99 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2026
    1. we introduce a framework for studying interactive agentic coding based on a privacy-preserving analysis of ~400,000 Claude Code sessions from between October 2025 and April 2026.

      这个数据点表示研究基于约40万个Claude Code会话,时间跨度为7个月(2025年10月至2026年4月)。这是一个相当大的样本量,增强了研究结果的统计可靠性。然而,文章未明确说明这些会话是如何被筛选或分类的,以及是否代表了所有Claude Code用户群体的完整情况。40万个会话对应约23.5万用户,平均每位用户约1.7个会话,这可能表明用户参与度相对有限。

    2. we introduce a framework for studying interactive agentic coding based on a privacy-preserving analysis of ~400,000 Claude Code sessions from between October 2025 and April 2026.

      这个数据点显示了研究的样本规模为约40万次Claude Code会话,时间跨度为7个月。这是一个相当大的数据集,增强了研究结果的可靠性。然而,我们不知道这40万次会话是否代表了所有用户,或者是否存在样本偏差。此外,研究仅限于Claude Code的使用,可能无法推广到其他AI编码工具。

  2. May 2026
    1. We present results from a survey of 1,260 social scientists about AI and coding agent use, fielded in February and March 2026.

      这个样本量(1,260)对于社会科学研究来说相当可观,提供了足够的数据基础进行分析。然而,文章也提到这不是代表性样本,因为受访者是受邀参与AI工作流程研究的,可能导致结果偏向于对AI工具更感兴趣的研究者。这一数据点表明研究结果可能存在选择偏差。

  3. Apr 2026
    1. So I don't see why I should expect compute-poor labs to find new software innovations much faster than compute-rich labs — on the contrary, I think the opposite is more likely.

      【过度推论】作者列举了 Transformer、scaling laws、reasoning models 均出自算力富裕方,就得出「算力富裕者更擅长创新」。但这是幸存者偏差:我们只看到了被广泛采用的创新,看不到算力贫乏者产出但未被主流采纳的创新。更重要的是,样本量极小(屈指可数的几个大突破),却被用来支撑一个关于系统性趋势的强结论,统计基础极为薄弱。

  4. Nov 2025
    1. This study selected the top 100 companies from the manufacturing sector at the Shanghai Stock Exchange by (MC) for a period of 10 years (2012–2021)

      The selection of only top firms by market cap invites selection bias: these firms are more likely to have resources and institutional pressures that support CSR behaviour and stakeholder engagement. This may inflate the observed positive relationship between CSR and performance and may not reflect firms with fewer resources.

  5. Sep 2023
  6. Aug 2023
  7. Jun 2023
    1. In particular, if one person is trying to teach another they should provide an informative sample, rather than a random one. So if a learner knows that they are being taught, they can assume that the sample is informative.

      Although we are talking about implicit pedagogy, this brings about the necessity to be explicit by providing informative samples when teaching. This brings to mind when teachers ask random questions instead of being explicit in their questioning as it relates to the desired learning outcome.

  8. Mar 2022
  9. Jan 2022
  10. Dec 2021
  11. Oct 2021
  12. Sep 2021

    Tags

    Annotators

  13. Jul 2021
    1. case-driven trial was planned 205to accrue 130case

      What was the rationale for accrual of 130 cases has not been explained here. Would be nice to have that explanation. When the study parameters (95% confidence interval, 60% vaccine efficacy, 1% baseline attack rate) were applied to the WHO calculator obtained from here, the sample size turned out to be 86000, and when 80% confidence interval, 60% vaccine efficacy, and 1% baseline rate among unvaccinated) was used to assess sample size, it turned out to be 21000; in any case, the study then would be underpowered unless the rationale of 130 case accrual is made.<br> Why was not the WHO sample size estimator used?

  14. May 2021
  15. Apr 2021
  16. Mar 2021
  17. Feb 2021
    1. Hodcroft, E. B., Domman, D. B., Oguntuyo, K., Snyder, D. J., Diest, M. V., Densmore, K. H., Schwalm, K. C., Femling, J., Carroll, J. L., Scott, R. S., Whyte, M. M., Edwards, M. D., Hull, N. C., Kevil, C. G., Vanchiere, J. A., Lee, B., Dinwiddie, D. L., Cooper, V. S., & Kamil, J. P. (2021). Emergence in late 2020 of multiple lineages of SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein variants affecting amino acid position 677. MedRxiv, 2021.02.12.21251658. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.12.21251658

  18. Jan 2021
  19. Nov 2020
  20. Oct 2020
    1. The graphs of ground state confinement energy againstsize (radius) for zinc sulfide nanoparticles in Figure 14 showthe dependence of confinement on the size of quantum dots.The result shows that ground state confinement energy is

      Las graficas de la energía de confinamiento en su estado fundamental en contra del tamaño (radio) por nanopartículas de sulfato de zinc en la Figura 14 muestran la dependencia de confinamiento en el tamaño de los puntos quánticos. El resultado muestra que el estado fundamental de energía en confinamiento es inversamente proporciona al tamaño (radio). Por lo tanto, cuando uno incrementa su radio (tamaño) la energía de confinamiento decrece pero nunca llega a cero. Eso es, el energía mas baja posible para el punto quántica de muestra no es cero. El confinamiento comienza cuando el radio del punto cuántico de muestra es comparable o del orden del radio exciton de Bohr.

    Tags

    Annotators

  21. Sep 2020
  22. Aug 2020
    1. Lednicky, J. A., Lauzardo, M., Fan, Z. H., Jutla, A. S., Tilly, T. B., Gangwar, M., Usmani, M., Shankar, S. N., Mohamed, K., Eiguren-Fernandez, A., Stephenson, C. J., Alam, M. M., Elbadry, M. A., Loeb, J. C., Subramaniam, K., Waltzek, T. B., Cherabuddi, K., Morris, J. G., & Wu, C.-Y. (2020). Viable SARS-CoV-2 in the air of a hospital room with COVID-19 patients. MedRxiv, 2020.08.03.20167395. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.03.20167395

  23. Jul 2020
  24. May 2020
  25. Apr 2020
  26. Mar 2020
  27. Oct 2019
  28. Dec 2018
  29. Oct 2018
  30. May 2018
  31. Aug 2016
  32. Jun 2015
  33. Feb 2014
    1. The cases on the subject are collected in a footnote to Somerset Bank v. Edmund, 10 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 726; 76 Ohio St. Rep. 396, the head-note to which reads: "Public policy and sound morals alike forbid that a public officer should demand or receive for services performed by him in the discharge of official duty any other or further remuneration or reward than that prescribed or allowed by law." This rule of public policy has been relaxed only in those instances where the legislature for sufficient public reason has seen fit by statute to extend the stimulus of a reward to the public without distinction, as in the case of United States v. Matthews, 173 U.S. 381, where the attorney-general, under an act for "the detection and prosecution of crimes against the United States," made a public offer of reward sufficiently liberal and generic to comprehend the services of a federal deputy marshal. Exceptions of that character upon familiar principles serve to emphasize the correctness of the rule, as one based upon sound public policy.

      1) A public officer cannot demand or receive remuneration or a reward for carrying out the duty of his job as a matter of public policy and morality

      2) However, it is not against public policy for a police officer to receive a reward in performance of his legal duty if the legislature passes a statute giving the reward to the public at large in furtherance of some public policy - such as preventing treason against the US.

    2. MINTURN, J. The plaintiff occupied the position of a special police officer, in Atlantic City, and incidentally was identified with the work of the prosecutor of the pleas of the county. He possessed knowledge concerning the theft of certain diamonds and jewelry from the possession of the defendant, who had advertised a reward for the recovery of the property. In this situation he claims to have entered into a verbal contract with defendant, whereby she agreed to pay him $500 if he could procure for her the names and addresses of the thieves. As a result of his meditation with the police authorities the diamonds and jewelry were recovered, and plaintiff brought this suit to recover the promised reward.
      • Plaintiff makes a verbal contract with defendant. In return for $500, plaintiff will find defendant's stolen jewels.
      • Plaintiff had knowledge of whereabouts of jewels at contract formation.
      • Plaintiff is a special police officer and has dealings with prosecutor's office.
      • Defendant published advertisement for reward.
      • Plaintiff finds stolen goods and arranges return.
    3. The testimony makes it manifest that he was a special police officer to some extent identified with the work of the prosecutor's office, and that position, upon well-settled grounds of public policy, required him to assist, at least, in the prosecution of offenders against the law. The services he rendered, in this instance, must be presumed to have been rendered in pursuance of that public duty, and for its performance he was not entitled to receive a special quid pro quo.
      • Court finds sufficient evidence to characterize this fellow as a public official.

      • His interaction with the prosecutor's office weighed in as a factor in suggesting he had a legal duty.

      • Since he is characterized within the rule as a public official, he cannot, as a matter of law, receive a reward for the performance of his duties.