about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #1,676 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score and the second variable is The number of museum conservators in Kentucky.  The chart goes from 2006 to 2018, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score increases, more and more footballs are being retired and sent to museums for display. This sudden influx of football memorabilia in museums across the country has created a higher demand for museum conservators in Kentucky to properly care for and maintain these valuable sports artifacts. After all, it takes a special skill set to delicately dust off Tom Brady's game-winning football or to meticulously polish Peyton Manning's record-breaking pigskin. And as the gridiron glory keeps reaching new heights, so does the need for expert museum conservators to ensure that Kentucky's sports history remains in pristine condition for future generations to appreciate. It's a touchdown for both the Super Bowl and the museum industry in the Bluegrass State!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Create an image that appears to be a scene from a Disney movie, where a crowded museum in Kentucky is depicted. In the main hall, a massive scoreboard proudly displays the winning score of the Super Bowl champion. Surrounding the scoreboard, conservators gather excitedly, discussing the historical significance of the winning score. In the background, they are shown meticulously restoring an ancient artifact, adding an air of historical importance and excitement to the scene. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score and The number of museum conservators in Kentucky. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie Brutalism Cutsy graphics inspired by bauhaus Cyberpunk
ChatGPT: An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score and The number of museum conservators in Kentucky together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a crowded museum in Kentucky, the Super Bowl champion's winning score is displayed on a massive scoreboard in the main hall. The conservators excitedly gather around it, discussing the historical significance of the winning score while meticulously restoring an ancient artifact.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie ] and depicting this scene: In a crowded museum in Kentucky, the Super Bowl champion's winning score is displayed on a massive scoreboard in the main hall. The conservators excitedly gather around it, discussing the historical significance of the winning score while meticulously restoring an ancient artifact. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Create an image that appears to be a scene from a Disney movie, where a crowded museum in Kentucky is depicted. In the main hall, a massive scoreboard proudly displays the winning score of the Super Bowl champion. Surrounding the scoreboard, conservators gather excitedly, discussing the historical significance of the winning score. In the background, they are shown meticulously restoring an ancient artifact, adding an air of historical importance and excitement to the scene.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score caused The number of museum conservators in Kentucky to increase. Make it feel plausible.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Punting for Punters: A Gridiron Analysis of Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score and the Curious Connection to Kentucky's Museum Conservators

The Journal of Gridiron Analytics

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score and The number of museum conservators in Kentucky. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Make the title punny if you can come up with clever pun. If not, just make it sound clever.

Your research team used data from Wikipedia and Bureau of Larbor Statistics to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.7183339 and p < 0.01 for 2006 to 2018.

Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
"Punting for Punters: A Gridiron Analysis of Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score and the Curious Connection to Kentucky's Museum Conservators"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The relationship between the Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky has long perplexed both sports enthusiasts and cultural preservationists. This study delves into the statistical connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena, utilizing data from Wikipedia and the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the years 2006 to 2018. The correlation coefficient of 0.7183339 and the significance level of p < 0.01 indicate a strong and significant relationship between the two variables.

This unexpected association prompts reflections on the potential influence of celebratory excess on the demand for conservation expertise, as well as the implications for cultural institutions in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. As the data unfolds, one can't help but wonder: are Super Bowl victories leading to a "frame-worthy" increase in museum artifacts?



Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score and The number of museum conservators in Kentucky. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Punting for Punters: A Gridiron Analysis of Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score and the Curious Connection to Kentucky's Museum Conservators"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The relationship between the Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky has long perplexed both sports enthusiasts and cultural preservationists. This study delves into the statistical connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena, utilizing data from Wikipedia and the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the years 2006 to 2018. The correlation coefficient of 0.7183339 and the significance level of p < 0.01 indicate a strong and significant relationship between the two variables.

This unexpected association prompts reflections on the potential influence of celebratory excess on the demand for conservation expertise, as well as the implications for cultural institutions in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. As the data unfolds, one can't help but wonder: are Super Bowl victories leading to a "frame-worthy" increase in museum artifacts?


-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The Super Bowl, an annual event watched by millions, holds a prominent place in American sports culture. The winning score of this iconic football game is often analyzed and discussed at length by enthusiasts and analysts alike. On the other hand, the field of museum conservation in Kentucky may not receive as much attention, but plays a crucial role in preserving the state's cultural heritage. The juxtaposition of these two seemingly unrelated areas, the Super Bowl and museum conservation, prompts an intriguing inquiry into their potential connection.

As the reigning champions of statistical analysis in seemingly inexplicable connections, we have set out to explore the relationship between the winning score of the Super Bowl and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky. This unusual pairing might evoke a chuckle, like the time someone said, "I told my wife she should embrace her mistakes. She gave me a hug." However, the statistical analysis conducted in this study shall quell any doubts about the rigor of our inquiry.

The unexpected nature of this investigation is reminiscent of the time I asked a football fan if they knew what the football coach said to the vending machine. The answer: “Give me my quarterback!” Nevertheless, in exploring this curious relationship, we aim to elevate the discourse surrounding these diverse societal components, delivering insights that may have previously gone unnoticed.

The intersection of the popular spectacle of the Super Bowl with the niche field of museum conservation in Kentucky presents a unique opportunity for examining the potential impact of large-scale celebratory events on cultural institutions. Such as when a football fan asked, "Why don't football players like cold weather?" The answer: "Because they're always surrounded by fans!" Through our rigorous data analysis, we aim to shed light on any underlying dynamics that may be at play, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate phenomena.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score and The number of museum conservators in Kentucky. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.

Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name a couple popular internet memes that are related to one of the topics.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Punting for Punters: A Gridiron Analysis of Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score and the Curious Connection to Kentucky's Museum Conservators"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The relationship between the Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky has long perplexed both sports enthusiasts and cultural preservationists. This study delves into the statistical connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena, utilizing data from Wikipedia and the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the years 2006 to 2018. The correlation coefficient of 0.7183339 and the significance level of p < 0.01 indicate a strong and significant relationship between the two variables.

This unexpected association prompts reflections on the potential influence of celebratory excess on the demand for conservation expertise, as well as the implications for cultural institutions in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. As the data unfolds, one can't help but wonder: are Super Bowl victories leading to a "frame-worthy" increase in museum artifacts?


-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The Super Bowl, an annual event watched by millions, holds a prominent place in American sports culture. The winning score of this iconic football game is often analyzed and discussed at length by enthusiasts and analysts alike. On the other hand, the field of museum conservation in Kentucky may not receive as much attention, but plays a crucial role in preserving the state's cultural heritage. The juxtaposition of these two seemingly unrelated areas, the Super Bowl and museum conservation, prompts an intriguing inquiry into their potential connection.
As the reigning champions of statistical analysis in seemingly inexplicable connections, we have set out to explore the relationship between the winning score of the Super Bowl and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky. This unusual pairing might evoke a chuckle, like the time someone said, "I told my wife she should embrace her mistakes. She gave me a hug." However, the statistical analysis conducted in this study shall quell any doubts about the rigor of our inquiry.
The unexpected nature of this investigation is reminiscent of the time I asked a football fan if they knew what the football coach said to the vending machine. The answer: “Give me my quarterback!” Nevertheless, in exploring this curious relationship, we aim to elevate the discourse surrounding these diverse societal components, delivering insights that may have previously gone unnoticed.
The intersection of the popular spectacle of the Super Bowl with the niche field of museum conservation in Kentucky presents a unique opportunity for examining the potential impact of large-scale celebratory events on cultural institutions. Such as when a football fan asked, "Why don't football players like cold weather?" The answer: "Because they're always surrounded by fans!" Through our rigorous data analysis, we aim to shed light on any underlying dynamics that may be at play, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate phenomena.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Numerous scholarly works have attempted to uncover unexpected correlations between disparate phenomena. In "Smith and Doe (2015), the authors find a compelling link between ice cream sales and shark attacks, underscoring the unpredictability of statistical relationships." Similarly, Jones et al. (2019) present findings on the correlation between the popularity of mobile dating apps and the consumption of avocado toast.

Turning to the field of sports analysis, "Sports and Statistics" by Brown and Green (2018) delves into the statistical nuances of various sports events, highlighting the significance of score differentials and their implications for tournament outcomes. Furthermore, "The Numbers Game: Why Everything You Know About Football is Wrong" by Adams (2013) provides a comprehensive exploration of statistical anomalies in football, offering insights into the potential for unexpected connections within the sport.

In the realm of cultural preservation, "Conserving the Past: An International Perspective on Cultural Heritage Conservation" by White (2016) examines the multifaceted challenges and strategies in preserving cultural artifacts and heritage sites across the world. Additionally, "Museum Management" by Black (2017) offers a detailed analysis of museum operations and the intricacies of conservation efforts within museum settings.

On a more whimsical note, the fictional works "The Curious Case of the Kentucky Museum Mystery" by A. Reader (2015) and "Super Bowl Shenanigans: A Tale of Touchdowns and Treasures" by N. Ovelist (2018) provide imaginative narratives that, while not grounded in empirical research, invite playful speculation about potential connections between the Super Bowl and museum conservation in Kentucky.

A popular internet meme, "Success Kid," known for its caption "All the artifacts are safely conserved after the big game," humorously juxtaposes achievements in sports with the safeguarding of cultural artifacts, offering a lighthearted take on the potential intersection of these seemingly disparate domains.

The unexpected confluence of the Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky evokes a sense of intrigue similar to the punny phrase, "Why did the football team go to the art museum? Because they wanted to tackle some art history!" While this study maintains a serious and scholarly approach to its investigation, it is not immune to the occasional jest in exploring this unusual and captivating correlation.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score and The number of museum conservators in Kentucky. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Wikipedia and Bureau of Larbor Statistics . You used data from 2006 to 2018

Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Punting for Punters: A Gridiron Analysis of Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score and the Curious Connection to Kentucky's Museum Conservators"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The relationship between the Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky has long perplexed both sports enthusiasts and cultural preservationists. This study delves into the statistical connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena, utilizing data from Wikipedia and the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the years 2006 to 2018. The correlation coefficient of 0.7183339 and the significance level of p < 0.01 indicate a strong and significant relationship between the two variables.

This unexpected association prompts reflections on the potential influence of celebratory excess on the demand for conservation expertise, as well as the implications for cultural institutions in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. As the data unfolds, one can't help but wonder: are Super Bowl victories leading to a "frame-worthy" increase in museum artifacts?


[[INTRODUCTION]]
The Super Bowl, an annual event watched by millions, holds a prominent place in American sports culture. The winning score of this iconic football game is often analyzed and discussed at length by enthusiasts and analysts alike. On the other hand, the field of museum conservation in Kentucky may not receive as much attention, but plays a crucial role in preserving the state's cultural heritage. The juxtaposition of these two seemingly unrelated areas, the Super Bowl and museum conservation, prompts an intriguing inquiry into their potential connection.
As the reigning champions of statistical analysis in seemingly inexplicable connections, we have set out to explore the relationship between the winning score of the Super Bowl and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky. This unusual pairing might evoke a chuckle, like the time someone said, "I told my wife she should embrace her mistakes. She gave me a hug." However, the statistical analysis conducted in this study shall quell any doubts about the rigor of our inquiry.
The unexpected nature of this investigation is reminiscent of the time I asked a football fan if they knew what the football coach said to the vending machine. The answer: “Give me my quarterback!” Nevertheless, in exploring this curious relationship, we aim to elevate the discourse surrounding these diverse societal components, delivering insights that may have previously gone unnoticed.
The intersection of the popular spectacle of the Super Bowl with the niche field of museum conservation in Kentucky presents a unique opportunity for examining the potential impact of large-scale celebratory events on cultural institutions. Such as when a football fan asked, "Why don't football players like cold weather?" The answer: "Because they're always surrounded by fans!" Through our rigorous data analysis, we aim to shed light on any underlying dynamics that may be at play, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate phenomena.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

The data for this study was collected from publicly available sources, primarily Wikipedia and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, spanning the years 2006 to 2018. The Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky were the primary variables of interest. This study employed a comprehensive approach, involving data extraction, cleansing, and rigorous statistical analysis to unravel the potential connection between these disparate entities.

The process of data extraction commenced with a careful examination of all relevant Super Bowl records, ensuring that no fumbles or incomplete data marred the dataset. Similarly, information pertaining to the number of museum conservators in Kentucky was meticulously gathered, leaving no stone unturned in the pursuit of comprehensive coverage. As they say, "I used to play football on a harp, but my coach told me I was stringing too many notes together." In a similar vein, our team strived for precision and coherence in the data gathering process.

To ensure the reliability and integrity of the data, all entries were cross-validated and fact-checked by an independent panel of football aficionados and museum conservation experts. This served as a valuable quality control measure, akin to a referee ensuring fair play on the field. Furthermore, any discrepancies or outliers were carefully scrutinized and resolved, preventing any unnecessary penalties in the subsequent analysis.

Following the data collection phase, the dataset underwent thorough cleansing and wrangling to remove any impurities or inconsistencies. This involved employing advanced statistical techniques and data engineering methods, akin to expertly maneuvering through an opposing defensive line. The result was a pristine dataset that was conducive to robust analysis, free from any unnecessary "fumbles" or "interceptions."

The statistical analysis was conducted with the utmost precision, utilizing advanced techniques such as correlation analysis and regression modeling. The primary objective was to elucidate the potential relationship between the Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky. The statistical models were carefully calibrated to account for potential confounding variables, ensuring that the observed relationship was not influenced by extraneous factors. As they say in football, "I asked the football player if he liked the position he was in. He said, 'No, it's kind of up in the air.'"

The correlation coefficient, significance level, and other relevant statistical measures were leveraged to quantify the strength and significance of the relationship between the two variables. This enabled us to firmly establish the existence of a noteworthy association, lending empirical credence to this unexpected connection. As they say, "I used to play football in an elevator, but it was just a passing phase."

The methodology also included a comprehensive sensitivity analysis, assessing the robustness of the findings across various sub-periods and alternative model specifications. This served to bolster the reliability and generalizability of the results, ensuring that the observed relationship was not a fleeting anomaly. The sensitivity analysis was akin to preparing for a game in adverse weather conditions, taking into account all potential variables that could impact the outcome.

In summarizing the methodology, it is important to note that the empirical investigation was undertaken with the utmost rigor and systematic approach, akin to the precision of a well-executed touchdown pass. The findings presented in this study reflect the culmination of meticulous data collection, rigorous statistical analysis, and an unwavering commitment to unraveling the unexpected connection between the Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score and The number of museum conservators in Kentucky. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Wikipedia and Bureau of Larbor Statistics .

For the time period 2006 to 2018, you found a correlation 0.7183339, r-squared of 0.5160037, and p < 0.01.

One figure will be included. The figure (Fig. 1) is a scatterplot showing the strong correlation between the two variables. You don't need to specify where; I will add the figure.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Punting for Punters: A Gridiron Analysis of Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score and the Curious Connection to Kentucky's Museum Conservators"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The relationship between the Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky has long perplexed both sports enthusiasts and cultural preservationists. This study delves into the statistical connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena, utilizing data from Wikipedia and the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the years 2006 to 2018. The correlation coefficient of 0.7183339 and the significance level of p < 0.01 indicate a strong and significant relationship between the two variables.

This unexpected association prompts reflections on the potential influence of celebratory excess on the demand for conservation expertise, as well as the implications for cultural institutions in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. As the data unfolds, one can't help but wonder: are Super Bowl victories leading to a "frame-worthy" increase in museum artifacts?


-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The Super Bowl, an annual event watched by millions, holds a prominent place in American sports culture. The winning score of this iconic football game is often analyzed and discussed at length by enthusiasts and analysts alike. On the other hand, the field of museum conservation in Kentucky may not receive as much attention, but plays a crucial role in preserving the state's cultural heritage. The juxtaposition of these two seemingly unrelated areas, the Super Bowl and museum conservation, prompts an intriguing inquiry into their potential connection.
As the reigning champions of statistical analysis in seemingly inexplicable connections, we have set out to explore the relationship between the winning score of the Super Bowl and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky. This unusual pairing might evoke a chuckle, like the time someone said, "I told my wife she should embrace her mistakes. She gave me a hug." However, the statistical analysis conducted in this study shall quell any doubts about the rigor of our inquiry.
The unexpected nature of this investigation is reminiscent of the time I asked a football fan if they knew what the football coach said to the vending machine. The answer: “Give me my quarterback!” Nevertheless, in exploring this curious relationship, we aim to elevate the discourse surrounding these diverse societal components, delivering insights that may have previously gone unnoticed.
The intersection of the popular spectacle of the Super Bowl with the niche field of museum conservation in Kentucky presents a unique opportunity for examining the potential impact of large-scale celebratory events on cultural institutions. Such as when a football fan asked, "Why don't football players like cold weather?" The answer: "Because they're always surrounded by fans!" Through our rigorous data analysis, we aim to shed light on any underlying dynamics that may be at play, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate phenomena.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The results of the statistical analysis reveal a strong and significant correlation between the Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky for the years 2006 to 2018. The correlation coefficient of 0.7183339 signifies a moderately strong positive relationship between these variables. This finding suggests that as the winning score of the Super Bowl increases, the number of museum conservators in Kentucky also tends to increase. It seems that football victories are not the only thing on the rise in the wake of the Super Bowl!

The r-squared value of 0.5160037 further indicates that approximately 51.6% of the variation in the number of museum conservators can be explained by the variation in the Super Bowl Champion's winning score. One might say that the relation between these variables is as tight as a well-inflated football – which, as we know, is essential for a good game.

The p-value, less than 0.01, emphasizes the high significance of this correlation, indicating that the observed relationship is not likely due to random chance. It seems that this connection is as real as Kentucky's love for bourbon and horse racing – a distinctive and essential part of the state's culture.

Finally, Fig. 1 presents a visual representation of the relationship between the Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky. The scatterplot depicts a clear pattern, reinforcing the statistical findings and providing a graphical insight into this intriguing connection. It turns out that the world of football and the world of museum conservation may not be as distant as they initially seem – much like finding a quarterback in a vending machine, this correlation is unexpected but undeniable.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score and The number of museum conservators in Kentucky. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.

Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.

[[TITLE]]
"Punting for Punters: A Gridiron Analysis of Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score and the Curious Connection to Kentucky's Museum Conservators"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The relationship between the Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky has long perplexed both sports enthusiasts and cultural preservationists. This study delves into the statistical connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena, utilizing data from Wikipedia and the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the years 2006 to 2018. The correlation coefficient of 0.7183339 and the significance level of p < 0.01 indicate a strong and significant relationship between the two variables.

This unexpected association prompts reflections on the potential influence of celebratory excess on the demand for conservation expertise, as well as the implications for cultural institutions in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. As the data unfolds, one can't help but wonder: are Super Bowl victories leading to a "frame-worthy" increase in museum artifacts?


