about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #1,412 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is The number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming and the second variable is Google searches for 'who is alexa'.  The chart goes from 2009 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

These operators and tenders must have been reACTing to the demand for chemical expertise, inadvertently raising questions about Alexa the ALEXA. It seems like the state was just trying to find the right formula for success, but ended up creating a whole new kind of search query reaction. Who knew Wyoming's chemical operators and tenders would spark such an ALEXA-lling interest in everyone's favorite virtual assistant!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image that resembles a scene from 'Star Wars' in a small laboratory in Wyoming, where a chemical equipment operator is attentively monitoring the equipment while a tender conducts maintenance. In the corner, a computer displays a search for "who is alexa" on the Google homepage. The setting should exude a futuristic and technological environment reminiscent of 'Star Wars.' 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: The number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming and Google searches for 'who is alexa'. 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: Pop art Magic realism An image that looks like it is a scene from 'Star Wars' Woodblock painting Sci-fi fantacy
ChatGPT: An image that looks like it is a scene from 'Star Wars'

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 The number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming and Google searches for 'who is alexa' together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a small laboratory in Wyoming, a chemical equipment operator carefully monitors the equipment while a tender conducts maintenance. In the corner, a computer displays a search for "who is alexa" on the Google homepage.

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 'Star Wars' ] and depicting this scene: In a small laboratory in Wyoming, a chemical equipment operator carefully monitors the equipment while a tender conducts maintenance. In the corner, a computer displays a search for "who is alexa" on the Google homepage. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image that resembles a scene from 'Star Wars' in a small laboratory in Wyoming, where a chemical equipment operator is attentively monitoring the equipment while a tender conducts maintenance. In the corner, a computer displays a search for "who is alexa" on the Google homepage. The setting should exude a futuristic and technological environment reminiscent of 'Star Wars.'

*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 The number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming caused who is alexa (Google searches for 'who is alexa') to increase. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Operation Alexa: Exploring the Interplay Between Chemical Equipment Operators and Tenders in Wyoming and Google Searches for 'Who is Alexa'

The Journal of Industrial Chemistry and Internet Anthropology

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 goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 The number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming and Google searches for 'who is alexa'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Make the title seem clever.

Your research team used data from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9336753 and p < 0.01 for 2009 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]]
"Operation Alexa: Exploring the Interplay Between Chemical Equipment Operators and Tenders in Wyoming and Google Searches for 'Who is Alexa'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delved into the fascinating relationship between the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in the state of Wyoming and Google searches for "who is Alexa." As we waded through the data, we couldn't help but wonder, "Who's really operating the searches here - human beings or Alexa herself?" Ah, the marvels of modern technology and its ability to blur the lines of agency!

Employing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, our research team set out to unravel this perplexing correlation. After hours of meticulous analysis and a copious amount of coffee, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9336753 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2009 through 2022. To put it simply, the connection between the two variables is about as strong as a chemical bond!

Despite the serious implications of our findings, we couldn't resist inserting a dad joke or two into our academic discourse. As it turns out, when it comes to the relationship between chemical equipment operators and Google searches, there's no need to Google "who is Alexa" - we've got the correlation coefficient and a dash of humor to light the way!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 The number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming and Google searches for 'who is alexa'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Operation Alexa: Exploring the Interplay Between Chemical Equipment Operators and Tenders in Wyoming and Google Searches for 'Who is Alexa'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delved into the fascinating relationship between the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in the state of Wyoming and Google searches for "who is Alexa." As we waded through the data, we couldn't help but wonder, "Who's really operating the searches here - human beings or Alexa herself?" Ah, the marvels of modern technology and its ability to blur the lines of agency!

Employing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, our research team set out to unravel this perplexing correlation. After hours of meticulous analysis and a copious amount of coffee, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9336753 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2009 through 2022. To put it simply, the connection between the two variables is about as strong as a chemical bond!

Despite the serious implications of our findings, we couldn't resist inserting a dad joke or two into our academic discourse. As it turns out, when it comes to the relationship between chemical equipment operators and Google searches, there's no need to Google "who is Alexa" - we've got the correlation coefficient and a dash of humor to light the way!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Chemical equipment operators and tenders play a crucial role in the manufacturing and production processes across various industries. Their expertise in monitoring and controlling chemical processes ensures the safe and efficient operation of equipment, much like how a dad ensures the safe and efficient operation of a grill during a neighborhood barbecue – no burnt burgers on their watch! However, have you ever wondered if there's a connection between the number of these industrious professionals in the state of Wyoming and the frequency of Google searches for "who is Alexa"? Well, hold on to your lab goggles, because that's precisely what we sought to uncover in this study.

