Like, the Angrist Vietnam War Vet paper. Is that still a quasi-experiment, even though it was fully randomized?
I want to run a compression test on a model, however I am uncertain as to how I am supposed to decide on the loading speed. What are the factors I need to consider?
If there are any good sources please feel free to share them.
I did a search around but still not yet understood what is the quasi-natural experiment, and whether "quasi-natural experiment" equals "quasi-experimental"?
Hi all,
I read a document and they said that
> We first discuss the merits of our choice of industry-level tariff cuts as a quasi-natural experiment aimed at avoiding potential issues of endogeneity
I am wondering why choosing an event as a quasi-natural experiment is to avoid endogeneity?
Hi Everyone,
I am trying to analyze secondary data for a quasi-experiment. Because this was a naturally occurring experiment and not carefully designed, the conditions are highly unequal. While there seem to be many corrections for unequal cell sizes in one-way ANOVAs (e.g., Welch's, Brown-Forsythe), I am having a difficult time finding consistent information to appropriately correct for unequal cell sizes in a 2x2 where an interaction is predicted.
To provide more concrete information, here are the Ns for each condition:
| -- | A | B |
|---|---|---|
| X | 79 | 342 |
| Y | 127 | 1802 |
My focal planned contrast will be the simple effect of X (i.e., 79 vs. 342) and the simple effect of Y (i.e., 127 vs. 1802).
While I find the predicted interaction on my DV using Type III SS, I am still very hesitant that I can properly interpret these results given how highly unbalanced the conditions are. I have a few questions that I would really appreciate insight on. Cites for further reading would also be super helpful. I've been running through Stack Exchange and my old stats books, and none seem to have consistent advice with respect to two-factor ANOVAs.
- Is ANOVA even a valid analysis here, or should I be looking into more regression-based approaches?
- Is it appropriate to examine an interaction under these conditions?
- Is there a way to correct for unequal sample sizes in a 2x2 design?
Thank you so much for any guidance!
I noticed recently that some of the international students in my department address faculty verbally (asking a question after class, for example) as simply ‘Professor’ with no last name included.
To me (and I think many other Americans), just ‘Professor’ implies that you don’t know their name. But to students from some cultures, it’s a form of respect and they’ve always called their teachers ‘teacher’ or ‘professor’ rather than Dr/Professor Lastname.
So I’m curious and hoping you guys could let me know how you address your faculty members verbally (I think everybody includes the last name in writing, no?), and what culture you come from. Feel free to throw in extra info if it’s helpful.
(If anybody’s curious, I threw a version of this question over to r/Professors, and got a mix of mostly ‘I don’t care as long as they call me Prof/Dr’ and ‘just Professor makes me think they don’t know my name’.)
Hi everyone
I'm an undergraduate psychology student and writing a research proposal for my coursework.
My proposal is a quasi experiment involving dyslexia in relation to anxiety and self-esteem. Dyslexic and non dyslexic participants will be tested on anxiety and self-esteem using inventories/ questionnaires. It seems quite basic but I'm struggling to figure out which statistical test would be appropriate for this experiment. Can anyone help me out?
Hi everyone
I get assingment to make design of quasi experimental research about relationship between personality characteristic and online risk behaviors.
Do you have any idea, at least from where I should start?
Thanks everyone!
EDIT AFTER 2 YEARS believe it or not (Surveying my top posts. :P)
I figured out why volume sliders that just apply the sliders 0..1 value to the audio material have this ill behavior.
It's blindingly obvious and has practically nothing to do with the non-linearity of human hearing. The reason is purely mathematical.
If you multiply something with 0, you get 0, which basically give 0 absolute power. And the closer to 0 you get (but below 1) when multiplying something, the more this absolute power comes into play.
Or look at it from this angle: When you reduce the volume from 100% to 90%, you have reduced the volume of what you heard until then by 10%. When you reduce the volume from 10% to 0%, which is also a difference of 10%, you have reduced the volume of what you heard until then by 100%. Need another data-point? Ok, just reduce the volume from 20% to 10% - which is an effective reduction by 50%.
The closer to 0 you get, the "faster" the volume decreases. That is the reason why you need to turn your 0..1 slider value into a curve before applying it.
And for some reason, most game programmers do not realize nor hear this. :/
Most games today have broken volume sliders: Between full volume and, say, 60%, you hear almost no difference. The programmers just blindly applied the 0to1 factor and moved on. Please don't make the same mistake when it's 1) so obvious and 2) so easy to fix.
Short and to the point volume slider problem info:
http://www.dr-lex.be/info-stuff/volumecontrols.html
Some formula suggestion for the problem:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1165026/what-algorithms-could-i-use-for-audio-volume-level
EDIT: Turns out that the best and simplest approach is just to raise the user's input value (which must be a decimal number from 0 to 1) to the power of Euler's number which is about 2.72 - a demo of how this behaves can be found in my Java 8 Battleships game (with source) in the "about" section of the menu: https://www.reddit.com/r/software/comments/2pgqfz/java_8_apps_with_source_application/
Really. If you use extremely loud playback equipment and start raising the volume from 0, you'll get a just-quick-enough increase in volume, and if you use normal playback equipment where you'd want the full volume or something a bit less, going down from 1 will give you just the right decrease speed. This plus the mathematical simplicity suggest that this approach should be chosen, definitely a LOT better than no adjustment at all
... keep reading on reddit ➡I’m having trouble differentiating quasi-experiments from true experiments. If anyone could lay them out for me in a simple way it’d help so much!
I haven't seen anyone talk about this, but let's be honest here. The Infinite Forest was this hyped thing that Bungie was congratulating itself on developing during the CoO streams.
"OOh its different every time you play." -Bungie
Here's the problem: It's boring as hell. It's boring because it's just procedurally generated areas, ala No Mans Sky. Bungie went out of their way on CoO reveals to say that "It's not procedurally generated, we just use lego pieces and have an algorithm put it together". <-- That's still procedurally generated.
The problem with designing levels this way is that you can't craft a really clever environment with really specific landmarks, area's etc... so in order for a procedurally generated system to work, you have to dumb things down a little, and so, in the infinite forest areas, you can literally just run past every enemy and take shortcuts past, in some cases, half the visible environment. A team creating and iterating on environments, which are play tested over and over and over will always be more interesting and engaging that something put together quasi-randomly.
Bungie created the Infinite Forest as a way to test the waters with procedurally generated environments, its a way to be lazy, and then give a lore reason as to why its there. ("The Vex simulate all realities, or something..")
I DO NOT want future content in D2 to be like this. I don't think anyone else does either.
I have to admit tho, that triangle hallway looks cool as hell when you're walking through it.
