The last few years have really made it clear that people (including academics) basically only have substantive preferences, almost no procedural principles at all.
Majoritarianism? Sovereignty? Plain text of constitutions?
All completely flipped ideologically. Even among experts!
Congrats, glad to see this out!
What do you mean by more "consistent" changes? Just less variation in effect size?
A few days ago a student was talking to me while standing up, holding his laptop and balancing a glass of water on the keyboard.
I had to stop him and hold the glass myself, it was stressing me out too much.
This is very good👍. The reason its annoying is that it seems like it was written/said by an author/person, which turns out to be false. If it was actually written by some RA, people would also react badly.
There are objections about abilities, theft or whatever, but the authorship thing is easy.
The fact that it affects correlations and not just levels was news to me!
Getting people to use more reversed questions is very doable. SEM is a much bigger lift though.
This seems like a key point in terms of actually convincing new people: that selection on sig is much higher than it "should" be.
Revising lecture slides, and I updated an example with a new new cross-tab. The next slide has some step-by-step calculations to show how it works.
So, can AI update the slide? Powerpoint has built in Copilot!
No. AI can't update numbers in a slide. But it will consistant lie that it has. WTF.
Interestingly, due the 2025 citizen reform, I think decendants would keep citizenship forever. Don't imagine they were thinking about separatism when drafting it.
Great idea! We should train an LLM on Aristotle and Kant and let it make IRB decisions. Pretty sure it actually doesn't say anywhere in the regulations that IRB members have to be humans...
Oh yes I agree! I just meant we shouldn't look at the their percentage of nulls as correct/natural/unbiased or something, because its influenced by the behavior of other journals.
They really do deserve a credit for a great journal.
Although, probably some reverse selection on significance for submissions happening there too.
You're too busy and don't have time to do all the reviews?
Easy step one, stop reviewing for Elsevier journals.
Later you can also stop editing and submitting to them. (sorry to Electoral Studies, but this calls for market discipline, time to devalue those assets)
So LLMs have guidelines about discussing presidents?
Trying out ChatGTP5.2, and it reasons:
"OK, I’m thinking through how to respect guidelines on discussing influential politicians. Redirecting to general topics like race and elections research instead of focusing on Obama as an individual."
Reviewing PhD applications for next year, and I can't believe the number and quality of them.
We always have good applicants, but this year we could easily admit three full cohorts. And I suspect the acceptance rate will be really high too.
Thanks for having me!
Sure did! Its possible I have eaten more than one already.
I was an external examiner for a PhD defense for the first time today, and it was a great experience. I went in person rather than zoom. That has costs, but I think its worth it. Partly because its an important event, but also somehow being in person makes it important.
10/10 would examine again.
Thanks! And when the new changes happened, I was so glad we had your work from before! Won't be the last time I'm sure.
HA I believe it, so widespread. Alberta is also not particularly conservative!
Thanks!
Linking of immigration to the housing crisis seems much more likely, given timing and age changes. Polarization has been going on for a while, but this recent shift was among all parties.
Some media analysis with @jeremiedrouin.bsky.social is in the pipeline, maybe that will shed more light.
Thanks!
Thanks to @cbreton.bsky.social and @irpp.org for publishing, @parkinac.bsky.social for the invaluable data series, and to @catherineouellet.bsky.social and @skelalex.bsky.social for helping with the early data work!
Overall, we are back to the 80s-90s state, where most Canadians think we have too much immigration.
But the demographic structure - and probably the causes - of that opposition is probably quite different.
Gender has changed a little - women historically more anti-immigrant, now its men - but this started earlier, and differences are still small.
Most other categories haven't changed much. Surprisingly, despite debate around educational shifts, its relation to immigration is basically the same.
Anglophones have becomes much more anti-immigrant than francophones. Quebec is now the least anti-immigrant province.
Young people are now the most anti-immigrant group. As far as we can tell this is the first time its happened.
Specifically, this is saying "admitting too many immigrants", which isn't quite the same thing as prejudice or other measures. But its still a striking shift.
New work on on Immigration attitudes, out in @irpp.org with @natashagoel.bsky.social
We show dramatical increase in anti-immigration opinion in Canada over the past couple of years.
Its very different than previous shifts like in 1990s...
The elections commissioner. Allegations would be filed, and there would be a little hearing. Of course, it incentivized filing lots of allegations against your opponents..
.
