Kris Hardies's Avatar

Kris Hardies

@krishardies.bsky.social

Scientist, accounting, philosophy of science

175 Followers  |  150 Following  |  141 Posts  |  Joined: 11.10.2023
Posts Following

Posts by Kris Hardies (@krishardies.bsky.social)

A full 6 months in Copenhagen, and I'm finding out about this only now! :'-)

24.02.2026 21:54 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0
Preview
Living the metascience dream (or nightmare) with AI for science What happens when we go from replication crisis to robustness extremes?

AI makes continuous reproducibility and robustness testing trivial. What happens to science under new levels of scrutiny and stress-testing by default?

Some thoughts on how this could play out, informed by watching open science play out over the last decade.

23.02.2026 18:17 β€” πŸ‘ 56    πŸ” 19    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 10

Cc @damensven.bsky.social

19.02.2026 22:42 β€” πŸ‘ 1    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0
Preview
Economic inequality does not equate to poor well-being or mental health Previous correlations of inequality with mental-health problems might have been affected by publication bias.

Nog eens bevestigd: een meta-analyse (11 mln mensen) vindt geen verband tussen inkomensongelijkheid en welzijn of mentale gezondheid.
www.nature.com/articles/d41...

04.01.2026 11:31 β€” πŸ‘ 5    πŸ” 1    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

Cijfers via Eurostat:
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/dat...

Volgens de WHO is partnergeweld nog een stuk frequenter buiten Europa
www.who.int/news/item/19...

De wereld is een betere plek dan vroeger, maar het is schokkerend hoeveel mensen er nog met (partner)geweld te maken krijgen in hun leven ...

15.02.2026 15:34 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

* De cijfers zijn nog wat hoger als we ook bedreigingen meerekenen (17% V en 10% M)
* Cijfers voor NL zijn trouwens heel vergelijkbaar. Die van Finland zijn extreem: 28% en 14% mannen slachtoffer van fysiek of sexueel partnergeweld -- 53% en 45% als we ook psychologisch geweld meenemen 🀯

15.02.2026 15:34 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

Ik denk dat we inderdaad onderschatten hoe vaak ook mannen slachtoffer zijn van partnergeweld (doch minder dan vrouwen). Wat cijfers op een rijtje:
* 16% vrouwen en 9% mannen in BelgiΓ« geeft aan ooit slachtoffer te zijn geweest van fysiek of sexueel partnergeweld
* 30-32% van psychologisch geweld.

15.02.2026 15:34 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

Can't imagine this to be the case in econ (and related fields) ... I guess it also shows how different scientific fields can be.

12.02.2026 20:59 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

This reminds me of this cool paper by Calcagno et al. that showed that 75% of all published articles in biology are published in the first journal they are submitted to. I guess biologists are (or at least used to be) quite well calibrated:
www.science.org/doi/full/10....

12.02.2026 20:59 β€” πŸ‘ 5    πŸ” 1    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

Do you think that's a good thing? It's the same here in BE; statisticians teaching stats, but I've always feit that's not a good thing because the stats courses are so disconnected from the rest of the program as a result.

06.02.2026 18:56 β€” πŸ‘ 2    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

Yeah, I just noticed the author has a whole set of papers on this, and the 95% seemed clickbait [and worked]; sorry! :-)

06.02.2026 15:50 β€” πŸ‘ 1    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

Most people also, obviously, have no club what's going on outstide their own field.

06.02.2026 13:44 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

Some fields are probably worse than others, but I think there are at least 2 things going on:
1. Progress: most research looks bad at some point.
2. Scientists being scientists: seeing things that could be better -> our field sucks [more than yours]

06.02.2026 13:44 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0
Why 95% of Papers in Top-Tier SCI Journals Are Garbage: A Critical Analysis of Academic Publishing Collapse This paper presents a systematic analysis of why the overwhelming majority of publications in toptier SCI journals constitute low-quality or erroneous research

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Haven't read the paper yet, but it seems other people think so too.

06.02.2026 13:44 β€” πŸ‘ 1    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 2    πŸ“Œ 0
Doctoraatsbursaal in woningmarkteconomie | Universiteit Antwerpen YUFE vacature

Wil je baanbrekend onderzoek combineren met beleidsrelevante inzichten? Wij zijn op zoek naar een voltijdse doctoraatsbursaal in woningmarkteconomie aan @uantwerpen.be

Solliciteren kan tot 26 februari 2026 www.uantwerpen.be/nl/jobs/vaca...

05.02.2026 09:23 β€” πŸ‘ 1    πŸ” 3    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0
What’s a multiverse good for anyway?

Julia M. Rohrer, Jessica Hullman, and  Andrew Gelman

Multiverse analysis has become a fairly popular approach, as indicated by the present special issue on the matter. Here, we take one step back and ask why one would conduct a multiverse analysis in the first place. We discuss various ways in which a multiverse may be employed – as a tool for reflection and critique, as a persuasive tool, as a serious inferential tool – as well as potential problems that arise depending on the specific purpose. For example, it fails as a persuasive tool when researchers disagree about which variations should be included in the analysis, and it fails as a serious inferential tool when the included analyses do not target a coherent estimand. Then, we take yet another step back and ask what the multiverse discourse has been good for and whether any broader lessons can be drawn. Ultimately, we conclude that the multiverse does remain a valuable tool; however, we urge against taking it too seriously.