[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Numerous scholarly works have attempted to uncover unexpected correlations between disparate phenomena. In "Smith and Doe (2015), the authors find a compelling link between ice cream sales and shark attacks, underscoring the unpredictability of statistical relationships." Similarly, Jones et al. (2019) present findings on the correlation between the popularity of mobile dating apps and the consumption of avocado toast.
Turning to the field of sports analysis, "Sports and Statistics" by Brown and Green (2018) delves into the statistical nuances of various sports events, highlighting the significance of score differentials and their implications for tournament outcomes. Furthermore, "The Numbers Game: Why Everything You Know About Football is Wrong" by Adams (2013) provides a comprehensive exploration of statistical anomalies in football, offering insights into the potential for unexpected connections within the sport.
In the realm of cultural preservation, "Conserving the Past: An International Perspective on Cultural Heritage Conservation" by White (2016) examines the multifaceted challenges and strategies in preserving cultural artifacts and heritage sites across the world. Additionally, "Museum Management" by Black (2017) offers a detailed analysis of museum operations and the intricacies of conservation efforts within museum settings.
On a more whimsical note, the fictional works "The Curious Case of the Kentucky Museum Mystery" by A. Reader (2015) and "Super Bowl Shenanigans: A Tale of Touchdowns and Treasures" by N. Ovelist (2018) provide imaginative narratives that, while not grounded in empirical research, invite playful speculation about potential connections between the Super Bowl and museum conservation in Kentucky.
A popular internet meme, "Success Kid," known for its caption "All the artifacts are safely conserved after the big game," humorously juxtaposes achievements in sports with the safeguarding of cultural artifacts, offering a lighthearted take on the potential intersection of these seemingly disparate domains.
The unexpected confluence of the Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky evokes a sense of intrigue similar to the punny phrase, "Why did the football team go to the art museum? Because they wanted to tackle some art history!" While this study maintains a serious and scholarly approach to its investigation, it is not immune to the occasional jest in exploring this unusual and captivating correlation.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of the statistical analysis reveal a strong and significant correlation between the Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky for the years 2006 to 2018. The correlation coefficient of 0.7183339 signifies a moderately strong positive relationship between these variables. This finding suggests that as the winning score of the Super Bowl increases, the number of museum conservators in Kentucky also tends to increase. It seems that football victories are not the only thing on the rise in the wake of the Super Bowl!
The r-squared value of 0.5160037 further indicates that approximately 51.6% of the variation in the number of museum conservators can be explained by the variation in the Super Bowl Champion's winning score. One might say that the relation between these variables is as tight as a well-inflated football – which, as we know, is essential for a good game.
The p-value, less than 0.01, emphasizes the high significance of this correlation, indicating that the observed relationship is not likely due to random chance. It seems that this connection is as real as Kentucky's love for bourbon and horse racing – a distinctive and essential part of the state's culture.
Finally, Fig. 1 presents a visual representation of the relationship between the Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky. The scatterplot depicts a clear pattern, reinforcing the statistical findings and providing a graphical insight into this intriguing connection. It turns out that the world of football and the world of museum conservation may not be as distant as they initially seem – much like finding a quarterback in a vending machine, this correlation is unexpected but undeniable.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of the present study provide compelling evidence to support the unexpected correlation between the Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky. The strong and significant correlation coefficient, coupled with the high level of significance, underscores the robustness of this association. It appears that as the scoreboard lights up with touchdowns and field goals, the demand for museum conservators in the Bluegrass State also experiences its own form of "touchdown" – an increase in numbers that may parallel the euphoria of spectators witnessing a thrilling game.

The results align with prior research that has delved into seemingly unrelated phenomena and unearthed surprising connections. The study by Smith and Doe (2015) on ice cream sales and shark attacks, while seemingly whimsical, reinforces the notion that statistical associations can emerge from unexpected sources. Similarly, the work of Jones et al. (2019) on mobile dating apps and avocado toast consumption serves as a reminder that statistical relationships can permeate diverse aspects of human behavior. In conjunction with these playful analogies, the finding of a tangible link between football victories and the demand for conservation expertise adds a new layer of complexity to the field of statistical analysis – a realization that tickles the intellect like a well-executed flea-flicker play.

The r-squared value of 0.5160037 indicates a substantial proportion of the variation in the number of museum conservators in Kentucky can be attributed to the variation in the Super Bowl Champion's winning score. This insight supports the relevance of football outcomes to the dynamics of museum conservation in a manner that is as unexpected as an onside kick in the first quarter. Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 underscores the statistical significance of the relationship, leaving little room to doubt the existence of this peculiar connection. One might say that the statistical relationship between Super Bowl Champion scores and the employment prospects for museum conservators is as palpable as the tension in a nail-biting fourth-quarter drive.

The scatterplot in Fig. 1 provides a visual representation of this intriguing relationship, akin to the way a highlight reel captures the pivotal moments of a championship game. The graphical depiction reinforces the statistical findings and offers a tangible glimpse into the interplay between these seemingly disparate domains. In light of these results, the potential influence of celebratory fervor following football victories on the demand for conservation expertise in Kentucky warrants further exploration – a notion that, much like a well-timed interception, intercepts the traditional boundaries of sports analysis and cultural preservation.

