Florian Keppeler

@flokeppeler.bsky.social

Associate Professor at http://ps.au.dk/en/cpl | enthusiastic for public administration and policy | fan of beagle Wilma http://florian-keppeler.com

Wilma stared at next door’s cat, who had positioned itself into the most physically implausible sleeping position imaginable. And despite the fact that dogs and cats are basically sworn outgroups, Wilma felt for the poor creature. Turns out that’s harder to pull off than it looks… 1/🧵

Bild

Ok friends - need your help spreading the word! If you work in state or local government, please take this survey and share with your networks! bit.ly/3Rsihtn It's the first-of-its-kind national effort to elevate the voices of local public servants! (1/2)

Public Servant Pulse

Public Servant Pulse, developed by The People Lab, based at the Harvard Kennedy School, is an annual survey that seeks to better understand the experiences, perspectives, and challenges of state and l...

bit.ly

#Wilmasreview 🐶 Wilma sniffs spring flowers with great authority, certain she can tell every scent apart. Rhododendron? 🌸 Easy. Neighbour's tulip vs. this one? No problem. Is Wilma overconfident? 😏 Turns out, at least humans are. A new study by Heck, Benjamin, Simons & Chabris 1/🧵

Bild

🚨New preprint and our results are rather concerning.. We find the "boiling frog" equivalent of AI use. Using large-scale RCTs, we provide *casual* evidence that AI assistance reduces persistence and hurts independent performance. And these effects emerge after just 10–15 minutes of AI use! 1/

Bild

#Wilmasreview Wilma 🐶 has a lot of emotions when it comes to the dishwasher. Is it a source of leftovers? Or will it take her job? Humans may have similarly complicated feelings about AI systems — and a review by König and Mehrotra maps out a whole decade of research on that. 🤖💭 1/🧵

Bild

I have a new paper. We look at ~all stats articles in political science post-2010 & show that 94% have abstracts that claim to reject a null. Only 2% present only null results. This is hard to explain unless the research process has a filter that only lets rejections through.

It must be very hard to publish null results
Publication practices in the social sciences act as a filter that favors statistically significant results over null findings. While the problem of selection on significance (SoS) is well-known in theory, it has been difficult to measure its scope empirically, and it has been challenging to determine how selection varies across contexts. In this article, we use large language models to extract granular and validated data on about 100,000 articles published in over 150 political science journals from 2010 to 2024. We show that fewer than 2% of articles that rely on statistical methods report null-only findings in their abstracts, while over 90% of papers highlight significant results. To put these findings in perspective, we develop and calibrate a simple model of publication bias. Across a range of plausible assumptions, we find that statistically significant results are estimated to be one to two orders of magnitude more likely to enter the published record than null results. Leveraging metadata extracted from individual articles, we show that the pattern of strong SoS holds across subfields, journals, methods, and time periods. However, a few factors such as pre-registration and randomized experiments correlate with greater acceptance of null results. We conclude by discussing implications for the field and the potential of our new dataset for investigating other questions about political science.