Skip to content
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 our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[paper] finalize #405

Open
wants to merge 16 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[paper] finalize #405

wants to merge 16 commits into from

Conversation

DominiqueMakowski
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@DominiqueMakowski
Copy link
Member Author

We'll also need to list potential reviewers, any suggestions?

@strengejacke
Copy link
Member

Do we want text tables:

image

or markdown tables?

image

@DominiqueMakowski
Copy link
Member Author

mmh good question, markdown looks nicer but the former gives a more "accurate" representation of what people will get

@strengejacke
Copy link
Member

strengejacke commented Feb 19, 2025

  • Vincent
  • Jeffrey (jmgirard)
  • TJ (Mahr)
  • profandyfield

wasn't there a reviewer list on JOSS, or have they dismissed it?

@DominiqueMakowski
Copy link
Member Author

Maybe let's keep text tables

@strengejacke
Copy link
Member

Maybe let's keep text tables

Agreed.

Regarding your comment about generalization of results (TODO: is this correct?): basically, G-computation, like propensity scores, attempts at conducting a "pseudo-randomization" for observational data, where randomization is not possible. This is why we have a "hypothetical", broader population that is not equal to the sample. It should reduce confounder bias between groups (levels of focal predictors), which means, it's more "representative" of a population, i.e. more generalizable.

@strengejacke
Copy link
Member

@mattansb @bwiernik @IndrajeetPatil @rempsyc You're listed as co-authors, would you approve the paper or would you like to revise anything?

@DominiqueMakowski
Copy link
Member Author

one rule: do not talk about the marginalization option names here 😁

@strengejacke
Copy link
Member

one rule: do not talk about the marginalization option names here 😁

Dom thinking: just approve your affiliation, that's enough...

@mattansb
Copy link
Member

LGTM

@DominiqueMakowski
Copy link
Member Author

Should we add a paragraph about estimate_grouplevel() and like BLUPs vs. random coefs, this would also be nice to have some clear info about that for people

@bwiernik
Copy link
Contributor

I'll give it a read when I'm flying home Saturday

@strengejacke
Copy link
Member

Should we add a paragraph about estimate_grouplevel() and like BLUPs vs. random coefs, this would also be nice to have some clear info about that for people

No strong opinion here, but I think the paper is already quite long for a JOSS paper. I would probably put more effort into another paper that could be submitted to a (listed) journal.

@DominiqueMakowski
Copy link
Member Author

I would probably put more effort into another paper that could be submitted to a (listed) journal

Mmh fair fair I'll see if I can throw in 2 sentences about that for the sake of comprehensiveness but we can keep our efforts for another paper

@bwiernik
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry Dom, but I think we should nail down the marginalization names before submitting. Which issue has the discussion on that again?

@strengejacke
Copy link
Member

Here
#400

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants