Download png, svg
AI explanation
As the air became cleaner, the residents of Marietta found themselves with a newfound zest for life. Instead of staying cooped up indoors watching dramatic soap operas, they were out and about, enjoying the fresh, breathable air. The tantalizing scent of cleanliness wafting through the city simply couldn't compete with the melodramatic plotlines of Days of Our Lives, leading to a surprising drop in viewership. It seems like the real 'Days of Our Lives' were now being lived outside, thanks to the delightful air quality improvements.Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Prompt: Using the style of "Data cyber art," generate an image of Marietta, Ohio, where the hazy fog of air pollution begins to clear, revealing a brighter shade of blue sky. Residents are depicted stepping out of their homes, taking deep breaths of the cleaner air. Local parks show people gathering for outdoor activities, with quieter streets. Additionally, illustrate television screens in households displaying a noticeable drop in viewership for Days of Our Lives as the residents embrace the fresh air instead. 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: Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and Viewership count for Days of Our Lives. 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: Cute 2D animation Brutalism a funny image macro Data cyber art Scalar art
ChatGPT: Data cyber art
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 Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and Viewership count for Days of Our Lives, in the following situation: As the air quality improved, residents no longer felt the need to stay indoors and watch television, opting instead to go out and enjoy the cleaner air. This led to a significant drop in viewership for Days of Our Lives.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Marietta, Ohio, the hazy fog of air pollution begins to clear as the sky turns a brighter shade of blue. Residents are seen stepping out of their homes, taking deep breaths of the cleaner air. The streets are quieter as people gather in local parks, enjoying outdoor activities. Meanwhile, the television screens in households show a noticeable drop in viewership for Days of Our Lives as the residents embrace the fresh air instead.
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: [ Data cyber art ] and depicting this scene: In Marietta, Ohio, the hazy fog of air pollution begins to clear as the sky turns a brighter shade of blue. Residents are seen stepping out of their homes, taking deep breaths of the cleaner air. The streets are quieter as people gather in local parks, enjoying outdoor activities. Meanwhile, the television screens in households show a noticeable drop in viewership for Days of Our Lives as the residents embrace the fresh air instead. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Prompt: Using the style of "Data cyber art," generate an image of Marietta, Ohio, where the hazy fog of air pollution begins to clear, revealing a brighter shade of blue sky. Residents are depicted stepping out of their homes, taking deep breaths of the cleaner air. Local parks show people gathering for outdoor activities, with quieter streets. Additionally, illustrate television screens in households displaying a noticeable drop in viewership for Days of Our Lives as the residents embrace the fresh air instead.
*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.
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 a decrease in Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio caused Viewership count for Days of Our Lives to decrease.
AI academic paper
Pollution and Plotlines: Probing the Relationship between Air Pollution in Marietta and the Viewership of Days of Our Lives Journal of Environmental Media Studies Jan 2024 Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real! |
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and Viewership count for Days of Our Lives. 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 Environmental Protection Agency and Wikipedia to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.7726602 and p < 0.01 for 1990 to 2020.
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]]
Pollution and Plotlines: Probing the Relationship between Air Pollution in Marietta and the Viewership of Days of Our Lives
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the potential link between air pollution levels in Marietta, Ohio, and the viewership count for the long-running soap opera, Days of Our Lives. Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Wikipedia, we employed rigorous statistical analyses to illuminate the intricate interplay between toxic air emissions and daytime drama enthusiasts. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.7726602 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 1990 to 2020, establishing a compelling connection between the two seemingly disparate phenomena. Furthermore, our study sheds light on the possible mechanisms underlying this relationship, offering intriguing insights into the potential influence of air quality on television preferences. While we refrain from drawing causal inferences, the implications of our research provoke contemplation on the unexpected ramifications of environmental factors on entertainment choices. This investigation not only advances our understanding of the complex dynamics between pollution and plotlines but also underscores the importance of considering unconventional determinants of media consumption.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and Viewership count for Days of Our Lives. 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]]
Pollution and Plotlines: Probing the Relationship between Air Pollution in Marietta and the Viewership of Days of Our Lives
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the potential link between air pollution levels in Marietta, Ohio, and the viewership count for the long-running soap opera, Days of Our Lives. Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Wikipedia, we employed rigorous statistical analyses to illuminate the intricate interplay between toxic air emissions and daytime drama enthusiasts. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.7726602 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 1990 to 2020, establishing a compelling connection between the two seemingly disparate phenomena. Furthermore, our study sheds light on the possible mechanisms underlying this relationship, offering intriguing insights into the potential influence of air quality on television preferences. While we refrain from drawing causal inferences, the implications of our research provoke contemplation on the unexpected ramifications of environmental factors on entertainment choices. This investigation not only advances our understanding of the complex dynamics between pollution and plotlines but also underscores the importance of considering unconventional determinants of media consumption.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the annals of scientific inquiry, researchers have undertaken explorations of the most unexpected and improbable associations, delving into the enigmatic interconnections that permeate the fabric of our world. From the symbiotic relationship between bees and flowers to the perplexing correlation between the consumption of spicy foods and the frequency of superhero dreams, the realm of empirical investigation is replete with surprises and curiosities. In this vein, the present study embarks on an expedition into the uncharted territory of entertainment and environmental factors, seeking to unravel the intriguing nexus between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio, and the viewership count for the venerable soap opera, Days of Our Lives.
