about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #1,444 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Budget for largest movie production and the second variable is Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion.  The chart goes from 1979 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As movie budgets swell, so does the demand for blockbuster snacks like hotdogs. The link is clear: more money for movies means more people buy tickets, leading to more concession stand hotdog sales. It's a real sausage fest of a connection!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ A photo-realistic image ] Generate an image of a massive movie studio set under construction, with towering scaffolding and cranes. The set is elaborate, with intricate details and props being put in place. A billboard prominently displays the ambitious film production's enormous budget, casting a shadow over the set. In the bustling scene, the current Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion proudly stands amidst a towering mountain of empty hot dog trays, displaying the impressive number of hotdogs consumed during the competition. The champion is surrounded by a crowd of impressed onlookers and a flurry of activity. 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: Budget for largest movie production and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. 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: Cutsy art illustration Cute cartoon Celtic art 3D Pixar Style A photo-realistic image
ChatGPT: A photo-realistic image

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 Budget for largest movie production and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a bustling movie studio, a massive set is being constructed for the most ambitious film production yet. The budget for the production is shown on a billboard, towering over the set. Meanwhile, in the same scene, the current Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion is surrounded by a mountain of empty hot dog trays, proudly displaying the number of hotdogs consumed in the competition.

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: [ A photo-realistic image ] and depicting this scene: In a bustling movie studio, a massive set is being constructed for the most ambitious film production yet. The budget for the production is shown on a billboard, towering over the set. Meanwhile, in the same scene, the current Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion is surrounded by a mountain of empty hot dog trays, proudly displaying the number of hotdogs consumed in the competition. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ A photo-realistic image ] Generate an image of a massive movie studio set under construction, with towering scaffolding and cranes. The set is elaborate, with intricate details and props being put in place. A billboard prominently displays the ambitious film production's enormous budget, casting a shadow over the set. In the bustling scene, the current Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion proudly stands amidst a towering mountain of empty hot dog trays, displaying the impressive number of hotdogs consumed during the competition. The champion is surrounded by a crowd of impressed onlookers and a flurry of activity.

*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 Budget for largest movie production caused Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion to increase. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Budgets and Binges: The Bizarre Bond Between Blockbuster Budgets and Bountiful Binges of Brats

The Journal of Extravagant Expenditures and Excessive Eating

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 researcher writing an academic paper.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 Budget for largest movie production and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title an alliteration.

Your research team used data from The Numbers and Wikipedia to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8740617 and p < 0.01 for 1979 to 2022.

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]]
Budgets and Binges: The Bizarre Bond Between Blockbuster Budgets and Bountiful Binges of Brats

[[ABSTRACT]]
The seemingly incongruous relationship between the budget of the largest movie production and the consumption of hotdogs by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion has long been a puzzling enigma confounding researchers and cinephiles alike. In this study, we endeavored to unravel this culinary and cinematic conundrum using data from The Numbers and Wikipedia. Our analysis spanned the years 1979 to 2022, revealing a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.8740617 and a statistically significant p-value < 0.01. The implications of these findings are as tantalizing as they are tantalizingly weird, suggesting a potential link between lavish spending on celluloid spectacles and the seemingly insatiable appetite for tubular meats. This paper offers a quirky yet thought-provoking exploration of the intersection between film finance and competitive eating, shedding light on the quirky quirks of these seemingly disparate domains.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.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 Budget for largest movie production and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Budgets and Binges: The Bizarre Bond Between Blockbuster Budgets and Bountiful Binges of Brats

[[ABSTRACT]]
The seemingly incongruous relationship between the budget of the largest movie production and the consumption of hotdogs by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion has long been a puzzling enigma confounding researchers and cinephiles alike. In this study, we endeavored to unravel this culinary and cinematic conundrum using data from The Numbers and Wikipedia. Our analysis spanned the years 1979 to 2022, revealing a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.8740617 and a statistically significant p-value < 0.01. The implications of these findings are as tantalizing as they are tantalizingly weird, suggesting a potential link between lavish spending on celluloid spectacles and the seemingly insatiable appetite for tubular meats. This paper offers a quirky yet thought-provoking exploration of the intersection between film finance and competitive eating, shedding light on the quirky quirks of these seemingly disparate domains.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The world of cinema holds within its reels a glitzy allure and an intoxicating blend of storytelling and spectacle. At the same time, the world of competitive eating carries with it an equally captivating, if more gluttonous, appeal. Uniting these seemingly unrelated universes are the peculiar variables of movie budgets and hotdog consumption, which form the crux of our investigation. The curious correlation between the budget of the largest movie production and the devouring of hotdogs by the reigning champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition has sparked our interest in this kooky conundrum.

While traditional hypotheses might posit that these variables are as related as lightsabers and lima beans, our initial dives into the data revealed an unexpected trend. From the data archival sources of The Numbers and Wikipedia, we cobbled together a dataset spanning over four decades, unveiling a surprising correlation coefficient that left us scratching our heads in incredulity. With a value of 0.8740617, the correlation is stronger than a good cup of coffee. Not to mention, the p-value of less than 0.01 is about as rare as finding a cinematic gem in the bargain bin.

Our findings beckon us to consider the implications of this correlation, hinting at a potential connection between the exorbitant spending behind Hollywood blockbusters and the astounding capacity for consuming cylindrical meats. This paper embarks on a whimsical, albeit rigorously scientific, odyssey into the intersection of film finance and competitive eating, unearthing the absurd and delightful linkages between these seemingly mismatched domains.

While our pursuit may appear as whimsical as chasing fireflies, the implications of our findings are as profound as they are peculiar, shedding light on the quirkier side of statistical oddities and forging unexpected connections between disparate realms. So, come with us as we delve into this curious compendium of celluloid extravagance and gluttonous feats—a journey that promises to leave you both entertained and intellectually nourished, much like a theater trip with a bucket of popcorn and a Dodger Dog.



Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.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 Budget for largest movie production and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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 few real TV shows that sound like they might be relevant to the topic that you watched as research.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Budgets and Binges: The Bizarre Bond Between Blockbuster Budgets and Bountiful Binges of Brats

[[ABSTRACT]]
The seemingly incongruous relationship between the budget of the largest movie production and the consumption of hotdogs by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion has long been a puzzling enigma confounding researchers and cinephiles alike. In this study, we endeavored to unravel this culinary and cinematic conundrum using data from The Numbers and Wikipedia. Our analysis spanned the years 1979 to 2022, revealing a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.8740617 and a statistically significant p-value < 0.01. The implications of these findings are as tantalizing as they are tantalizingly weird, suggesting a potential link between lavish spending on celluloid spectacles and the seemingly insatiable appetite for tubular meats. This paper offers a quirky yet thought-provoking exploration of the intersection between film finance and competitive eating, shedding light on the quirky quirks of these seemingly disparate domains.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The world of cinema holds within its reels a glitzy allure and an intoxicating blend of storytelling and spectacle. At the same time, the world of competitive eating carries with it an equally captivating, if more gluttonous, appeal. Uniting these seemingly unrelated universes are the peculiar variables of movie budgets and hotdog consumption, which form the crux of our investigation. The curious correlation between the budget of the largest movie production and the devouring of hotdogs by the reigning champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition has sparked our interest in this kooky conundrum.
While traditional hypotheses might posit that these variables are as related as lightsabers and lima beans, our initial dives into the data revealed an unexpected trend. From the data archival sources of The Numbers and Wikipedia, we cobbled together a dataset spanning over four decades, unveiling a surprising correlation coefficient that left us scratching our heads in incredulity. With a value of 0.8740617, the correlation is stronger than a good cup of coffee. Not to mention, the p-value of less than 0.01 is about as rare as finding a cinematic gem in the bargain bin.
Our findings beckon us to consider the implications of this correlation, hinting at a potential connection between the exorbitant spending behind Hollywood blockbusters and the astounding capacity for consuming cylindrical meats. This paper embarks on a whimsical, albeit rigorously scientific, odyssey into the intersection of film finance and competitive eating, unearthing the absurd and delightful linkages between these seemingly mismatched domains.
While our pursuit may appear as whimsical as chasing fireflies, the implications of our findings are as profound as they are peculiar, shedding light on the quirkier side of statistical oddities and forging unexpected connections between disparate realms. So, come with us as we delve into this curious compendium of celluloid extravagance and gluttonous feats—a journey that promises to leave you both entertained and intellectually nourished, much like a theater trip with a bucket of popcorn and a Dodger Dog.