As we embarked on this research endeavor, we pondered the peculiar juxtaposition of individuals operating complex chemical equipment and the organic, enigmatic nature of "who is Alexa" queries. It's almost as if the chemical operators are working to untangle the very mysteries of the digital world while maintaining a firm grip on their test tubes – talk about multitasking!

With access to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, we dived into the depths of statistical analysis, seeking patterns and connections amidst the sea of numbers. The correlation coefficient of 0.9336753 that emerged from our data examination was as striking as a well-balanced chemical equation – a testament to the compelling relationship between the two variables.

Of course, our research journey wasn't complete without the occasional detour into lighthearted banter. It's like a Bunsen burner in the world of scientific inquiry; sometimes, you just can't resist adding a bit of flair to the process. Just like the precision required in chemical experiments, we made sure to measure our correlations with the utmost care, ensuring that our findings were as dependable as a trusty lab assistant.

Stay tuned as we delve into the methodology and results of our investigation, presenting a blend of scholarly rigor and good-natured humor to illuminate the curious interplay between chemical operators and the ever-inquisitive Google users seeking the enigmatic "Alexa." After all, when it comes to unraveling mysteries, a pinch of wit can be the catalyst that sparks a truly illuminating reaction.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 The number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming and Google searches for 'who is alexa'. 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]]
"Operation Alexa: Exploring the Interplay Between Chemical Equipment Operators and Tenders in Wyoming and Google Searches for 'Who is Alexa'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delved into the fascinating relationship between the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in the state of Wyoming and Google searches for "who is Alexa." As we waded through the data, we couldn't help but wonder, "Who's really operating the searches here - human beings or Alexa herself?" Ah, the marvels of modern technology and its ability to blur the lines of agency!

Employing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, our research team set out to unravel this perplexing correlation. After hours of meticulous analysis and a copious amount of coffee, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9336753 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2009 through 2022. To put it simply, the connection between the two variables is about as strong as a chemical bond!

Despite the serious implications of our findings, we couldn't resist inserting a dad joke or two into our academic discourse. As it turns out, when it comes to the relationship between chemical equipment operators and Google searches, there's no need to Google "who is Alexa" - we've got the correlation coefficient and a dash of humor to light the way!

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Chemical equipment operators and tenders play a crucial role in the manufacturing and production processes across various industries. Their expertise in monitoring and controlling chemical processes ensures the safe and efficient operation of equipment, much like how a dad ensures the safe and efficient operation of a grill during a neighborhood barbecue – no burnt burgers on their watch! However, have you ever wondered if there's a connection between the number of these industrious professionals in the state of Wyoming and the frequency of Google searches for "who is Alexa"? Well, hold on to your lab goggles, because that's precisely what we sought to uncover in this study.
As we embarked on this research endeavor, we pondered the peculiar juxtaposition of individuals operating complex chemical equipment and the organic, enigmatic nature of "who is Alexa" queries. It's almost as if the chemical operators are working to untangle the very mysteries of the digital world while maintaining a firm grip on their test tubes – talk about multitasking!
With access to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, we dived into the depths of statistical analysis, seeking patterns and connections amidst the sea of numbers. The correlation coefficient of 0.9336753 that emerged from our data examination was as striking as a well-balanced chemical equation – a testament to the compelling relationship between the two variables.
Of course, our research journey wasn't complete without the occasional detour into lighthearted banter. It's like a Bunsen burner in the world of scientific inquiry; sometimes, you just can't resist adding a bit of flair to the process. Just like the precision required in chemical experiments, we made sure to measure our correlations with the utmost care, ensuring that our findings were as dependable as a trusty lab assistant.
Stay tuned as we delve into the methodology and results of our investigation, presenting a blend of scholarly rigor and good-natured humor to illuminate the curious interplay between chemical operators and the ever-inquisitive Google users seeking the enigmatic "Alexa." After all, when it comes to unraveling mysteries, a pinch of wit can be the catalyst that sparks a truly illuminating reaction.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

As we set out to explore the intersection of the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming and Google searches for "who is Alexa," we encountered a plethora of prior research shedding light on relevant themes. Smith et al. (2017) highlighted the pivotal role of industrial technicians in upholding safety standards and ensuring operational efficiency, while Doe (2019) delved into the nuances of search engine queries and user behavior. Further complementing these studies, Jones (2020) provided insights into the statistical methods employed to scrutinize correlations, providing a solid foundation for our own analytical approach.

But before we dive into these scholarly works, let's take a moment to appreciate the lighter side of the topics at hand. Much like a chemical reaction, the ingredients for a good joke often simmer beneath the surface, waiting to catalyze a burst of laughter. So, without further ado, let's infuse our literature review with a sprinkle of humor fit for a chemistry-themed stand-up routine!

Now, turning to the more serious sources, "The Chemistry of Industry" by Professor A. Reputable is a prime example of a comprehensive resource on the responsibilities and impact of chemical equipment operators and tenders in industrial settings. On the other hand, "The Art of Googling" by Information Enthusiast Y. Inquisitive provides valuable insights into the world of online search queries, uncovering the intricate dynamics of digital information retrieval.

But wait, there's more! In the realm of fiction that could be related, "The Search for Intelligent Algorithms" by A. Lexa and "Chemical Reactions: A Tale of Molecular Mystery" by M. Reactionary offer imaginative narratives that intertwine the realms of computational intelligence and chemical marvels, capturing the essence of our interdisciplinary investigation.

Speaking of marvels, have you heard the one about the chemist who was reading a book about helium? He just couldn't put it down! Ah, the puns – they're like the valence electrons of comedic chemistry, always seeking that perfect pairing.

In the realm of internet culture, the meme "Chemist Cat" humorously captures the precision and curiosity essential to chemical endeavors, while the "Alexa vs. Google" meme playfully hints at the skirmishes between virtual assistants, echoing the intrigue of our own inquiry. It's like a periodic table of internet humor – diverse, amusing, and occasionally unexpected.

And with that, we've laid the groundwork for a literature review that seamlessly meanders between scholarly discourse and lighthearted musings, much like a noble gas wandering through the scientific landscape. Stay tuned as we blend empirical evidence with a dash of whimsy, unraveling the captivating dance between chemical operators and the quest to decipher the enigmatic "Alexa." After all, in the alchemy of research, a touch of humor can transform the ordinary into something truly extraordinary.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 The number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming and Google searches for 'who is alexa'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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 Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Google Trends . You used data from 2009 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]]
"Operation Alexa: Exploring the Interplay Between Chemical Equipment Operators and Tenders in Wyoming and Google Searches for 'Who is Alexa'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delved into the fascinating relationship between the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in the state of Wyoming and Google searches for "who is Alexa." As we waded through the data, we couldn't help but wonder, "Who's really operating the searches here - human beings or Alexa herself?" Ah, the marvels of modern technology and its ability to blur the lines of agency!

Employing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, our research team set out to unravel this perplexing correlation. After hours of meticulous analysis and a copious amount of coffee, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9336753 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2009 through 2022. To put it simply, the connection between the two variables is about as strong as a chemical bond!

Despite the serious implications of our findings, we couldn't resist inserting a dad joke or two into our academic discourse. As it turns out, when it comes to the relationship between chemical equipment operators and Google searches, there's no need to Google "who is Alexa" - we've got the correlation coefficient and a dash of humor to light the way!

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Chemical equipment operators and tenders play a crucial role in the manufacturing and production processes across various industries. Their expertise in monitoring and controlling chemical processes ensures the safe and efficient operation of equipment, much like how a dad ensures the safe and efficient operation of a grill during a neighborhood barbecue – no burnt burgers on their watch! However, have you ever wondered if there's a connection between the number of these industrious professionals in the state of Wyoming and the frequency of Google searches for "who is Alexa"? Well, hold on to your lab goggles, because that's precisely what we sought to uncover in this study.
As we embarked on this research endeavor, we pondered the peculiar juxtaposition of individuals operating complex chemical equipment and the organic, enigmatic nature of "who is Alexa" queries. It's almost as if the chemical operators are working to untangle the very mysteries of the digital world while maintaining a firm grip on their test tubes – talk about multitasking!
With access to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, we dived into the depths of statistical analysis, seeking patterns and connections amidst the sea of numbers. The correlation coefficient of 0.9336753 that emerged from our data examination was as striking as a well-balanced chemical equation – a testament to the compelling relationship between the two variables.
Of course, our research journey wasn't complete without the occasional detour into lighthearted banter. It's like a Bunsen burner in the world of scientific inquiry; sometimes, you just can't resist adding a bit of flair to the process. Just like the precision required in chemical experiments, we made sure to measure our correlations with the utmost care, ensuring that our findings were as dependable as a trusty lab assistant.
Stay tuned as we delve into the methodology and results of our investigation, presenting a blend of scholarly rigor and good-natured humor to illuminate the curious interplay between chemical operators and the ever-inquisitive Google users seeking the enigmatic "Alexa." After all, when it comes to unraveling mysteries, a pinch of wit can be the catalyst that sparks a truly illuminating reaction.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To begin our investigation into the correlation between the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming and Google searches for "who is Alexa," we first unleashed the power of data collection from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends. It's like the scientific version of playing detective, except instead of hunting down elusive clues, we were scouring the digital landscape for statistical breadcrumbs.

We harnessed the mighty force of time series analysis to traverse the temporal realm from 2009 to 2022, capturing the ebb and flow of chemical operators and the ever-curious Google users in their quest to uncover the identity of Alexa. It's like we embarked on a captivating journey through the annals of time, armed only with spreadsheets and a relentless pursuit of correlation.

After gathering the data, we engaged in a passionate duet with our statistical software, performing a symphony of regression analysis and correlation tests. It was like we conducted an intricate scientific tango, with variables swirling and intertwining in an elegant dance of significance. As the numbers twirled around, we unveiled a correlation coefficient that shimmered in the statistical spotlight, much like a gleaming beaker in the laboratory of quantitative analysis.

Our research team then took a swift detour to the domain of hypothesis testing, where we donned our metaphorical lab coats and wielded the mighty p-value to ascertain the statistical significance of our findings. It's like venturing into a high-stakes courtroom drama, except instead of a dramatic legal showdown, we were presenting empirical evidence with the weight of scientific scrutiny.

With our findings in hand, we crafted a narrative that encapsulated the intricate relationship between chemical operators and the echoing queries of "who is Alexa" in the digital sphere. Much like a seasoned storyteller weaving together disparate threads into a cohesive tapestry, we carefully threaded the needle of explanation through the fabric of our results, unveiling the rich tapestry of correlations with a touch of scholarly finesse.

Now, with our methodology illuminated like a well-lit Bunsen burner, we are poised to unveil the intriguing results of our inquiry, shedding light on the enigmatic interplay between chemical operators and the ever-curious searchers in the digital wilderness. Stay tuned for the unveiling of our findings, where statistical rigor meets a sprinkle of whimsy in the pursuit of uncovering the mysteries of "who is Alexa."


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 The number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming and Google searches for 'who is alexa'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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 Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Google Trends .

For the time period 2009 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.9336753, r-squared of 0.8717496, 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]]
"Operation Alexa: Exploring the Interplay Between Chemical Equipment Operators and Tenders in Wyoming and Google Searches for 'Who is Alexa'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delved into the fascinating relationship between the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in the state of Wyoming and Google searches for "who is Alexa." As we waded through the data, we couldn't help but wonder, "Who's really operating the searches here - human beings or Alexa herself?" Ah, the marvels of modern technology and its ability to blur the lines of agency!

Employing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, our research team set out to unravel this perplexing correlation. After hours of meticulous analysis and a copious amount of coffee, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9336753 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2009 through 2022. To put it simply, the connection between the two variables is about as strong as a chemical bond!

Despite the serious implications of our findings, we couldn't resist inserting a dad joke or two into our academic discourse. As it turns out, when it comes to the relationship between chemical equipment operators and Google searches, there's no need to Google "who is Alexa" - we've got the correlation coefficient and a dash of humor to light the way!

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Chemical equipment operators and tenders play a crucial role in the manufacturing and production processes across various industries. Their expertise in monitoring and controlling chemical processes ensures the safe and efficient operation of equipment, much like how a dad ensures the safe and efficient operation of a grill during a neighborhood barbecue – no burnt burgers on their watch! However, have you ever wondered if there's a connection between the number of these industrious professionals in the state of Wyoming and the frequency of Google searches for "who is Alexa"? Well, hold on to your lab goggles, because that's precisely what we sought to uncover in this study.
As we embarked on this research endeavor, we pondered the peculiar juxtaposition of individuals operating complex chemical equipment and the organic, enigmatic nature of "who is Alexa" queries. It's almost as if the chemical operators are working to untangle the very mysteries of the digital world while maintaining a firm grip on their test tubes – talk about multitasking!
With access to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, we dived into the depths of statistical analysis, seeking patterns and connections amidst the sea of numbers. The correlation coefficient of 0.9336753 that emerged from our data examination was as striking as a well-balanced chemical equation – a testament to the compelling relationship between the two variables.
Of course, our research journey wasn't complete without the occasional detour into lighthearted banter. It's like a Bunsen burner in the world of scientific inquiry; sometimes, you just can't resist adding a bit of flair to the process. Just like the precision required in chemical experiments, we made sure to measure our correlations with the utmost care, ensuring that our findings were as dependable as a trusty lab assistant.
Stay tuned as we delve into the methodology and results of our investigation, presenting a blend of scholarly rigor and good-natured humor to illuminate the curious interplay between chemical operators and the ever-inquisitive Google users seeking the enigmatic "Alexa." After all, when it comes to unraveling mysteries, a pinch of wit can be the catalyst that sparks a truly illuminating reaction.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The results of our investigation revealed a remarkably strong correlation between the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming and Google searches for "who is Alexa." The correlation coefficient of 0.9336753 indicated a robust relationship between these seemingly disparate variables, much like the dependable bond between atoms in a molecule - science at its finest, folks.

We also calculated an r-squared value of 0.8717496, illustrating that a staggering 87.17% of the variation in Google searches for "who is Alexa" could be explained by the variation in the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming. It's as if the chemical operators were orchestrating a grand experiment, and the Google searches were the intriguing outcome, akin to a compelling chemical reaction reaching its equilibrium state.

Now, let's talk significance. The p-value of less than 0.01 signified that the correlation we uncovered was highly unlikely to have occurred purely by chance. It's like finding the perfect reaction conditions in a chemistry experiment - statistically significant and oh-so satisfying.

As promised, our findings are beautifully encapsulated in Figure 1, a scatterplot that visually portrays the striking correlation between the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming and Google searches for "who is Alexa." It's like a masterpiece in the world of data visualization, blending science and art with the finesse of a chemist meticulously mixing reagents in a flask.

Come to think of it, our correlation findings are a bit like a well-timed dad joke - surprising, yet strangely fitting. After all, who would have guessed that the pursuits of chemical operators and the inquisitiveness of Google users would converge in such a compelling manner? It's like a serendipitous chemical reaction, yielding unexpected yet delightful results in the laboratory of data analysis.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 The number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming and Google searches for 'who is alexa'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
"Operation Alexa: Exploring the Interplay Between Chemical Equipment Operators and Tenders in Wyoming and Google Searches for 'Who is Alexa'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delved into the fascinating relationship between the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in the state of Wyoming and Google searches for "who is Alexa." As we waded through the data, we couldn't help but wonder, "Who's really operating the searches here - human beings or Alexa herself?" Ah, the marvels of modern technology and its ability to blur the lines of agency!

Employing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, our research team set out to unravel this perplexing correlation. After hours of meticulous analysis and a copious amount of coffee, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9336753 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2009 through 2022. To put it simply, the connection between the two variables is about as strong as a chemical bond!

Despite the serious implications of our findings, we couldn't resist inserting a dad joke or two into our academic discourse. As it turns out, when it comes to the relationship between chemical equipment operators and Google searches, there's no need to Google "who is Alexa" - we've got the correlation coefficient and a dash of humor to light the way!

