Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Sign up
Appearance settings

Add more causal thinking into moderation notebook#662

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account

Open
drbenvincent wants to merge11 commits intopymc-devs:main
base:main
Choose a base branch
Loading
fromdrbenvincent:moderation

Conversation

@drbenvincent
Copy link
Contributor

@drbenvincentdrbenvincent commentedMay 16, 2024
edited
Loading

This PR partially addresses#555 in that it adds more causal thinking into the existing moderation notebook, but not the mediation notebook. There is more that I want to do to this notebook, but unfortunately it will have to wait a little while. But I think the updates so far are worth a merge.

  • Add in the introduction that we will make a distinction between statistical and causal ideas.
  • Ensure the ordering of terms is consistent in all equations
  • Add a section on data visualisation
  • Clarify that we are focussing on observational data and don't consider experimental/interventional approaches
  • We currently have a “statistical” diagram, but we should add a causal DAG
  • Discuss the DAG. If this is our entire causal DAG then we have no real complexities in terms of backdoor paths etc. We can simply collect data and make inferences about the strengths of the causal relationships given the DAG and assumptions (e.g. linearity of relationships).
  • ConstantData ->Data nodes in the pymc model
  • Clarify that the “Related issues: mean centering and multicollinearity” section comes from the statistical literature
  • Definitely bring in insights from Rohrer, J. M., Hünermund, P., Arslan, R. C., & Elson, M. (2022). That’s a lot to process! Pitfalls of popular path models. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 5(2), 25152459221095827. I've added this into Further Reading, but there isn't much concrete actionable information in this paper to add here.
  • Maybe bring in insights from Wu, A. D., & Zumbo, B. D. (2008). Understanding and using mediators and moderators. Social Indicators Research, 87, 367-392.
  • Almost certainly add this reference as a good primer for causal thinking with observational data: Rohrer, Julia M. "Thinking clearly about correlations and causation: Graphical causal models for observational data." Advances in methods and practices in psychological science 1.1 (2018): 27-42. I've added this into Further Reading, but there isn't much concrete actionable information in this paper to add here.
  • Another useful resource: Rohrer, J. M., & Arslan, R. C. (2021).Precise answers to vague questions: Issues with interactions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(2).
  • Add those references to the Further Reading section
  • Check updates to style guide


📚 Documentation preview 📚:https://pymc-examples--662.org.readthedocs.build/en/662/

@review-notebook-app
Copy link

Check out this pull request on ReviewNB

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.


Powered byReviewNB

@drbenvincentdrbenvincent marked this pull request as draftMay 16, 2024 20:10
@drbenvincentdrbenvincent changed the titleAdd more causal thinking into moderation notebookAdd more causal thinking into moderation notebook (#555)May 17, 2024
@drbenvincentdrbenvincent changed the titleAdd more causal thinking into moderation notebook (#555)Add more causal thinking into moderation notebookMay 17, 2024
@drbenvincentdrbenvincent marked this pull request as ready for reviewOctober 20, 2024 13:44
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account?Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@NathanielFNathanielFAwaiting requested review from NathanielF

@OriolAbrilOriolAbrilAwaiting requested review from OriolAbril

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@drbenvincent

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp