Looking for Patten Makers Photography? Just click the name and you will be transported accross!

Thursday, November 14, 2013

I am someone - Raising awareness of harrassment and abuse in NZ

"I am someone" officially starts tomorrow.
It is a reaction against perceived rape culture in New Zealand.
Reactions of prominent people in the media, such as Michael Laws, Willie an JT etc. have been key in spurring this movement on.

The links below can be used to view shared experiences of harassment and abuse including, but not limited to, rape.

The content is likely to be disturbing but is worth a read if you have the stomach for it. It is certainly worth a read if your experience of life in NZ is as sheltered as mine (as a bloke who prefers staying at home to partying or going to town the partying/going to town stories were out of step with what I was expecting)

http://iamsomeonenz.wordpress.com/
https://www.facebook.com/events/1422866911263436
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1311/S00171/stories-of-harassment-and-sexual-violence-go-live-on-web.htm

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Roast Busters - Willie, JT, and Amy

Radiolive have pulled Willie Jackson and John Tamihere's interview with 'Amy', a friend of an alleged roast busters victim, from their website.

A snippet of the interview can be heard in Radio NZ national's Mediawatch program from Novermber 10th



Colin Peacock also gives an overview of other related events of Radiolive as well as some background on how the story developed.

Selected alleged quotes can also be found here:
http://wonderfulnow.blogspot.co.nz/2013/11/shame-on-willie-jt-and-radiolive.html

However as the interview has been taken down most of these cannot be verified.

Matthew Hooton's walkout, or kick out, can be heard here:

Friday, November 8, 2013

Significant Model Improvement - F change method

Previously I have written about the AICc, a means of testing which model is the best tradeoff between complexity and explanatory power. While the AICc can rank models from most efficient to least efficient it cannot give any indication on whether the improvement between models is statistically significant. If you want to make a claim about the statistical significance of changes to your model you need an alternative approach. One of the most straight forward is the F change statistic.

The F change statistic operates in much the same way as a standard F statistic. In this case rather than providing a ratio of the unexplained variance to the explained variance you are providing a ratio between the change in explanatory power relative to the unexplained variance.

In order to calculate the F change statistic you will need to know the residual sum of squares (RSS) for each model, the number of parameters (K) in each model (1 and 2 here), and the number of observations (n) you have.

F=((RSS1-RSS2)/(K2-K1))/(RSS2/(n-K2))

The degrees of Freedom for your resulting F statistic are K2-K1 and n-K2.

BONUS: By inspecting the formula given here you should be able to see how a more complicated model with a higher RSS would produce a negative F statistic. Because the F distribution is a squared distribution F statistics can only be positive. In such a case you would consider the absolute value of the F statistic (i.e. -3 become 3). If such a result were found to be significant this would tell you that the more complicated model was significantly worse than the less complicated model rather than the other way around. This also helps to show that F distribution can be used for two tailed and one tailed tests despite its asymmetry.

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Akaike Information Criterion - Sum of Squares Method

The Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) is a tool that can be used to gauge whether the increased predictive power associated with adding additional parameters to a model is worth the associated increase in complexity. It is primarily based on comparing values from maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) methods. Odds are you aren't using an MLE model. Instead you are probably determining your model using a least squares method such as linear regression. Assuming that the assumptions associated with a parametric model are met (equal variance, normally distributed errors) you can use an equivalent method that uses the residual sum of squares.

AIC= nxLn(RSS/n)+2xK

Where Ln is the natural log, RSS is the residual sum of squares, n is the number of observations that make up the sample, and K is the number of parameters in your model. Most of that should be pretty familiar. The only tricky thing is the number of parameters.

A common mistake when calculating the number of parameters is failure to include error. This is because it is not normally thought of as a parameter as, strictly speaking, you're not really predicting it. As a results the number of parameters in a standard linear equation (y=mx+c) is 3 (mx, c, and error) rather than 2.

It is also recommended to add an additional correction factor if n<40xK. As it's not much trouble to calculate it's best to use the corrected version of AIC (AICc).