-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

A multitude of studies have delved into the world of large movie budgets and their impact on the cinema landscape. In "The Economic Impacts of Blockbuster Films" by Smith, the authors find a positive correlation between the budget of mega-productions and their box office success. Similarly, Doe's "Big Money, Big Screen: Exploring the Relationship Between Film Budgets and Revenue" presents evidence suggesting that increased budgets often lead to greater financial returns. The implications of these scholarly works are profound, shaping our understanding of the financial dynamics within the film industry.

However, as we venture deeper into the cinematic rabbit hole, we encounter a more peculiar avenue of investigation. Let us pause for a moment to consider the eclectic selection of non-fiction literature that flirts with the fringes of our enigmatic subject matter. "The Culinary Delights of Cinema: From Popcorn to Hotdogs" by Jones meanders through the cultural significance of movie snacks, providing a gastronomic perspective that could potentially offer insights into the elusive relationship between movie budgets and hotdog consumption.

Shifting gears from the realm of scholarly works, we turn our attention to a selection of fiction books that, while not directly addressing our research topic, exude an air of cinematic binge-worthiness. "The Blockbuster Conundrum" by A. Reader, although fictional, playfully explores the extravagant world of Hollywood and the quirky characters that inhabit it. In a more offbeat vein, "Hotdogs and High Stakes" by P. Lots offers a delightfully absurd narrative that seems to tap into the whimsicality of our own investigation.

In our pursuit of understanding the peculiar correlation between movie budgets and hotdog consumption, we could not resist the enticement of popular TV shows that might offer intriguing tangential insights. "Cinematic Appetites" and "Hotdog Diaries" are just a few examples of television programming that provided us with a delightful distraction and, dare we say, a tangy infusion of inspiration.

As we plunge headlong into this exuberant medley of literature and media, we acknowledge the lighthearted spirit with which we approach our analytical odyssey, holding fast to the notion that beneath the surface of the academically rigorous lies a realm of whimsy and unexpected connections.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.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 Budget for largest movie production and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from The Numbers and Wikipedia . You used data from 1979 to 2022

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]]
Budgets and Binges: The Bizarre Bond Between Blockbuster Budgets and Bountiful Binges of Brats

[[ABSTRACT]]
The seemingly incongruous relationship between the budget of the largest movie production and the consumption of hotdogs by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion has long been a puzzling enigma confounding researchers and cinephiles alike. In this study, we endeavored to unravel this culinary and cinematic conundrum using data from The Numbers and Wikipedia. Our analysis spanned the years 1979 to 2022, revealing a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.8740617 and a statistically significant p-value < 0.01. The implications of these findings are as tantalizing as they are tantalizingly weird, suggesting a potential link between lavish spending on celluloid spectacles and the seemingly insatiable appetite for tubular meats. This paper offers a quirky yet thought-provoking exploration of the intersection between film finance and competitive eating, shedding light on the quirky quirks of these seemingly disparate domains.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The world of cinema holds within its reels a glitzy allure and an intoxicating blend of storytelling and spectacle. At the same time, the world of competitive eating carries with it an equally captivating, if more gluttonous, appeal. Uniting these seemingly unrelated universes are the peculiar variables of movie budgets and hotdog consumption, which form the crux of our investigation. The curious correlation between the budget of the largest movie production and the devouring of hotdogs by the reigning champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition has sparked our interest in this kooky conundrum.
While traditional hypotheses might posit that these variables are as related as lightsabers and lima beans, our initial dives into the data revealed an unexpected trend. From the data archival sources of The Numbers and Wikipedia, we cobbled together a dataset spanning over four decades, unveiling a surprising correlation coefficient that left us scratching our heads in incredulity. With a value of 0.8740617, the correlation is stronger than a good cup of coffee. Not to mention, the p-value of less than 0.01 is about as rare as finding a cinematic gem in the bargain bin.
Our findings beckon us to consider the implications of this correlation, hinting at a potential connection between the exorbitant spending behind Hollywood blockbusters and the astounding capacity for consuming cylindrical meats. This paper embarks on a whimsical, albeit rigorously scientific, odyssey into the intersection of film finance and competitive eating, unearthing the absurd and delightful linkages between these seemingly mismatched domains.
While our pursuit may appear as whimsical as chasing fireflies, the implications of our findings are as profound as they are peculiar, shedding light on the quirkier side of statistical oddities and forging unexpected connections between disparate realms. So, come with us as we delve into this curious compendium of celluloid extravagance and gluttonous feats—a journey that promises to leave you both entertained and intellectually nourished, much like a theater trip with a bucket of popcorn and a Dodger Dog.


-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

Now, let's embark on this rollercoaster ride of a methodology where we attempt to wrangle the unwieldy beast of data collection and analysis with the precision of a trapeze artist crossing the science circus. First, we scoured the vast and wondrous virtual landscape, combing through the annals of The Numbers and Wikipedia like intrepid treasure hunters seeking elusive nuggets of truth amidst the digital flotsam and jetsam.

In our pursuit of the almighty movie budgets and the mighty hotdog consumption, we harnessed the power of technology, wielding the magnificence of web scraping and data mining techniques to extract nuggets of information from the interwebs. For each year from 1979 to 2022, we meticulously gathered data on the budget of the largest movie production, painstakingly navigating the labyrinth of box office records and production details. Meanwhile, our quest for hotdog consumption figures led us to the annals of competitive eating history, where we pored over records of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition like culinary scholars ruminating over ancient recipes.

With our treasure trove of data in tow, we subjected our findings to the rigors of statistical analysis. Armed with the trusty tools of correlation coefficients and p-values, we sought to unravel the intricate dance of numbers and trends hidden within our eclectic dataset. This statistical tango allowed us to unearth the surprising correlation coefficient of 0.8740617, a figure that stood as tall and proud as a skyscraper in the statistical skyline.

Furthermore, we harnessed the might of inferential statistics, unleashing the power of hypothesis testing to ascertain the significance of our findings. Lo and behold, the p-value that emerged from the depths of our statistical cauldron was less than 0.01, a result as rare and wondrous as a unicorn sighting in the world of data analysis.

In the face of this analytical adventure, let it be known that our methodology was not without its quirks and caprices. Much like a daring trapeze act, we balanced precision with audacity, navigating the treacherous terrain of internet data collection with the agility of a tightrope walker amidst gusts of digital noise.

And so, our methodology stands as a testament to the curious and convoluted path we tread in pursuit of unraveling the enigmatic entanglement between blockbuster budgets and bountiful binges of brats. As we proceed to unveil our findings, may this methodology serve as a whimsical roadmap to the scientific wonders that await within the realm of cinematic finance and competitive eating delights.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.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 Budget for largest movie production and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from The Numbers and Wikipedia .

For the time period 1979 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.8740617, r-squared of 0.7639839, 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]]
Budgets and Binges: The Bizarre Bond Between Blockbuster Budgets and Bountiful Binges of Brats

[[ABSTRACT]]
The seemingly incongruous relationship between the budget of the largest movie production and the consumption of hotdogs by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion has long been a puzzling enigma confounding researchers and cinephiles alike. In this study, we endeavored to unravel this culinary and cinematic conundrum using data from The Numbers and Wikipedia. Our analysis spanned the years 1979 to 2022, revealing a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.8740617 and a statistically significant p-value < 0.01. The implications of these findings are as tantalizing as they are tantalizingly weird, suggesting a potential link between lavish spending on celluloid spectacles and the seemingly insatiable appetite for tubular meats. This paper offers a quirky yet thought-provoking exploration of the intersection between film finance and competitive eating, shedding light on the quirky quirks of these seemingly disparate domains.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The world of cinema holds within its reels a glitzy allure and an intoxicating blend of storytelling and spectacle. At the same time, the world of competitive eating carries with it an equally captivating, if more gluttonous, appeal. Uniting these seemingly unrelated universes are the peculiar variables of movie budgets and hotdog consumption, which form the crux of our investigation. The curious correlation between the budget of the largest movie production and the devouring of hotdogs by the reigning champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition has sparked our interest in this kooky conundrum.
While traditional hypotheses might posit that these variables are as related as lightsabers and lima beans, our initial dives into the data revealed an unexpected trend. From the data archival sources of The Numbers and Wikipedia, we cobbled together a dataset spanning over four decades, unveiling a surprising correlation coefficient that left us scratching our heads in incredulity. With a value of 0.8740617, the correlation is stronger than a good cup of coffee. Not to mention, the p-value of less than 0.01 is about as rare as finding a cinematic gem in the bargain bin.
Our findings beckon us to consider the implications of this correlation, hinting at a potential connection between the exorbitant spending behind Hollywood blockbusters and the astounding capacity for consuming cylindrical meats. This paper embarks on a whimsical, albeit rigorously scientific, odyssey into the intersection of film finance and competitive eating, unearthing the absurd and delightful linkages between these seemingly mismatched domains.
While our pursuit may appear as whimsical as chasing fireflies, the implications of our findings are as profound as they are peculiar, shedding light on the quirkier side of statistical oddities and forging unexpected connections between disparate realms. So, come with us as we delve into this curious compendium of celluloid extravagance and gluttonous feats—a journey that promises to leave you both entertained and intellectually nourished, much like a theater trip with a bucket of popcorn and a Dodger Dog.


-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The statistical analysis of the data yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.8740617, indicating a remarkably strong positive relationship between the budget of the largest movie production and the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. This relationship was further supported by an r-squared value of 0.7639839, suggesting that approximately 76.4% of the variability in hotdog consumption can be explained by the variation in movie production budgets. The p-value of less than 0.01 signified the statistical significance of this relationship, or in other words, the odds of these two variables being unrelated are about as slim as a diet hotdog.

To vividly illustrate this uncanny connection, we present Figure 1, a scatterplot that visually depicts the robust correlation between the two variables. As you'll see, the data points align themselves more neatly than a pack of perfectly arranged hot dogs, forming a positively sloped trend line that rivals the twists and turns of a captivating movie plot. It's as if the movies are acting as the appetizer, enticing audiences to then consume an absurd amount of hotdogs.

These results defy conventional wisdom and challenge the notion that movie budgets and hotdog binges exist in separate, unrelated spheres. Instead, they hint at a curious and intriguing connection, akin to finding the unexpected twist in a blockbuster script or uncovering a hidden ingredient in a delicious hotdog recipe. Our findings open the door to a smorgasbord of questions and possibilities that beckon further exploration, inspiring both serious inquiry and whimsical wonder in equal measure.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.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 Budget for largest movie production and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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]]
Budgets and Binges: The Bizarre Bond Between Blockbuster Budgets and Bountiful Binges of Brats

[[ABSTRACT]]
The seemingly incongruous relationship between the budget of the largest movie production and the consumption of hotdogs by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion has long been a puzzling enigma confounding researchers and cinephiles alike. In this study, we endeavored to unravel this culinary and cinematic conundrum using data from The Numbers and Wikipedia. Our analysis spanned the years 1979 to 2022, revealing a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.8740617 and a statistically significant p-value < 0.01. The implications of these findings are as tantalizing as they are tantalizingly weird, suggesting a potential link between lavish spending on celluloid spectacles and the seemingly insatiable appetite for tubular meats. This paper offers a quirky yet thought-provoking exploration of the intersection between film finance and competitive eating, shedding light on the quirky quirks of these seemingly disparate domains.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
A multitude of studies have delved into the world of large movie budgets and their impact on the cinema landscape. In "The Economic Impacts of Blockbuster Films" by Smith, the authors find a positive correlation between the budget of mega-productions and their box office success. Similarly, Doe's "Big Money, Big Screen: Exploring the Relationship Between Film Budgets and Revenue" presents evidence suggesting that increased budgets often lead to greater financial returns. The implications of these scholarly works are profound, shaping our understanding of the financial dynamics within the film industry.
However, as we venture deeper into the cinematic rabbit hole, we encounter a more peculiar avenue of investigation. Let us pause for a moment to consider the eclectic selection of non-fiction literature that flirts with the fringes of our enigmatic subject matter. "The Culinary Delights of Cinema: From Popcorn to Hotdogs" by Jones meanders through the cultural significance of movie snacks, providing a gastronomic perspective that could potentially offer insights into the elusive relationship between movie budgets and hotdog consumption.
Shifting gears from the realm of scholarly works, we turn our attention to a selection of fiction books that, while not directly addressing our research topic, exude an air of cinematic binge-worthiness. "The Blockbuster Conundrum" by A. Reader, although fictional, playfully explores the extravagant world of Hollywood and the quirky characters that inhabit it. In a more offbeat vein, "Hotdogs and High Stakes" by P. Lots offers a delightfully absurd narrative that seems to tap into the whimsicality of our own investigation.
In our pursuit of understanding the peculiar correlation between movie budgets and hotdog consumption, we could not resist the enticement of popular TV shows that might offer intriguing tangential insights. "Cinematic Appetites" and "Hotdog Diaries" are just a few examples of television programming that provided us with a delightful distraction and, dare we say, a tangy infusion of inspiration.
As we plunge headlong into this exuberant medley of literature and media, we acknowledge the lighthearted spirit with which we approach our analytical odyssey, holding fast to the notion that beneath the surface of the academically rigorous lies a realm of whimsy and unexpected connections.

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis of the data yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.8740617, indicating a remarkably strong positive relationship between the budget of the largest movie production and the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. This relationship was further supported by an r-squared value of 0.7639839, suggesting that approximately 76.4% of the variability in hotdog consumption can be explained by the variation in movie production budgets. The p-value of less than 0.01 signified the statistical significance of this relationship, or in other words, the odds of these two variables being unrelated are about as slim as a diet hotdog.
To vividly illustrate this uncanny connection, we present Figure 1, a scatterplot that visually depicts the robust correlation between the two variables. As you'll see, the data points align themselves more neatly than a pack of perfectly arranged hot dogs, forming a positively sloped trend line that rivals the twists and turns of a captivating movie plot. It's as if the movies are acting as the appetizer, enticing audiences to then consume an absurd amount of hotdogs.
These results defy conventional wisdom and challenge the notion that movie budgets and hotdog binges exist in separate, unrelated spheres. Instead, they hint at a curious and intriguing connection, akin to finding the unexpected twist in a blockbuster script or uncovering a hidden ingredient in a delicious hotdog recipe. Our findings open the door to a smorgasbord of questions and possibilities that beckon further exploration, inspiring both serious inquiry and whimsical wonder in equal measure.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

The prodigious correlation uncovered in our study between the budget for the largest movie production and the consumption of hotdogs by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion is a revelation that ignites both intellectual curiosity and bemused disbelief. When we revisit our dabbling in the world of literature review, the surprising intersection of non-fiction and fiction works hint at a whimsical realm of possibilities, much like the unpredictable ploys of movie plot twists or the unexpected savory flavors of a gourmet hotdog.

Our results align with the scholarly findings of Smith and Doe, alluding to a positive relationship between movie budgets and financial success. This parallel offers a tantalizing pathway to understanding the peculiar bond between film finance and the ravenous appetite for hotdogs. Furthermore, the playful exploration of cinema snacks and the frivolous yet beguiling fictional narratives in "The Blockbuster Conundrum" and "Hotdogs and High Stakes" subtly echo the bizarre yet compelling correlation we have unearthed, highlighting the whimsical nature of our research.

Our findings uphold the hypothesis that extravagant movie productions somehow stimulate an urge for hotdog indulgence, reminiscent of the irresistible allure of a captivating film. The visually striking scatterplot resembling a perfectly arranged pack of hotdogs serves as a metaphor for the unexpected alignment of these seemingly incongruous variables. Just as a movie plot unfolds, our results reveal a narrative of intertwined financial extravagance and gustatory excess, conveying a tale as captivating as any silver screen spectacle.

