Science: girl things make you wince

On Fridays I usually try to put up trivial amusing stuff. So please take this is that spirit, because you really don’t want to take this seriously.
Encouraging women into science has to be a good thing, and there are good ways of doing it. But then there’s this:

Continue reading

Posted in Friday Fun | 2 Comments

Selecting Your LOLcats

The internet is a great thing, but it brings with it some problems. One of the future problems that we, as a civilisation, will face is the increased time we will be forced to spend finding the ideal photo for that LOLcat we want to make. The problem, of course, is that there is an infinite number of cats on the internet. So how do we search them all for that optimum picture?

Continue reading

Posted in Friday Fun, Silliness | 2 Comments

The Reality of Pervasive, err, Something

I’m a fan of good quality graphs, and some just stand out. Including this one, from PLoS Biology last year:

Continue reading

Posted in Friday Fun, Silliness | 2 Comments

Why does PLoS hate openness?

My frustrations for the day – I’m co-author on a manuscript submitted to PLoS. We’re now trying to upload the final version but we’re hitting silly problems that are caused by PLoS seemingly being beholden to Microsoft.

Continue reading

Posted in Aaaaaagh, Science Publishing | 18 Comments

Doing stuff with Ecological Networks

A few months ago one of my former post-docs mentioned that he had been thinking about ecological networks. One common type of network is a bipartite network, for example a plant-frugivore network, where members of one group (e.g. frugivores) may interact with members of the other (e.g. plants). my post.doc was worrying a bit about how to analyse this sort of data, because the current methods don’t look great (they use methods designed for networks that are completely known, whereas ours have a lot of missing data).

Continue reading

Posted in Ecology, Research Blogging, Statistics | Comments Off on Doing stuff with Ecological Networks

BaSTA – More fun than a Swedish sauna

One day, a few years ago, I was drinking with some fellow biologists in “Seminar Room A” opposite the Natural History Museum in Helsinki. The Sibelius Academy is next door to the museum, so we shared the bar with musicians. Once of the musicians came up to us with a plastic bag, and gave it to us saying that they thought we’d know what to do with it. In the bag was a dead gull.
Well, the other biologists knew what to do with it: it had a band on it so they took that off its leg, and dumped the body. The band was sent to the local banding centre, so they would know that the bird had died. And another datum was added to the store of human knowledge.

Continue reading

Posted in Ecology, Research Blogging, Statistics | 2 Comments

The Problems of Interpreting Data

A few weeks ago Science published a paper which claimed that biodiversity was important for the functioning of dry grasslands. This claim was strange because the analysis suggested that biodiversity wasn’t very important – it only explained about 4% of the variation in the data, whilst the abiotic components in the model explained about 50%. This caused me to look a bit deeper at the paper, and also to think a bit more about one particular aspect of the authors’ argument: how we can infer processes from observational data (i.e. where we don’t manipulate the conditions).

Continue reading

Posted in Statistics | 30 Comments

Friday, Friday

Because it’s Friday, and as a result of something I wrote a couple of weeks ago, I think I need to blog this:
funny pictures - Project: To find the centre of any flat object.
see more LOLcats

Continue reading

Posted in Silliness | 7 Comments

Good News for Open Access, Bad News for PLoS?

Well, actually this is old news, which I only noticed because of a link from the Improbable Research blog. The shorter version is that the success of PLoS could mean PLoS’s demise, because the need to adapt massively to benefit from the consequences of their success.

Continue reading

Posted in Science Publishing, The Society of Science | 10 Comments

Of Variance Interpreted

Last week Tom Webb tweeted this post about R2. In it the Cosma Shalizi argues that it’s wrong to say that “R2 is the proportion of variance explained by the model”. I say not so fast.

Continue reading

Posted in Silliness | 1 Comment