SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
lhsi writes:
Some recent research has suggested that there is a link between certain foods such as chocolate and obtaining a Nobel prize. New research found dedicating a high proportion of GDP to research and a high number of scientific papers published were more accurate predictors.
From the article:
Several recent studies have described a strong correlation between nutritional or economic data and the number of Nobel awards obtained across a large range of countries. This sheds new light on the intriguing question of the key predictors of Nobel awards chances. However, all these studies have been focused on a single predictor and were only based on simple correlation and/or linear model analysis. The main aim of the present study was thus to clarify this debate by simultaneously exploring the influence of food consumption (cacao, milk, and wine), economic variables (gross domestic product) and scientific activity (number of publications and research expenditure) on Nobel awards. An innovative statistical analysis, hierarchical partitioning, has been used because it enables us to reduce collinearity problems by determining and comparing the independent contribution of each factor. Our results clearly indicate that a country's number of Nobel awards can be mainly predicted by its scientific achievements such as number of publications and research expenditure. Conversely, dietary habits and the global economy variable are only minor predictors; this finding contradicts the conclusions of previous studies. Dedicating a large proportion of the GDP to research and to the publication of a high number of scientific papers would thus create fertile ground for obtaining Nobel awards.
(Score: 2) by TheloniousToady on Saturday March 29 2014, @07:49PM
Yes, I did. Sorry if I didn't state my point clearly enough for even you to understand it. I said (and also meant) nothing about predicting individuals. That was entirely from your imagination. Instead, by "who might win", I meant the "who" to be any sort of broad group, for example, people from a particular country.
FWIW, please try to be a little kinder next time you misunderstand someone's comment. Nobody deserves to be attacked for trying to contribute something constructive to the discussion.
(Score: 2) by umafuckitt on Saturday March 29 2014, @11:28PM
Truly, I'm sorry if I offended you. I can be too rough at times. Sorry. Your post really wasn't clear, though, and neither is your follow-up. Who "who" is matters enormously. The point is that the authors have been reasonable in their choice of "who" and so they can do their study. Their data back this up.
You stated that the number of candidates is "tens of millions." That is why I assume you are talking about predicting individuals. But the number of candidates isn't tens of millions, it's 71, because in the study in question a "candidate" is defined as a country that has won at least one Nobel. Thus, they are predicting countries, not individuals, which is what you appeared to be talking about when you mentioned lottery winners. Further, since the authors have access to all Nobel prizes awarded to date, they have 10 times as many Nobelists as countries. What they're doing is therefore totally reasonable and they have reasonable power to work with.
The above, however, doesn't tell you what the data look like. It only tells you that it's plausible to conduct such a study. The acid test is to look at the graphs. When you do so, you will see that there are some quite reasonable trends [plosone.org]. The fact that you see trends to which you can fit curves indicates that you can indeed build a model and obtain some sort of prediction. What the prediction actually means is a different question, but the meaning of the model doesn't affect its accuracy. It only affects its interpretation.