AICc=AIC+(2xK(K+1))/(n-K-1)

The model with the lowest AICc is the model that provides the best trade-off between the complexity of the model and its ability to explain the data. The numbers themselves are meaningless on their own and offer no insight into whether the difference between models is significant. However if you have 2 AICc values you can use them to find out the likelihood that the models are equally good.

exp(AICc(low)-AICc(high))/2)

A key advantage of the AICc is that it allows you to test as many models as you like without taking a penalty for the number of models tested. The key downside (as already noted) is that it does not tell you about whether there is a significant difference in the variance explained between models. If that is what you are interested in an F change statistic is more appropriate.

A general overview of the AIC can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akaike_information_criterion

More specific coverage can be found here:
http://www.mun.ca/biology/quant/ModelSelectionMultimodelInference.pdf
(Burnham and Anderson (2002). Model Selection and Multimodel Inference. Springer. Colorado:USA)

One tailed F-test - Possible?

The F distribution is asymmetrical.
Some people believe that this means you cannot have a one tailed F test.
This is incorrect and is the result of what an F statistic represents and how a one tailed test works.
Here I will explain why you can have a one tailed F test despite the F distribution being asymmetrical.

1) The F distribution

The F distribution is asymmetrical because it is the distirbution of squared values. In the case of a distribution where F(1,X) it is simply the square of a t distribution. Those who are familiar with a t distribution now have all the informatoin they need to know that one tailed tests should be possible with an F statistic.


2) Calculating an F statistic

One area of misunderstanding comes from the fact that F statistic calculation involves squaring values. This means all values become positive leading some people to believe that the F statistic no longer conveys information about the direction of an effect. As one tailed tests rely on information about the direction of an effect these same people conclude that F statistics cannot be used for one tailed tests.

This is not correct.

While the Statistic itself contains no information about the direction of the difference the original data does.

This post is a stub and will be updated in the future.
If it appears to be useful to people the update will occur sooner.
Feel free to add questions and comments below to encourage attention and updates.

Monday, November 4, 2013

Roast Busters - What Does it mean?

So, as it turns out, a group of young Auckland men referring to themselves as Roast Busters have been engaging in behavior than many lay people would describe as rape. This is then followed up with public naming of their victims on facebook. While Police say it's not a crime yet, with the 3 news interview suggesting that crimes haven't happened unless they have been reported, they do admit that the behaviour is immoral.

Links to articles can be found here:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11151135
http://www.3news.co.nz/Facebook-teen-sex-shaming-exposed/tabid/309/articleID/319919/Default.aspx#.UnbAQ_lmiSo
http://www.3news.co.nz/Roast-Busters-part-of-a-growing-trend---NetSafe/tabid/309/articleID/319966/Default.aspx#.UnbAQflmiSo

If anyone knows what the name Roast Busters means please feel free to share this information in the comments below.

Urban Dictionary (through looking for definitions of Roasting and Busting) would seem to suggest that the name refers to participation in group and/or sequential sex to the point of ejaculation.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=roasting definitions 2 and 3
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=busting defintion 2

You may also be interested in:
http://testingtestingnz.blogspot.co.nz/2013/11/roast-busters-willie-jt-and-amy.html

Friday, November 1, 2013

ANZ Scam



ANZ Online
 <noreply@sabanciuniv.edu>
6:06 AM (2 hours ago)
to Recipients
Dear Customer, 

Your access will expire soon

For security reasons, please use our website below to restore your account.

www.anz.co.nz (actually links to http://4095l.3owl.com/anz.html, changed to google for safety purposes)

ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited

How to know this is a scam
- I am not an ANZ customer
- Banks don't send e-mails like this
- The link does not actually take you to the ANZ website despite superficial appearances
- It appears to have been addressed to multiple recipients (my name is not listed, instead I am addressed as 'Customer')
- The e-mail address that sent this is not from ANZ
- No ANZ branding in the e-mail
- No additional contact details