In retrospect, the tangential insights gleaned from popular TV shows infuse our research with a zesty dash of inspiration, underscoring the duality of our academic inquiry. It is not merely a dry examination of statistical associations, but a celebration of the delightful connections that underscore the quirky quirks of our world. Our study opens the door to a limitless menu of further inquiries, inviting researchers to indulge in the conundrum of extravagant budgets and bountiful bratwursts, elevating the pursuit of knowledge to a flavorful feast of intellectual exploration.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.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 Budget for largest movie production and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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]]
Budgets and Binges: The Bizarre Bond Between Blockbuster Budgets and Bountiful Binges of Brats

[[ABSTRACT]]
The seemingly incongruous relationship between the budget of the largest movie production and the consumption of hotdogs by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion has long been a puzzling enigma confounding researchers and cinephiles alike. In this study, we endeavored to unravel this culinary and cinematic conundrum using data from The Numbers and Wikipedia. Our analysis spanned the years 1979 to 2022, revealing a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.8740617 and a statistically significant p-value < 0.01. The implications of these findings are as tantalizing as they are tantalizingly weird, suggesting a potential link between lavish spending on celluloid spectacles and the seemingly insatiable appetite for tubular meats. This paper offers a quirky yet thought-provoking exploration of the intersection between film finance and competitive eating, shedding light on the quirky quirks of these seemingly disparate domains.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The world of cinema holds within its reels a glitzy allure and an intoxicating blend of storytelling and spectacle. At the same time, the world of competitive eating carries with it an equally captivating, if more gluttonous, appeal. Uniting these seemingly unrelated universes are the peculiar variables of movie budgets and hotdog consumption, which form the crux of our investigation. The curious correlation between the budget of the largest movie production and the devouring of hotdogs by the reigning champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition has sparked our interest in this kooky conundrum.
While traditional hypotheses might posit that these variables are as related as lightsabers and lima beans, our initial dives into the data revealed an unexpected trend. From the data archival sources of The Numbers and Wikipedia, we cobbled together a dataset spanning over four decades, unveiling a surprising correlation coefficient that left us scratching our heads in incredulity. With a value of 0.8740617, the correlation is stronger than a good cup of coffee. Not to mention, the p-value of less than 0.01 is about as rare as finding a cinematic gem in the bargain bin.
Our findings beckon us to consider the implications of this correlation, hinting at a potential connection between the exorbitant spending behind Hollywood blockbusters and the astounding capacity for consuming cylindrical meats. This paper embarks on a whimsical, albeit rigorously scientific, odyssey into the intersection of film finance and competitive eating, unearthing the absurd and delightful linkages between these seemingly mismatched domains.
While our pursuit may appear as whimsical as chasing fireflies, the implications of our findings are as profound as they are peculiar, shedding light on the quirkier side of statistical oddities and forging unexpected connections between disparate realms. So, come with us as we delve into this curious compendium of celluloid extravagance and gluttonous feats—a journey that promises to leave you both entertained and intellectually nourished, much like a theater trip with a bucket of popcorn and a Dodger Dog.


[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis of the data yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.8740617, indicating a remarkably strong positive relationship between the budget of the largest movie production and the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. This relationship was further supported by an r-squared value of 0.7639839, suggesting that approximately 76.4% of the variability in hotdog consumption can be explained by the variation in movie production budgets. The p-value of less than 0.01 signified the statistical significance of this relationship, or in other words, the odds of these two variables being unrelated are about as slim as a diet hotdog.
To vividly illustrate this uncanny connection, we present Figure 1, a scatterplot that visually depicts the robust correlation between the two variables. As you'll see, the data points align themselves more neatly than a pack of perfectly arranged hot dogs, forming a positively sloped trend line that rivals the twists and turns of a captivating movie plot. It's as if the movies are acting as the appetizer, enticing audiences to then consume an absurd amount of hotdogs.
These results defy conventional wisdom and challenge the notion that movie budgets and hotdog binges exist in separate, unrelated spheres. Instead, they hint at a curious and intriguing connection, akin to finding the unexpected twist in a blockbuster script or uncovering a hidden ingredient in a delicious hotdog recipe. Our findings open the door to a smorgasbord of questions and possibilities that beckon further exploration, inspiring both serious inquiry and whimsical wonder in equal measure.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has elucidated a perplexing yet compelling correlation between the budget of the largest movie production and the astonishing volume of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. This quirky connection, akin to a cinematic twist in the plot of statistical analysis, defies conventional expectations and invites further contemplation. The statistical significance of the correlation, highlighted by the p-value, is as clear as a high-definition close-up shot, underscoring the substantive nature of this relationship.

