3 ms·
Quoting the actual mistake is more useful, as that sentence doesn’t actually clarify the question — it’s what they’d say if it were for political reasons, as we
by FakeComments 8y ago
Quoting the actual mistake is more useful, as that sentence doesn’t actually clarify the question — it’s what they’d say if it were for political reasons, as well.
> In the letter, Ecker wrote that she and her coauthors had "identified a problem with the script that was used for the prediction of biological sex in male and female individuals with ASD based on their respective neuroanatomy in our original sample."
> That meant that "the probabilities we assumed to be indicative of the default (male) category in the female individuals with ASD, as shown in Figure 1B of our article, were flipped and in fact reflect the probabilities for the category of biological female individuals."
- uasm 8y ago> "Quoting the actual mistake is more useful" This isn't Twitter, and it's not my job to condense a paper down to a single sentence for people that wouldn't otherwise spare the time to actually read the article in the first place. Commenter is more than welcome to go ahead and do the reading themselves.
- badfrog 8y ago> it's not my job You're certainly under no obligation to comment at all. But if you are going to post a comment, especially one that implies some laziness of the person you're responding to ("It's literally in the first sentence"), you might want to take a few extra seconds to make sure you're providing useful and relevant information.
- dvtrn 8y agoLike an answer to the question posed?
- sannee 8y ago> identified a problem with the script Shitty academia code strikes again. It's sort of unfortunate that most of academic fields have turned to domain-specific software engineering, which graduates are woefully unprepared to do properly.
- timwaagh 8y agothe real problem is this code never got peer reviewed.
- tokai 8y agoThe peer reviewers are properly not good scripters as well.
- SubiculumCode 8y agoIn this case it was not a coding error so much as the undocumented code. The code expected that the binary coding of sex would switch when training classifiers on males and females separately. My colleague left it the same, and so results were switched from what they should be.