Hi every body

I need help in statitics/confounding

Construct a two-by-two table of gender (men/women) by award status (awarded/not) using the total numbers across all disciplines.

What is the number of men not awarded?

unanswered

What is the number of women not awarded?

unanswered

Save

Save your answer

Submit

You have used 0 of 10 attempts

Some problems have options such as save, reset, hints, or show answer. These options follow the Submit button.

Question 2

0.0/2.0 points (graded)

Use the two-by-two table from Question 1 to compute the percentages of men awarded versus women awarded.

What is the percentage of men awarded?

Report a percentage between 0 and 100 including 1 decimal place. Do NOT include the percent symbol (%).

unanswered

What is the percentage of women awarded?

Report a percentage between 0 and 100 including 1 decimal place. Do NOT include the percent symbol (%).

unanswered

Save

Save your answer

Submit

You have used 0 of 10 attempts

Some problems have options such as save, reset, hints, or show answer. These options follow the Submit button.

Question 3

0.0/1.0 point (graded)

Run achi-squared testExternal link

on the two-by-two table to determine whether the difference in the two success rates is significant. (You can usetidy()to turn the output ofchisq.test()into a data frame as well.)

What is the p-value of the difference in funding rate?

unanswered

Save

Save your answer

Submit

You have used 0 of 10 attempts

Some problems have options such as save, reset, hints, or show answer. These options follow the Submit button.

Question 4

0.0/3.0 points (graded)

There may be an association between gender and funding. But can we infer causation here? Is gender bias causing this observed difference? The response to the original paper claims that what we see here is similar to the UC Berkeley admissions example. Specifically they state that this "could be a prime example of Simpson's paradox; if a higher percentage of women apply for grants in more competitive scientific disciplines, then an analysis across all disciplines could incorrectly show 'evidence' of gender inequality."

To settle this dispute, use this dataset with number of applications, awards, and success rate for each gender:

 dat <- research_funding_rates %>% mutate(discipline = reorder(discipline, success_rates_total)) %>% rename(success_total = success_rates_total, success_men = success_rates_men, success_women = success_rates_women) %>% gather(key, value, -discipline) %>% separate(key, c("type", "gender")) %>% spread(type, value) %>% filter(gender != "total") dat 

To check if this is a case of Simpson's paradox, plot the success rates versus disciplines, which have been ordered by overall success, with colors to denote the genders and size to denote the number of applications.

In which fields do men have a higher success rate than women?

Select ALL that apply.

Chemical sciences

Earth/life sciences

Humanities

Interdisciplinary

Medical sciences

Physical sciences

Physics

Social sciences

Technical sciences

unanswered

Which two fields have the most applications from women?

Select TWO.

Chemical sciences

Earth/life sciences

Humanities

Interdisciplinary

Medical sciences

Physical sciences

Physics

Social sciences

Technical sciences

unanswered

Which two fields have the lowest overall funding rates?

Select TWO.

Chemical sciences

Earth/life sciences

Humanities

Interdisciplinary

Medical sciences

Physical sciences

Physics

Social sciences

Technical sciences

unanswered

Save

Save your answer

Submit

You have used 0 of 3 attempts

Some problems have options such as save, reset, hints, or show answer. These options follow the Submit button.