数据推理:两种旧方法和一种新方法

M. Baiocchi, J. Rodu
{"title":"数据推理:两种旧方法和一种新方法","authors":"M. Baiocchi, J. Rodu","doi":"10.1353/obs.2021.0016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Instead of two cultures, the story of the last couple decades of data science is about the interplay between three different types of reasoning using data. Two of these types of reasoning were well known when Breiman wrote his Two Cultures paper – warranted reasoning (e.g., randomized trials and sampling) and model reasoning (e.g., linear models). Breiman, though he does not appear to have realized it fully, was in fact describing the dynamics arising in a data community that was making progress using the newest, third type of reasoning – outcome reasoning. In this commentary we clarify this dynamic a bit, and suggest some useful language for identifying and differentiating types of problems better suited for outcome reasoning.","PeriodicalId":74335,"journal":{"name":"Observational studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reasoning Using Data: Two Old Ways and One New\",\"authors\":\"M. Baiocchi, J. Rodu\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/obs.2021.0016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:Instead of two cultures, the story of the last couple decades of data science is about the interplay between three different types of reasoning using data. Two of these types of reasoning were well known when Breiman wrote his Two Cultures paper – warranted reasoning (e.g., randomized trials and sampling) and model reasoning (e.g., linear models). Breiman, though he does not appear to have realized it fully, was in fact describing the dynamics arising in a data community that was making progress using the newest, third type of reasoning – outcome reasoning. In this commentary we clarify this dynamic a bit, and suggest some useful language for identifying and differentiating types of problems better suited for outcome reasoning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74335,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Observational studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Observational studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/obs.2021.0016\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Observational studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/obs.2021.0016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要:过去几十年的数据科学故事讲述的不是两种文化,而是三种不同类型的使用数据的推理之间的相互作用。当Breiman写他的《两种文化》论文时,其中两种类型的推理是众所周知的——保证推理(如随机试验和抽样)和模型推理(如线性模型)。尽管Breiman似乎没有完全意识到这一点,但事实上,他描述的是数据社区中出现的动态,该社区正在使用最新的第三种推理——结果推理——取得进展。在这篇评论中,我们稍微澄清了这一动态,并提出了一些有用的语言来识别和区分更适合结果推理的问题类型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reasoning Using Data: Two Old Ways and One New
Abstract:Instead of two cultures, the story of the last couple decades of data science is about the interplay between three different types of reasoning using data. Two of these types of reasoning were well known when Breiman wrote his Two Cultures paper – warranted reasoning (e.g., randomized trials and sampling) and model reasoning (e.g., linear models). Breiman, though he does not appear to have realized it fully, was in fact describing the dynamics arising in a data community that was making progress using the newest, third type of reasoning – outcome reasoning. In this commentary we clarify this dynamic a bit, and suggest some useful language for identifying and differentiating types of problems better suited for outcome reasoning.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Does matching introduce confounding or selection bias into the matched case-control design? Size-biased sensitivity analysis for matched pairs design to assess the impact of healthcare-associated infections A Software Tutorial for Matching in Clustered Observational Studies Using a difference-in-difference control trial to test an intervention aimed at increasing the take-up of a welfare payment in New Zealand Estimating Treatment Effect with Propensity Score Weighted Regression and Double Machine Learning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1