Mollie Wood

@anecdatally.bsky.social

Asst. prof of epidemiology at UNC Chapel Hill | training at HSPH, UiO, UMass Med, BUSPH | interests in rxepi, repro-perinatal epi, methods | she/her/dr

It's not 1536, but Anne Boleyn has taken over the news. Recently a team of computer scientists, electrical engineers and a historical novelist think they have discovered the “true face” of Anne (& her mother) by applying AI-based computational facial recognition to Holbein sketches. The catch? /1

Sonja Drimmer@sonjadrimmer.bsky.social · 3mo ago

They’re at it again. None of this is valuable historical research. It’s about exploiting historical artifacts and historians to develop computer vision further and to make a soft cultural argument for surveillance tech. This nonsense has been going on since c2010.

Screenshot of a NYT headline 

A 16th-Century Sketch Claims to Depict Anne Boleyn. A.I. Says It’s Her Mom.
Using facial-recognition technology, scholars have concluded that a 500-year-old drawing labeled “Anna Bollein Queen” more likely showed her mother, Elizabeth Howard.

Rearranging variables can make this clearer. In plot below, it's relatively easy to see that total effect needs no adjustment, and that direct effect from A to Y needs to block the indirect path that traverses D and C. D is a collider, and C the child of the collider, hence adjustment on B is needed

DAG display

This is a hell of a year to be staring down the tenure clock, having yet to secure 'R01 or equivalent' funding. I've submitted 10 proposals this year: 6 as PI, 2 foundations. It's weird to feel both anxious about this, and also guilty for feeling anxious about this amid all the *gestures wildly*

Bill Hanage@billhanage.bsky.social · 8mo ago

Essential reading if you care about the health of scientific inquiry in the US www.nytimes.com/interactive/...

I went to undergrad with a guy who thought eating was a waste of time, so he blended and drank all his meals. I can’t remember his name, but the tuna fish sandwich shakes will be branded into my brain until the day I die.

Andrew Heiss@andrew.heiss.phd · 8mo ago

Discovered new way to quickly consume leftover pies: blend half gallon of ice cream + some milk + an entire pie in a kitchenaid. Between the 7 of us, a whole pie-in-shake-form disappeared in like 90 seconds

I'm hoping for advice from NIH funded researchers re the updated OA policy (grants.nih.gov/grants/guide...). Specifically: I have students funded on an F31 or T32 whose papers were submitted this spring and accepted after 7/1. Per policy, those papers must be OA from pub date... (1/3)

NOT-OD-25-101: Revision: Notice of Updated Effective Date for the 2024 NIH Public Access Policy

NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts: Revision: Notice of Updated Effective Date for the 2024 NIH Public Access Policy NOT-OD-25-101. NIH

grants.nih.gov

I went to a talk last year and remember thinking: did he just say we should use AI to create study samples? Not for simulation studies, but to answer an applied question? I must have misheard, that’s clearly bonkers. Anyway, here we are.

Verasight@verasight.io · 12mo ago

Our new analysis, in collab with @gelliottmorris.com, finds major errors when replacing humans with synthetic samples. Over the next 5 days, we’ll share some of the findings. https://report.verasight.io/synthetic-sampling/?utm_source=bluesky&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=launch&utm_content=cover

1. The philosophy of science sometimes gets an unearned reputation as a purely academic exercise that offers little by way of concrete tools for advancing research. This is wrong. And today, as we grapple with how AI is changing the nature of scientific activity, it's desperately wrong.