数据有效性的错觉:为什么关于人的数字可能是错误的

Bernard J. Jansen , Joni Salminen , Soon-gyo Jung , Hind Almerekhi
{"title":"数据有效性的错觉:为什么关于人的数字可能是错误的","authors":"Bernard J. Jansen ,&nbsp;Joni Salminen ,&nbsp;Soon-gyo Jung ,&nbsp;Hind Almerekhi","doi":"10.1016/j.dim.2022.100020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This reflection article addresses a difficulty faced by scholars and practitioners working with numbers about people, which is that <em>those who study people want numerical data about these people. Unfortunately, time and time again, this numerical data about people is wrong.</em> Addressing the potential causes of this wrongness, we present examples of analyzing people numbers, i.e., numbers derived from digital data by or about people, and discuss the comforting illusion of data validity. We first lay a foundation by highlighting potential inaccuracies in collecting people data, such as selection bias. Then, we discuss inaccuracies in analyzing people data, such as the flaw of averages, followed by a discussion of errors that are made when trying to make sense of people data through techniques such as posterior labeling. Finally, we discuss a root cause of people data often being wrong – the conceptual conundrum of thinking the numbers are <em>counts</em> when they are actually <em>measures</em>. Practical solutions to address this illusion of data validity are proposed. The implications for theories derived from people data are also highlighted, namely that these people theories are generally wrong as they are often derived from people numbers that are wrong.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72769,"journal":{"name":"Data and information management","volume":"6 4","pages":"Article 100020"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2543925122001188/pdfft?md5=ea40bf274d8b7c53f1cf69e1a4a2e214&pid=1-s2.0-S2543925122001188-main.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The illusion of data validity: Why numbers about people are likely wrong\",\"authors\":\"Bernard J. Jansen ,&nbsp;Joni Salminen ,&nbsp;Soon-gyo Jung ,&nbsp;Hind Almerekhi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.dim.2022.100020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This reflection article addresses a difficulty faced by scholars and practitioners working with numbers about people, which is that <em>those who study people want numerical data about these people. Unfortunately, time and time again, this numerical data about people is wrong.</em> Addressing the potential causes of this wrongness, we present examples of analyzing people numbers, i.e., numbers derived from digital data by or about people, and discuss the comforting illusion of data validity. We first lay a foundation by highlighting potential inaccuracies in collecting people data, such as selection bias. Then, we discuss inaccuracies in analyzing people data, such as the flaw of averages, followed by a discussion of errors that are made when trying to make sense of people data through techniques such as posterior labeling. Finally, we discuss a root cause of people data often being wrong – the conceptual conundrum of thinking the numbers are <em>counts</em> when they are actually <em>measures</em>. Practical solutions to address this illusion of data validity are proposed. The implications for theories derived from people data are also highlighted, namely that these people theories are generally wrong as they are often derived from people numbers that are wrong.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72769,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Data and information management\",\"volume\":\"6 4\",\"pages\":\"Article 100020\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2543925122001188/pdfft?md5=ea40bf274d8b7c53f1cf69e1a4a2e214&pid=1-s2.0-S2543925122001188-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Data and information management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2543925122001188\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Data and information management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2543925122001188","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

这篇反思文章解决了研究关于人的数字的学者和实践者所面临的一个困难,即那些研究人的人想要关于这些人的数字数据。不幸的是,这种关于人的数字数据一次又一次地是错误的。为了解决这种错误的潜在原因,我们提出了分析人数的例子,即由人或关于人的数字数据得出的数字,并讨论了数据有效性的令人欣慰的错觉。我们首先通过强调在收集人员数据时可能存在的不准确,比如选择偏差,来奠定基础。然后,我们讨论了分析人员数据的不准确性,例如平均值的缺陷,然后讨论了通过后验标记等技术试图理解人员数据时所产生的错误。最后,我们讨论了人口数据经常出错的根本原因——认为数字是计数的概念难题,而实际上它们是测量。提出了解决这种数据有效性错觉的实际解决方案。本文还强调了从人口数据中得出的理论的含义,即这些人口理论通常是错误的,因为它们通常是从错误的人口数据中得出的。
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
The illusion of data validity: Why numbers about people are likely wrong

This reflection article addresses a difficulty faced by scholars and practitioners working with numbers about people, which is that those who study people want numerical data about these people. Unfortunately, time and time again, this numerical data about people is wrong. Addressing the potential causes of this wrongness, we present examples of analyzing people numbers, i.e., numbers derived from digital data by or about people, and discuss the comforting illusion of data validity. We first lay a foundation by highlighting potential inaccuracies in collecting people data, such as selection bias. Then, we discuss inaccuracies in analyzing people data, such as the flaw of averages, followed by a discussion of errors that are made when trying to make sense of people data through techniques such as posterior labeling. Finally, we discuss a root cause of people data often being wrong – the conceptual conundrum of thinking the numbers are counts when they are actually measures. Practical solutions to address this illusion of data validity are proposed. The implications for theories derived from people data are also highlighted, namely that these people theories are generally wrong as they are often derived from people numbers that are wrong.

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
Data and information management
Data and information management Management Information Systems, Library and Information Sciences
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
55 days
期刊最新文献
Erratum regarding missing Declaration of Competing Interest statements in previously published articles (Volume 6, Issues 1–4) Improved detection of transient events in wide area sky survey using convolutional neural networks An evaluation method of academic output that considers productivity differences Adaptive K-means clustering based under-sampling methods to solve the class imbalance problem Does internet use affect public risk perception? — From the perspective of political participation
×
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