It seems that the bloated budgets of box-office juggernauts may indeed act as a harbinger for voracious hotdog appetites, much like a scrumptious trailer whetting the audience's appetite for a movie. However, despite the deliciously curious nature of this correlation, we must acknowledge that our study has reached the limit of this quirky inquiry. Further research in this domain might leave us wading into waters as murky as the condiments on a loaded hotdog, with little promise of transformative discovery. Therefore, we assert that this particular avenue of exploration has been thoroughly traversed, leaving the tantalizing connection between cinematic largesse and competitive hotdog consumption as a delightful enigma that may forever tickle our intellectual palates without demanding further scholarly attention.


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 Budgets and Binges: The Bizarre Bond Between Blockbuster Budgets and Bountiful Binges of Brats. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Extravagant Expenditures and Excessive Eating


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 Budgets and Binges: The Bizarre Bond Between Blockbuster Budgets and Bountiful Binges of Brats. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Extravagant Expenditure and Excessive Eating Studies


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 Budgets and Binges: The Bizarre Bond Between Blockbuster Budgets and Bountiful Binges of Brats with an abstract of The seemingly incongruous relationship between the budget of the largest movie production and the consumption of hotdogs by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion has long been a puzzling enigma confounding researchers and cinephiles alike. In this study, we endeavored to unravel this culinary and cinematic conundrum using data from The Numbers and Wikipedia. Our analysis spanned the years 1979 to 2022, revealing a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.8740617 and a statistically significant p-value < 0.01. The implications of these findings are as tantalizing as they are tantalizingly weird, suggesting a potential link between lavish spending on celluloid spectacles and the seemingly insatiable appetite for tubular meats. This paper offers a quirky yet thought-provoking exploration of the intersection between film finance and competitive eating, shedding light on the quirky quirks of these seemingly disparate domains.

ChatGPT:

movie budget, Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition, film finance, correlation between movie budgets and hotdog consumption, blockbuster budgets, competitive eating, cinematic analysis, data analysis, celluloid spectacles

*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

Budget for largest movie production
Detailed data title: Biggest budget for a movie produced
Source: The Numbers
See what else correlates with Budget for largest movie production

Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion
Detailed data title: Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion
Source: Wikipedia
See what else correlates with Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

Correlation r = 0.8740617 (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 = 0.7639839 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 76.4% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Budget for largest movie production) over the 44 years from 1979 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 9.4E-15. 0.0000000000000094397737618719
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 0.87 in 9.4E-13% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 105,934,742,211,629 random variables You don't actually need 105 trillion variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

p-value calculations are useful for understanding the probability of a result happening by chance. They are most useful when used to highlight the risk of a fluke outcome. For example, if you calculate a p-value of 0.30, the risk that the result is a fluke is high. It is good to know that! But there are lots of ways to get a p-value of less than 0.01, as evidenced by this project.

In this particular case, the values are so extreme as to be meaningless. That's why no one reports p-values with specificity after they drop below 0.01.

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 43 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 43 because we have two variables measured over a period of 44 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.

[ 0.78, 0.93 ] 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.
19791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
Budget for largest movie production (Dollars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
Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion (Hotdogs eaten)99.5111110.59.511.7515.513.51015.51621.519172019.522.2524.51920.25255050.544.553.334953.7566596854626869616270727471757663




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([35000000000,44000000000,54000000000,46000000000,39000000000,48000000000,44000000000,40000000000,40000000000,70000000000,70000000000,70000000000,100000000000,80000000000,85000000000,100000000000,175000000000,100000000000,200000000000,140000000000,175000000000,127500000000,151500000000,142000000000,170000000000,200000000000,207000000000,232000000000,300000000000,230000000000,425000000000,260000000000,250000000000,275000000000,275000000000,250000000000,365000000000,263000000000,300000000000,300000000000,400000000000,205000000000,250000000000,460000000000,])
array_2 = np.array([9,9.5,11,11,10.5,9.5,11.75,15.5,13.5,10,15.5,16,21.5,19,17,20,19.5,22.25,24.5,19,20.25,25,50,50.5,44.5,53.33,49,53.75,66,59,68,54,62,68,69,61,62,70,72,74,71,75,76,63,])
array_1_name = "Budget for largest movie production"
array_2_name = "Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion"

# 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?

You're a rater extraordinaire!


Correlation ID: 1444 · Black Variable ID: 21 · Red Variable ID: 500
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0