@proceedings {603856, title = {MOOC Dropout Prediction: How to Measure Accuracy?}, journal = {Proceedings of the Fourth (2017) Association for Computing Machinery on Learning @ Scale}, year = {2017}, author = {Whitehill, Jacob and Mohan, Jiran and Seaton, Daniel and Tingley, Dustin and Rosen, Yigal} } @proceedings {603853, title = {Designing Adaptive Assessments in MOOCs }, journal = {Proceedings of the Fourth (2017) Association for Computing Machinery on Learning @ Scale}, year = {2017}, author = {Ang, Andrew and Rosen, Yigal and Colin Fredericks and Rushkin, Ilia and Glenn Lopez and Tingley, Dustin and Blink, Mary Jean} } @proceedings {603851, title = {Connecting Instructors and Learning Scientists via Collaborative Dynamic Experimentation }, journal = {ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems}, year = {2017}, author = {Joseph Williams and Rafferty, Anna and Lasecki, Walter and Ang, Andrew and Tingley, Dustin and Juho Kim} } @proceedings {603849, title = {{\textquoteleft}{\textquoteleft}Tools for Dynamic Experimentation and Personalization}, journal = {Proceedings of the Fourth (2017) Association for Computing Machinery on Learning @ Scale}, year = {2017}, author = {Joseph Williams and Rafferty, Anna and Maldonado, Samuel and Ang, Andrew and Tingley, Dustin and Juho Kim} } @proceedings {603847, title = {{\textquoteleft}Google BigQuery for Education: Framework for Parsing and Analyzing edX MOOC Data{\textquoteright} }, journal = {Proceedings of the Fourth (2017) Association for Computing Machinery on Learning @ Scale}, year = {2017}, author = {Glenn Lopez and Seaton, Glenn and Ang, Andrew and Chuang, Isaac and Tingley, Dustin} } @proceedings {603846, title = {Adaptive Assessment Experiment in a HarvardX MOOC}, journal = {Educational Data Mining}, year = {2017}, publisher = {International Conference on Educational Data Mining}, author = {Rushkin, Ilia and Rosen, Yigal and Ang, Andrew and Colin Fredericks and Tingley, Dustin and Blink, Mary Jean and Glenn Lopez} } @article {580151, title = {Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media}, journal = {Palgrave Communications}, volume = {3}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Discourse on social media of solar geoengineering has been rapidly increasing over the past decade, in line with increased attention by the scientific community and low but increasing awareness among the general public. The topic has also found increased attention online. But unlike scientific discourse, a majority of online discussion focuses on the so-called chemtrails conspiracy theory, the widely debunked idea that airplanes are spraying a toxic mix of chemicals through contrails, with supposed goals ranging from weather to mind control. This paper presents the results of a nationally representative 1000-subject poll part of the 36,000-subject 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), and an analysis of the universe of social media mentions of geoengineering. The former shows ~ 10\% of Americans declaring the chemtrails conspiracy as {\textquotedblleft}completely{\textquotedblright} and a further ~ 20{\textendash}30\% as {\textquotedblleft}somewhat{\textquotedblright} true, with no apparent difference by party affiliation or strength of partisanship. Conspiratorial views have accounted for ~ 60\% of geoengineering discourse on social media over the past decade. Of that, Twitter has accounted for \>90\%, compared to ~ 75\% of total geoengineering mentions. Further affinity analysis reveals a broad online community of conspiracy. Anonymity of social media appears to help its spread, so does the general ease of spreading unverified or outright false information. Online behavior has important real-world reverberations, with implications for climate science communication and policy.}, url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-017-0014-3}, author = {Tingley, Dustin and Gernot Wagner} } @newspaperarticle {566126, title = {Trump just blocked a Chinese takeover of a sensitive U.S. company. Here{\textquoteright}s what{\textquoteright}s going on.}, journal = {Washington Post: Monkey Cage}, year = {2017}, url = {https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/09/15/trump-just-blocked-a-chinese-takeover-of-a-sensitive-u-s-company-heres-whats-going-on/}, author = {Adam Chilton and Milner, Helen and Tingley, Dustin} } @article {546986, title = {Redefine Statistical Significance}, journal = {Human Nature Behavior}, year = {2017}, author = {Benjamin, D. J. and Berger, J. O. and Johannesson, M. and Nosek, B. A. and Wagenmakers, E. and LotsofOtherPeople and Tingley, Dustin} } @article {507296, title = {A Liberal International American Foreign Policy? Maybe Down but Not Out}, journal = {H-Diplo/ISSF}, year = {2017}, author = {Chaudoin, Stephen and Milner, Helen and Tingley, Dustin} } @article {394951, title = {Emotions and the Micro-Foundations of Commitment Problems}, journal = {International Organization}, volume = {71}, number = {S1}, year = {2017}, pages = {S189-S218}, author = {Jonathan Renshon and Lee, Julia and Tingley, Dustin} } @article {394946, title = {Rising Power on the Mind}, journal = {International Organization}, volume = {71}, number = {S1}, year = {2017}, pages = {S165-S188}, author = {Tingley, Dustin} } @article {374206, title = {The Charmed Life of Superstar Exporters: Survey Evidence on Firms and Trade Policy}, journal = {Journal of Politics}, volume = {47}, number = {1}, year = {2017}, pages = {133-152}, abstract = {What factors determine firms{\textquoteright} attitudes towards trade policy? Building off the literature on firms in\ trade, this paper considers producers{\textquoteright} policy preferences and political behavior in light of two key\ patterns in modern international trade: industries that face import competition often have many exporters;\ and, foreign sales are concentrated in the hands of a small number of {\textquoteleft}superstar{\textquoteright} exporters.Using a new survey of Costa Rican firms matched to systematic firm-level data on export behavior,\ we find that firm features are generally more important predictors of attitudes toward trade liberalization\ than industry-wide comparative advantage. We also show that export intensity is strongly\ associated with interest and lobbying activity on trade policy. The largest exporters, who are thestrongest supporters of global integration, dominate trade politics.}, author = {Iain Osgood and Tingley, Dustin and Thomas Bernauer and In Song Kim and Milner, Helen and Gabriele Spilker} } @article {326346, title = {Sparse Estimation and Uncertainty with Application to Subgroup Analysis}, journal = {Political Analysis}, volume = {25}, number = {1}, year = {2017}, pages = {1-40}, author = {Ratkovic, Mark and Tingley, Dustin} }