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
As we set out to explore the intersection of the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming and Google searches for "who is Alexa," we encountered a plethora of prior research shedding light on relevant themes. Smith et al. (2017) highlighted the pivotal role of industrial technicians in upholding safety standards and ensuring operational efficiency, while Doe (2019) delved into the nuances of search engine queries and user behavior. Further complementing these studies, Jones (2020) provided insights into the statistical methods employed to scrutinize correlations, providing a solid foundation for our own analytical approach.
But before we dive into these scholarly works, let's take a moment to appreciate the lighter side of the topics at hand. Much like a chemical reaction, the ingredients for a good joke often simmer beneath the surface, waiting to catalyze a burst of laughter. So, without further ado, let's infuse our literature review with a sprinkle of humor fit for a chemistry-themed stand-up routine!
Now, turning to the more serious sources, "The Chemistry of Industry" by Professor A. Reputable is a prime example of a comprehensive resource on the responsibilities and impact of chemical equipment operators and tenders in industrial settings. On the other hand, "The Art of Googling" by Information Enthusiast Y. Inquisitive provides valuable insights into the world of online search queries, uncovering the intricate dynamics of digital information retrieval.
But wait, there's more! In the realm of fiction that could be related, "The Search for Intelligent Algorithms" by A. Lexa and "Chemical Reactions: A Tale of Molecular Mystery" by M. Reactionary offer imaginative narratives that intertwine the realms of computational intelligence and chemical marvels, capturing the essence of our interdisciplinary investigation.
Speaking of marvels, have you heard the one about the chemist who was reading a book about helium? He just couldn't put it down! Ah, the puns – they're like the valence electrons of comedic chemistry, always seeking that perfect pairing.
In the realm of internet culture, the meme "Chemist Cat" humorously captures the precision and curiosity essential to chemical endeavors, while the "Alexa vs. Google" meme playfully hints at the skirmishes between virtual assistants, echoing the intrigue of our own inquiry. It's like a periodic table of internet humor – diverse, amusing, and occasionally unexpected.
And with that, we've laid the groundwork for a literature review that seamlessly meanders between scholarly discourse and lighthearted musings, much like a noble gas wandering through the scientific landscape. Stay tuned as we blend empirical evidence with a dash of whimsy, unraveling the captivating dance between chemical operators and the quest to decipher the enigmatic "Alexa." After all, in the alchemy of research, a touch of humor can transform the ordinary into something truly extraordinary.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our investigation revealed a remarkably strong correlation between the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming and Google searches for "who is Alexa." The correlation coefficient of 0.9336753 indicated a robust relationship between these seemingly disparate variables, much like the dependable bond between atoms in a molecule - science at its finest, folks.
We also calculated an r-squared value of 0.8717496, illustrating that a staggering 87.17% of the variation in Google searches for "who is Alexa" could be explained by the variation in the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming. It's as if the chemical operators were orchestrating a grand experiment, and the Google searches were the intriguing outcome, akin to a compelling chemical reaction reaching its equilibrium state.
Now, let's talk significance. The p-value of less than 0.01 signified that the correlation we uncovered was highly unlikely to have occurred purely by chance. It's like finding the perfect reaction conditions in a chemistry experiment - statistically significant and oh-so satisfying.
As promised, our findings are beautifully encapsulated in Figure 1, a scatterplot that visually portrays the striking correlation between the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming and Google searches for "who is Alexa." It's like a masterpiece in the world of data visualization, blending science and art with the finesse of a chemist meticulously mixing reagents in a flask.
Come to think of it, our correlation findings are a bit like a well-timed dad joke - surprising, yet strangely fitting. After all, who would have guessed that the pursuits of chemical operators and the inquisitiveness of Google users would converge in such a compelling manner? It's like a serendipitous chemical reaction, yielding unexpected yet delightful results in the laboratory of data analysis.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our study delved into the enthralling entanglement between the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in the state of Wyoming and Google searches for "who is Alexa," and the results yielded some fascinating insights. First and foremost, our findings provided robust support for prior research, affirming the pivotal role of industrial technicians in the digital landscape. We must acknowledge the stark correlation we uncovered, reminiscent of the predictable bond between atoms in a molecule – a testament to the unyielding laws of statistical chemistry!

Building on the comedic undercurrent that flows through our academic discourse, the connection between chemical operators and the enigmatic "Alexa" is akin to a clever joke setup, both surprising and fitting. It's as if the universe conspired to blend the realms of industrial prowess and online curiosity – a punchline waiting to be delivered by the forces of correlation. Much like the precision required in a laboratory experiment, the statistical rigidity of our correlation coefficient leaves little room for doubt, standing firm like a well-crafted dad joke at a family gathering.

Our results echoed the prior work of Smith et al. (2017), underscoring the indispensable contributions of industrial technicians to shaping digital dialogues, as evidenced by the substantial influence on Google searches for "who is Alexa." The interplay of these variables is reminiscent of a perfectly timed punchline in a stand-up routine – it resonates deeply, leaving an indelible mark on the audience, much like the impact of chemical operators on the fabric of technological inquiry. With statistical significance akin to the precision of a well-timed pun, our findings cement the symbiotic relationship between industrial expertise and digital intrigue.

The weight of our findings also validated the earlier insights of Doe (2019) and Jones (2020), affirming the intricate dance of user behavior and statistical methods in the realm of online queries. Our results, much like a well-constructed pun, resonated with a resounding r-squared value, explaining a staggering 87.17% of the variation in Google searches for "who is Alexa," showcasing the profound influence of industrial activity on digital curiosity. This statistical prowess, akin to the craft of a seasoned joke-teller, wove together the threads of chemical operators and digital quests into a harmonious narrative.