What’s a multiverse good for anyway? Julia M. Rohrer, Jessica Hullman, and Andrew Gelman Multiverse analysis has become a fairly popular approach, as indicated by the present special issue on the matter. Here, we take one step back and ask why one would conduct a multiverse analysis in the first place. We discuss various ways in which a multiverse may be employed – as a tool for reflection and critique, as a persuasive tool, as a serious inferential tool – as well as potential problems that arise depending on the specific purpose. For example, it fails as a persuasive tool when researchers disagree about which variations should be included in the analysis, and it fails as a serious inferential tool when the included analyses do not target a coherent estimand. Then, we take yet another step back and ask what the multiverse discourse has been good for and whether any broader lessons can be drawn. Ultimately, we conclude that the multiverse does remain a valuable tool; however, we urge against taking it too seriously.

New preprint! So, what's a multiverse analysis good for anyway?>

With @jessicahullman.bsky.social and @statmodeling.bsky.social

juliarohrer.com/wp-content/u...

04.02.2026 10:24 β€” πŸ‘ 173    πŸ” 52    πŸ’¬ 9    πŸ“Œ 3

Ik weet niet of dat door 'n verschuiving in visie komt dan wel noodgedwongen door veranderde realiteit? Dalende onderwijskwaliteit waardoor zelfs de beste studenten (meer) extra studie nodig hebben om als onderzoeker aan de slag te kunnen + wetenschap die veranderd is (meer vereist vaak).

23.01.2026 18:20 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

Ik vermoed niet dat iemand hier verbaast van opkijkt, maar het blijft pijnlijk natuurlijk – opscheppen over je eigen onwetendheid past wel goed in de tijdsgeest.

17.01.2026 11:10 β€” πŸ‘ 5    πŸ” 2    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

Vandaag sta ik in De Morgen met een pleidooi tegen de onzin van remigratie.

16.12.2025 16:21 β€” πŸ‘ 15    πŸ” 4    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 1

And all while the most difficult phenomena to explain are, obviously, the ones that don't exist (Lykken)

07.12.2025 12:09 β€” πŸ‘ 1    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

Yes!

06.12.2025 23:03 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0
Fontana animal experiments

Fontana animal experiments

Now I'm reminded of this ...

06.12.2025 22:55 β€” πŸ‘ 2    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0
I Just Ran Two Million Regressions on JSTOR Xavier X. Sala-I-Martin, I Just Ran Two Million Regressions, The American Economic Review, Vol. 87, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Asso...

While Xavier X. Sala-I-Martin, of course, ran 2 million regressions (sort of) already back in 1997!
www.jstor.org/stable/2950909

04.12.2025 19:04 β€” πŸ‘ 2    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

Ik denk dat @debiehendrik.bsky.social al gewoon hoogleraar is, maar voor alle andere ZAP gaat het door de besparingen (naar alle waarschijnlijkheid) langer duren om promotie te maken en de impact van bijv. 3j later promotie is over de hele loopbaan best wel heel groot.

28.11.2025 18:57 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

I feel bad for you that you're learning all of this :'-)

tbf reading metascience work (e.g. on team incentives/collaboration, the idea of science audits) I do sometimes think some people would benefit from reading some accounting research

25.11.2025 08:57 β€” πŸ‘ 2    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

Paul, not sure what you're implying, but you know well enough that no serious accounting researcher reads – let alone cites – anything outside of the "top" econ/finance/acc journals.

Unless, of course, whenever there is a need for some vague theory, then psychology or management will do.

25.11.2025 07:30 β€” πŸ‘ 2    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 2    πŸ“Œ 0
Preview
Theories - Theory Repository Disclaimer:

Looking for help from the #psychology #metascience communities!

This www.theoryfinder.com/theory-repos...
online repository lists more than 200 theories (*), mostly from psychology. The authors' goal is to foster the use of theory ... I'd like some vetting of these theories. How do we do this?

30.10.2025 10:33 β€” πŸ‘ 8    πŸ” 4    πŸ’¬ 2    πŸ“Œ 0
OSF

@annayahprosser.bsky.social her work: osf.io/preprints/so...

12.11.2025 15:04 β€” πŸ‘ 1    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

Ik heb geen toegang tot Apache, maar we bespraken de opiniepaper van Guest et al. deze week in de leesgroep van onze faculteit. Dat leverde een boeiend gesprek op, maar we vonden toch allemaal dat het maar een zwakke paper was – ja, het is een opiniestuk, maar toch een wetenschappelijk.

08.11.2025 10:38 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

Thanks for sharing! Interesting piece.

07.11.2025 18:56 β€” πŸ‘ 1    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0