In conclusion, the study demonstrates a robust and significant correlation between the Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky. The unexpected nature of this connection, while initially perplexing, unfolds as a captivating revelation that poses intriguing inquiries for further research. It seems that the seemingly divergent worlds of football and museum conservation may have more in common than meets the eye – much like the unexpectedly delightful blend of nachos and jalapeños at a sports bar.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score and The number of museum conservators in Kentucky. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"Punting for Punters: A Gridiron Analysis of Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score and the Curious Connection to Kentucky's Museum Conservators"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The relationship between the Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky has long perplexed both sports enthusiasts and cultural preservationists. This study delves into the statistical connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena, utilizing data from Wikipedia and the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the years 2006 to 2018. The correlation coefficient of 0.7183339 and the significance level of p < 0.01 indicate a strong and significant relationship between the two variables.

This unexpected association prompts reflections on the potential influence of celebratory excess on the demand for conservation expertise, as well as the implications for cultural institutions in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. As the data unfolds, one can't help but wonder: are Super Bowl victories leading to a "frame-worthy" increase in museum artifacts?


[[INTRDUCTION]]
The Super Bowl, an annual event watched by millions, holds a prominent place in American sports culture. The winning score of this iconic football game is often analyzed and discussed at length by enthusiasts and analysts alike. On the other hand, the field of museum conservation in Kentucky may not receive as much attention, but plays a crucial role in preserving the state's cultural heritage. The juxtaposition of these two seemingly unrelated areas, the Super Bowl and museum conservation, prompts an intriguing inquiry into their potential connection.
As the reigning champions of statistical analysis in seemingly inexplicable connections, we have set out to explore the relationship between the winning score of the Super Bowl and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky. This unusual pairing might evoke a chuckle, like the time someone said, "I told my wife she should embrace her mistakes. She gave me a hug." However, the statistical analysis conducted in this study shall quell any doubts about the rigor of our inquiry.
The unexpected nature of this investigation is reminiscent of the time I asked a football fan if they knew what the football coach said to the vending machine. The answer: “Give me my quarterback!” Nevertheless, in exploring this curious relationship, we aim to elevate the discourse surrounding these diverse societal components, delivering insights that may have previously gone unnoticed.
The intersection of the popular spectacle of the Super Bowl with the niche field of museum conservation in Kentucky presents a unique opportunity for examining the potential impact of large-scale celebratory events on cultural institutions. Such as when a football fan asked, "Why don't football players like cold weather?" The answer: "Because they're always surrounded by fans!" Through our rigorous data analysis, we aim to shed light on any underlying dynamics that may be at play, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate phenomena.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of the statistical analysis reveal a strong and significant correlation between the Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky for the years 2006 to 2018. The correlation coefficient of 0.7183339 signifies a moderately strong positive relationship between these variables. This finding suggests that as the winning score of the Super Bowl increases, the number of museum conservators in Kentucky also tends to increase. It seems that football victories are not the only thing on the rise in the wake of the Super Bowl!
The r-squared value of 0.5160037 further indicates that approximately 51.6% of the variation in the number of museum conservators can be explained by the variation in the Super Bowl Champion's winning score. One might say that the relation between these variables is as tight as a well-inflated football – which, as we know, is essential for a good game.
The p-value, less than 0.01, emphasizes the high significance of this correlation, indicating that the observed relationship is not likely due to random chance. It seems that this connection is as real as Kentucky's love for bourbon and horse racing – a distinctive and essential part of the state's culture.
Finally, Fig. 1 presents a visual representation of the relationship between the Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky. The scatterplot depicts a clear pattern, reinforcing the statistical findings and providing a graphical insight into this intriguing connection. It turns out that the world of football and the world of museum conservation may not be as distant as they initially seem – much like finding a quarterback in a vending machine, this correlation is unexpected but undeniable.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our investigation into the relationship between the Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky has provided compelling evidence of a significant correlation between these seemingly unrelated variables. The moderately strong positive relationship, with a correlation coefficient of 0.7183339, supports the notion that as the winning score of the Super Bowl increases, so does the number of museum conservators in Kentucky. It appears that the celebratory excess that often accompanies football victories may indeed lead to an increased demand for conservation expertise, much like the increased demand for nachos and chicken wings during Super Bowl parties.

The r-squared value of 0.5160037 further validates the tightness of this connection, akin to the grip of a well-inflated football, emphasizing that approximately 51.6% of the variation in the number of museum conservators can be explained by the variation in the Super Bowl Champion's winning score. Such a substantial explanatory power may prompt us to consider incorporating football scores into Kentucky's cultural heritage preservation strategy – after all, gridiron glory and museum conservation may be more intertwined than previously imagined.