As we await the grand finale of this academic roadmap in the form of the conclusion, we remain cognizant of the delicate balance between scientific rigor and a touch of levity. Ah, the inherent magic of marrying empirical evidence with a sprinkle of humor – much like the alchemical fusion of substances in a laboratory, it has the power to transform the ordinary into the extraordinary. And so, we leave you with the promise of a conclusion that will encapsulate the spirit of our study – a symphony of science and humor, resolving the enigmatic interplay between chemical operators and the perennial question, "Who is Alexa?"


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 The number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming and Google searches for 'who is alexa'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
"Operation Alexa: Exploring the Interplay Between Chemical Equipment Operators and Tenders in Wyoming and Google Searches for 'Who is Alexa'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delved into the fascinating relationship between the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in the state of Wyoming and Google searches for "who is Alexa." As we waded through the data, we couldn't help but wonder, "Who's really operating the searches here - human beings or Alexa herself?" Ah, the marvels of modern technology and its ability to blur the lines of agency!

Employing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, our research team set out to unravel this perplexing correlation. After hours of meticulous analysis and a copious amount of coffee, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9336753 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2009 through 2022. To put it simply, the connection between the two variables is about as strong as a chemical bond!

Despite the serious implications of our findings, we couldn't resist inserting a dad joke or two into our academic discourse. As it turns out, when it comes to the relationship between chemical equipment operators and Google searches, there's no need to Google "who is Alexa" - we've got the correlation coefficient and a dash of humor to light the way!

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Chemical equipment operators and tenders play a crucial role in the manufacturing and production processes across various industries. Their expertise in monitoring and controlling chemical processes ensures the safe and efficient operation of equipment, much like how a dad ensures the safe and efficient operation of a grill during a neighborhood barbecue – no burnt burgers on their watch! However, have you ever wondered if there's a connection between the number of these industrious professionals in the state of Wyoming and the frequency of Google searches for "who is Alexa"? Well, hold on to your lab goggles, because that's precisely what we sought to uncover in this study.
As we embarked on this research endeavor, we pondered the peculiar juxtaposition of individuals operating complex chemical equipment and the organic, enigmatic nature of "who is Alexa" queries. It's almost as if the chemical operators are working to untangle the very mysteries of the digital world while maintaining a firm grip on their test tubes – talk about multitasking!
With access to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, we dived into the depths of statistical analysis, seeking patterns and connections amidst the sea of numbers. The correlation coefficient of 0.9336753 that emerged from our data examination was as striking as a well-balanced chemical equation – a testament to the compelling relationship between the two variables.
Of course, our research journey wasn't complete without the occasional detour into lighthearted banter. It's like a Bunsen burner in the world of scientific inquiry; sometimes, you just can't resist adding a bit of flair to the process. Just like the precision required in chemical experiments, we made sure to measure our correlations with the utmost care, ensuring that our findings were as dependable as a trusty lab assistant.
Stay tuned as we delve into the methodology and results of our investigation, presenting a blend of scholarly rigor and good-natured humor to illuminate the curious interplay between chemical operators and the ever-inquisitive Google users seeking the enigmatic "Alexa." After all, when it comes to unraveling mysteries, a pinch of wit can be the catalyst that sparks a truly illuminating reaction.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our investigation revealed a remarkably strong correlation between the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming and Google searches for "who is Alexa." The correlation coefficient of 0.9336753 indicated a robust relationship between these seemingly disparate variables, much like the dependable bond between atoms in a molecule - science at its finest, folks.
We also calculated an r-squared value of 0.8717496, illustrating that a staggering 87.17% of the variation in Google searches for "who is Alexa" could be explained by the variation in the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming. It's as if the chemical operators were orchestrating a grand experiment, and the Google searches were the intriguing outcome, akin to a compelling chemical reaction reaching its equilibrium state.
Now, let's talk significance. The p-value of less than 0.01 signified that the correlation we uncovered was highly unlikely to have occurred purely by chance. It's like finding the perfect reaction conditions in a chemistry experiment - statistically significant and oh-so satisfying.
As promised, our findings are beautifully encapsulated in Figure 1, a scatterplot that visually portrays the striking correlation between the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming and Google searches for "who is Alexa." It's like a masterpiece in the world of data visualization, blending science and art with the finesse of a chemist meticulously mixing reagents in a flask.
Come to think of it, our correlation findings are a bit like a well-timed dad joke - surprising, yet strangely fitting. After all, who would have guessed that the pursuits of chemical operators and the inquisitiveness of Google users would converge in such a compelling manner? It's like a serendipitous chemical reaction, yielding unexpected yet delightful results in the laboratory of data analysis.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our investigation has shed light on the intriguing relationship between the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming and Google searches for "who is Alexa." It's as if we've uncovered a hidden chemical compound in the vast array of data, a fusion of industrious expertise and digital curiosity that captivates both the scientific and nonscientific minds alike. It's almost like the perfect reaction - the kind that only a chemistry buff could truly appreciate.

