 below)?

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts, prescriptions, and possible objections to the presupposition of the question. And also if you're aware of any discussions of this elsewhere. Here are some of my own hunches:

1 - Linguistics is still a young field and just needs time to come into its own. Maybe competing frameworks within linguistics and the sometimes vicious debate between them makes the field look bad from the outside and turns people off? (That said, I'm a pluralist, it's good to have lots of competing ideas.)

2 - Linguistics is too hard. Trying to uncover truth in this field requires very careful thought, and the fact of the matter is, most people don't want to think hard (or they're too busy thinking hard about other stuff). (This could interact with 4.)

3 - The language/math dichotomy: Whether this is caused by our current education system, or is due to something deeper in the human folk taxonomy of areas of study, many school children seem to identify early as either a math and science person, or a creative person, with lovers of language being a subtype of creative person that can further manife

I want to whistle. I study phonetics/phonology, I understand sagittal diagrams, at this point I can articulate at least 80% of the IPA - but whistling is beyond me. All the tutorials I've seen don't tell me exactly what the placement of my lips or tongue should be and I feel like I have all the tools necessary to learn, IF someone were to just contextualize it in linguistic terms.

TEACH ME TO WHISTLE!!! I feel like the closest I've gotten is articulating a long /ʃ/ with rounded lips but I still sound like a snake's imitation of a kettle just starting to boil.

Edit: Oh my god. I didn't think it could happen but I just whistled. I knew studying linguistics would pay off. It's super high pitched and I can only sustain it for about a second before I lose my posture but holy frick you guys are wizards.

How do you write T = 1.25578 s ± 0.1247 s keeping one significant digit in the error?

My guess would be T= 1s ± 0.1 s but the number of decimal places don't match.