The significance level of p < 0.01 underscores the robustness of this relationship, suggesting that the observed connection is as genuine as a Kentucky bourbon on the rocks – a testament to the tangible impact of celebratory events on cultural institutions. With such a tangible link, one might say that these findings are as undeniable as a touchdown in the final seconds of the Super Bowl – conclusive and exhilarating.

We believe that our study provides a refreshing perspective on the interplay between widely celebrated sports events and the lesser-known realms of cultural preservation. It undoubtedly adds a layer of complexity to the discourse surrounding the societal impact of sports victories, prompting contemplation on the ripple effects of such triumphs. This unexpected correlation serves as a reminder that sometimes, the most peculiar connections yield the most intriguing insights – much like discovering a quarterback in a vending machine, it may be unanticipated, but undeniably consequential.

Given the robustness and impact of our findings, we assert that no further research is needed in this area. The evidence presented in this study stands as a testament to the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate phenomena, highlighting the enduring influence of cultural celebrations on the fabric of society.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of academic journals. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding research, scientific, or academic journal that would publish a paper entited Punting for Punters: A Gridiron Analysis of Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score and the Curious Connection to Kentucky's Museum Conservators. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Gridiron Analytics


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited Punting for Punters: A Gridiron Analysis of Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score and the Curious Connection to Kentucky's Museum Conservators. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Center for American Sports Analytics and Preservation


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Punting for Punters: A Gridiron Analysis of Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score and the Curious Connection to Kentucky's Museum Conservators with an abstract of The relationship between the Super Bowl Champion's winning score and the number of museum conservators in Kentucky has long perplexed both sports enthusiasts and cultural preservationists. This study delves into the statistical connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena, utilizing data from Wikipedia and the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the years 2006 to 2018. The correlation coefficient of 0.7183339 and the significance level of p < 0.01 indicate a strong and significant relationship between the two variables.
This unexpected association prompts reflections on the potential influence of celebratory excess on the demand for conservation expertise, as well as the implications for cultural institutions in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. As the data unfolds, one can't help but wonder: are Super Bowl victories leading to a "frame-worthy" increase in museum artifacts?

ChatGPT:

Super Bowl Champion, winning score, Kentucky museum conservators, statistical analysis, cultural preservation, Wikipedia data, Bureau of Labor Statistics, correlation coefficient, significance level, celebratory excess, conservation expertise, cultural institutions, Commonwealth of Kentucky, museum artifacts

*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score
Source: Wikipedia
See what else correlates with Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score

The number of museum conservators in Kentucky
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of museum technicians and conservators in Kentucky
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of museum conservators in Kentucky

Correlation r = 0.7183339 (Pearson correlation coefficient)
Correlation is a measure of how much the variables move together. If it is 0.99, when one goes up the other goes up. If it is 0.02, the connection is very weak or non-existent. If it is -0.99, then when one goes up the other goes down. If it is 1.00, you probably messed up your correlation function.

r2 = 0.5160037 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 51.6% of the change in the one variable (i.e., The number of museum conservators in Kentucky) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score) over the 13 years from 2006 through 2018.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0057. 0.0056775723725725760000000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.72 in 0.57% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 176 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 12 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 12 because we have two variables measured over a period of 13 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.28, 0.91 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!


All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
2006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018
Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score (Goals scored)21291727313121344328243441
The number of museum conservators in Kentucky (Laborers)40403030505060708070505080




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.




Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.

Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.

Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"

Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.

Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.

Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.

Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"

If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:

"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."


# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):

    # Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
    correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)

    # Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
    r_squared = correlation**2

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([21,29,17,27,31,31,21,34,43,28,24,34,41,])
array_2 = np.array([40,40,30,30,50,50,60,70,80,70,50,50,80,])
array_1_name = "Super Bowl Champion's Winning Score"
array_2_name = "The number of museum conservators in Kentucky"

# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)

# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)



Reuseable content

You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.

You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.

For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."

When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.

Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Big thanks for reviewing!


Correlation ID: 1676 · Black Variable ID: 92 · Red Variable ID: 17672
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0