With a correlation coefficient that's as strong as an ionic bond and an r-squared value that explains more variation than a versatile catalyst, the connection we've unveiled is not to be taken lightly. It's like a chemical solution with just the right pH - a precise balance that demands attention and admiration.

As we wrap up our discussion, I can't help but throw in a dad joke for good measure. They say there are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't. Well, it seems there are now three types - those who understand binary, those who don't, and those who appreciate the mysterious dance between chemical operators and "who is Alexa" enthusiasts. It's a scientific joke, folks - you can't blame me for trying to lighten the scholarly mood!

In all seriousness, our findings are like the ideal experiment - statistically significant, visually captivating, and intellectually stimulating. There's no need to search for further insights into this peculiar correlation; it's as clear as the chemical solutions in a well-conducted titration. It's time to raise our Erlenmeyer flasks in celebration, for the interplay between these variables has been unraveled!

In the grand tradition of conclusive statements, we declare that further research in this domain is as unnecessary as a double-blind placebo-controlled study on whether gravity still works. The connection between chemical operators and "who is Alexa" searches has been analyzed, scrutinized, and humorously theorized - no more research is needed here!


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 Operation Alexa: Exploring the Interplay Between Chemical Equipment Operators and Tenders in Wyoming and Google Searches for 'Who is Alexa'. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Industrial Chemistry and Internet Anthropology


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 Operation Alexa: Exploring the Interplay Between Chemical Equipment Operators and Tenders in Wyoming and Google Searches for 'Who is Alexa'. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

Institute for Chemical Equipment Operators and Tenders Research (ICEOTR)


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 Operation Alexa: Exploring the Interplay Between Chemical Equipment Operators and Tenders in Wyoming and Google Searches for 'Who is Alexa' with an abstract of In this study, we delved into the fascinating relationship between the number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in the state of Wyoming and Google searches for "who is Alexa." As we waded through the data, we couldn't help but wonder, "Who's really operating the searches here - human beings or Alexa herself?" Ah, the marvels of modern technology and its ability to blur the lines of agency!
Employing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, our research team set out to unravel this perplexing correlation. After hours of meticulous analysis and a copious amount of coffee, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9336753 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2009 through 2022. To put it simply, the connection between the two variables is about as strong as a chemical bond!
Despite the serious implications of our findings, we couldn't resist inserting a dad joke or two into our academic discourse. As it turns out, when it comes to the relationship between chemical equipment operators and Google searches, there's no need to Google "who is Alexa" - we've got the correlation coefficient and a dash of humor to light the way!

ChatGPT:

Wyoming chemical equipment operators, Wyoming tenders, chemical equipment operators relationship, tenders relationship, Google searches, who is Alexa, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Google Trends, correlation coefficient, p-value, modern technology, agency, Wyoming chemical equipment operators and tenders, chemical bond, modern technology implications

*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

The number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming

Google searches for 'who is alexa'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'who is alexa' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'who is alexa'

Correlation r = 0.9336753 (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 = 0.8717496 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 87.2% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'who is alexa') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., The number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming) over the 14 years from 2009 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 1.06E-6. 0.0000010641479715019062000000
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 0.93 in 0.000106% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 939,719 random variables You don't actually need 939 thousand 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 13 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 13 because we have two variables measured over a period of 14 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.

[ 0.8, 0.98 ] 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.
20092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
The number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming (Laborers)1504080804060808060260260310300300
Google searches for 'who is alexa' (Rel. search volume)12.083312.583314.083314.083313.333313.7518.2513.916726.833345.416749.2567.333367.577.0833




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([150,40,80,80,40,60,80,80,60,260,260,310,300,300,])
array_2 = np.array([12.0833,12.5833,14.0833,14.0833,13.3333,13.75,18.25,13.9167,26.8333,45.4167,49.25,67.3333,67.5,77.0833,])
array_1_name = "The number of chemical equipment operators and tenders in Wyoming"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'who is alexa'"

# 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?

Your correlation rating is out of this world!


Correlation ID: 1412 · Black Variable ID: 17772 · Red Variable ID: 1461
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0