matthewbjane.bsky.social
PhD student | Quantitative Psychology, UConn | Applied Statistics & Meta-Analysis | Reposts and follows are not endorsements. | Advisor: Blair T. Johnson | matthewbjane.com
322 posts
5,148 followers
321 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
No a meta-meta-analysis-analysis
comment in response to
post
I think my reaction to the first time I saw it was something along the lines of “wait you can just do that?”
comment in response to
post
Yeah I might do that. Maybe I’ll make it into a pre-print for now
comment in response to
post
I’ve been hearing it’s good. No spoilers please, still gotta watch it
comment in response to
post
Most meta-analyses are bad, some are useful
comment in response to
post
We tried to. Best we can do for now is submit to meta-psychology and post a pub-peer comment
comment in response to
post
Nah y’all are right.
comment in response to
post
What does the pin emoji do?
comment in response to
post
Don’t do it
comment in response to
post
livefreeordichotomize.com by @lucystats.bsky.social
matthewbjane.github.io/blog.html by @matthewbjane.bsky.social
www.andrewheiss.com/blog/ by the king @andrew.heiss.phd
ngreifer.github.io/blog/ by yours truly (can't resist a self-promotion 😉)
Stats blogs are the best!
comment in response to
post
The meta-analysis on the relationship between Fluoride and IQ by Taylor et al. (2025) that RFK Jr. has cited contains major methodological flaws and data integrity issues that we describe in the following pre-print (submitted to meta-psychology): osf.io/preprints/os...
comment in response to
post
Here is the link to our pub-peer comment pubpeer.org/publications...
comment in response to
post
Co-authored with @jamesheathers.bsky.social and @drg.bsky.social. The peer-review process is completely open, so if you would like to review it you can (see the statement at the top of the pre-print for further instructions)
comment in response to
post
I need to rewatch the clone wars because I forgot so much
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
I agree with this^
comment in response to
post
Oh wait I read that wrong, I was thinking there were tons of bad episodes, but entire shows? Probably not. I actually liked acolyte.
comment in response to
post
Agree. But also it does reverse the significance.
comment in response to
post
99.9% sure, yes. I only replicated there WPAL effects so they have two additional ones I did not check (non-WPAL measures). If I replace the WPAL effects with mine then it becomes non-significant (even assuming the non-WPAL effects were coded correctly). I can add that to the report if it’s useful.
comment in response to
post
This has got to be bait
comment in response to
post
It happens
comment in response to
post
Associated PubPeer comment can be found here: t.co/ckElVJUA1A
comment in response to
post
That’s not mansplaining that’s being helpful thank you I will try that!
comment in response to
post
updated
comment in response to
post
Nice catch! Will correct
comment in response to
post
Oh cool thanks for the link. It’s possible that I could upload my quarto doc into a pubpeer comment, but the code output, figures, and references would be really tedious.