Kris Hardies

@krishardies.bsky.social

Scientist, accounting, philosophy of science

Out of curiosity, I screened for winsori* in the full texts of articles (1990-2025) from the top 5 econ, top 3 finance, and top 3 accounting journals: * 3% in econ * 16% in finance * 27% in accounting (30% if I also include CAR and RAST) It's not entirely comparing apples with apples, but still.

Goldberger (1979, 337) put it well: 'A powerful intellect was at work. In the same vein, if it were shown that a large proportion of the variance in eyesight were due to genetic causes, then the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Eyeglasses might as well pack up.' www.jstor.org/stable/25536...

Client Challenge

jstor.org

Aylwyn Scally@aylwyn-scally.bsky.social · last mo.

This is a thoughtful piece by @ent3c.bsky.social, articulating a view of hereditarianism that I think is shared by many in anthropology, psychology & elsewhere. It's also one that I, as a geneticist working on human evolution, fundamentally disagree with. ericturkheimer.substack.com/p/the-cofnas...

RE: freedom of speech, academic freedom, and race science. In this (long) thread, I’m going to 1) establish my bona fides on academic freedom and race science, 2) show why academic freedom and freedom of speech are different and… 1/34

In 2023, @nature.com published 'Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time', receiving world-wide media attention. Our Matters Arising, published after a 32 month delay (more on that soon), shows that the reported decline can largely be attributed to dataset artefacts. 🧵

The average CD_5 index per year for Web of Science. The original Park et al. decline (top curve) becomes essentially flat (bottom curve) when removing papers with CD_5=1. Those papers largely correspond to dataset artefacts.

Just spotted the first paper in a "top 6" accounting journal with fake references — I guess it was waiting to happen. Quite embarrassing for everyone involved (the authors, reviewer(s), editor(s), and the publisher).

I'm sympathetic to the 'why should we care' stance; it's outcomes [models, theories,...] we care about, after all, no? At the same time, yes, science is for humans, and we could get to a point where AI produces outcomes that are "true" but unhelpful (e.g., unintelligible to any human).

It's interesting how quick we are to assume science is aligned by default. There's an idea that good science doesn't require human involvement, it's about the "Truth" which can be discovered & verified independent of our judgment. In doing so we ignore most of the history of science.

Alexander Kustov@akoustov.bsky.social · 4mo ago

At the same time, if you are a scientist and you want to solve a problem or simply get things done, you are going to be perfectly content if the solution is machine-generated, whether it is about analysis, the write-up or both.

Still have you read the entire paper but I wonder how this all squares: bsky.app/profile/kris... Why do we see so much super low quality AI-submissions, if it doesn't seem tot take that difficult prompting to get al least mediocer ones?

Kris Hardies@krishardies.bsky.social · 5mo ago

De editors van Organization Science publiceerden net dit: pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/... 'Submission volume has risen 42% since the late 2022 release of ChatGPT, while writing quality has declined.'

In “Six Memos for the Next Millenium”, Italo Calvino distilled six literary virtues he felt should endure regardless of how the world changed. As we enter an age of automated evaluation & production of science, what are the parallel epstemic virtues we should try to preserve? We want your input! 🧵

Bild

Bottom line: The “motherhood penalty” is real, causal, and driven by discrimination, not differences in ability. As the authors put it: “Giving evidence of being a mother leads to discrimination against mothers in hiring and pay.”

Ik sta vandaag op de website van Knack met de stelling da we amnestie behoren te verlenen aan alle mensen in irregulier verblijf. Een. draadje met argumenten Sharing is caring enzo. (Kijk vooral hoe rechts *niet* gaat ingaan op de argumentatie. ;)) / 1

Ik denk dat we inderdaad onderschatten hoe vaak ook mannen slachtoffer zijn van partnergeweld (doch minder dan vrouwen). Wat cijfers op een rijtje: * 16% vrouwen en 9% mannen in België geeft aan ooit slachtoffer te zijn geweest van fysiek of sexueel partnergeweld * 30-32% van psychologisch geweld.

Jan Hautekeete@jan-hautekeete.bsky.social · 8mo ago

Interessant hoe diep en vanzelfsprekend het ( seksistisch) stereotype is dat mannen daders zijn en vrouwen slachtoffers. Partnergeweld tegen mannen - door vrouwen - komt even vaak voor als partnergeweld tegen vrouwen. En dan is er nog de systematische onderschatting van geweld door vrouwen.

Ik heb geen toegang tot Apache, maar we bespraken de opiniepaper van Guest et al. deze week in de leesgroep van onze faculteit. Dat leverde een boeiend gesprek op, maar we vonden toch allemaal dat het maar een zwakke paper was – ja, het is een opiniestuk, maar toch een wetenschappelijk.

Stef Aerts@stefaerts.bsky.social · 11mo ago

Artikel is het lezen waard. De nodige nuance en realisme waar nodig. Niet dat ik het met iedere zin eens ben, maar dat hoeft ook niet.