We analyse data from the final two years of a long-running and influential annual Dutch survey of the quality of Dutch New Herring served in large samples of consumer outlets. The data was compiled and analysed by a university econometrician whose findings were publicized in national and international media. This led to the cessation of the survey amid allegations of bias due to a conflict of interest on the part of the leader of the herring tasting team. The survey organizers responded with accusations of failure of scientific integrity. The econometrician was acquitted of wrong-doing by the Dutch authority, whose inquiry nonetheless concluded that further research was needed. We reconstitute the data and uncover its important features which throw new light on the econometrician's findings, focussing on the issue of correlation versus causality: the sample is definitely not a random sample. Taking account both of newly discovered data features and of the sampling mechanism, we conclude that there is no evidence of biased evaluation, despite the econometrician's renewed insistence on his claim.
翻译:我们分析了荷兰对荷兰新埃林公司在大型消费点样本中服务的质量进行长期和有影响力的年度调查的最后两年荷兰年度调查的数据。这些数据是由一位大学计量经济学家汇编和分析的,该经济学家的调查结果在国家和国际媒体中予以公布。这导致调查停止,因为有人指控母星钓鱼队领头人存在利益冲突造成偏见。调查组织者以科学完整性的失败作为回应。该计量经济学家被荷兰当局宣告无罪,但该当局的调查结论是需要进一步的研究。我们重新制作了数据并发现了其重要特征,给计量经济学师的调查结果带来了新的光芒,重点是相关性和因果关系问题:抽样绝对不是随机抽样。考虑到新发现的数据特征和抽样机制,我们的结论是,尽管计量经济学师再次坚持其主张,但没有任何有偏颇的评价证据。