As the world grapples with the pernicious effects of air pollution, particularly in industrialized regions such as Marietta, the ramifications of this environmental malaise extend beyond the confines of respiratory health and ecological equilibrium. Meanwhile, the enduring saga of Days of Our Lives has captivated audiences for decades, weaving a tapestry of melodrama and intrigue that has withstood the test of time. It is amidst this backdrop of polluted skies and televised plotlines that our inquisitive minds were drawn to explore the possibility of a correlation, no matter how seemingly implausible, between these disparate domains.
The allure of uncovering tantalizing connections between unrelated phenomena beckoned us to embark on a meticulous examination, guided by the beacon of statistical inquiry. Harnessing the formidable power of data from the Environmental Protection Agency documenting the atmospheric composition of Marietta, Ohio, and juxtaposing it with the viewership statistics of Days of Our Lives gleaned from the digital archives of Wikipedia, we set out on a quantitative odyssey to unearth any hint of coherence between these seemingly incongruous variables. With the venerable tools of correlation analysis and hypothesis testing as our compass, we endeavored to navigate the labyrinthine terrain of environmental pollution and soap opera fervor, fortified by a steadfast commitment to scientific rigor and a penchant for the unexpected.
In the pages that ensue, we unveil the fruits of our labor, shedding light on a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.7726602 and a resoundingly significant p-value of less than 0.01, spanning the temporal expanse from 1990 to 2020. But our journey does not conclude merely with these statistical revelations; we embark on a quest to discern the potential mechanisms underpinning this curious relationship, probing the depths of possible explanations for the entwined fates of polluted air and televised drama. As we venture forth, we are mindful of the weighty responsibility that accompanies our findings, refraining from attributing causality to mere correlation, as befits the humble ethos of empirical inquiry.
As we invite our esteemed readers to accompany us on this scholarly escapade, we hope to evoke a spirit of inquisitiveness and contemplation, prompting a reconsideration of the hidden influences that shape our entertainment preferences and, by extension, the peculiarly far-reaching consequences of environmental factors. Ultimately, our foray into the intersection of pollution and plotlines stands as a testament to the boundless vistas of inquiry that await those audacious enough to peer into the nebulous depths of scientific curiosity.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and Viewership count for Days of Our Lives. 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 cite some social media posts you read that seem to be related.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Pollution and Plotlines: Probing the Relationship between Air Pollution in Marietta and the Viewership of Days of Our Lives
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the potential link between air pollution levels in Marietta, Ohio, and the viewership count for the long-running soap opera, Days of Our Lives. Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Wikipedia, we employed rigorous statistical analyses to illuminate the intricate interplay between toxic air emissions and daytime drama enthusiasts. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.7726602 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 1990 to 2020, establishing a compelling connection between the two seemingly disparate phenomena. Furthermore, our study sheds light on the possible mechanisms underlying this relationship, offering intriguing insights into the potential influence of air quality on television preferences. While we refrain from drawing causal inferences, the implications of our research provoke contemplation on the unexpected ramifications of environmental factors on entertainment choices. This investigation not only advances our understanding of the complex dynamics between pollution and plotlines but also underscores the importance of considering unconventional determinants of media consumption.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the annals of scientific inquiry, researchers have undertaken explorations of the most unexpected and improbable associations, delving into the enigmatic interconnections that permeate the fabric of our world. From the symbiotic relationship between bees and flowers to the perplexing correlation between the consumption of spicy foods and the frequency of superhero dreams, the realm of empirical investigation is replete with surprises and curiosities. In this vein, the present study embarks on an expedition into the uncharted territory of entertainment and environmental factors, seeking to unravel the intriguing nexus between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio, and the viewership count for the venerable soap opera, Days of Our Lives.
As the world grapples with the pernicious effects of air pollution, particularly in industrialized regions such as Marietta, the ramifications of this environmental malaise extend beyond the confines of respiratory health and ecological equilibrium. Meanwhile, the enduring saga of Days of Our Lives has captivated audiences for decades, weaving a tapestry of melodrama and intrigue that has withstood the test of time. It is amidst this backdrop of polluted skies and televised plotlines that our inquisitive minds were drawn to explore the possibility of a correlation, no matter how seemingly implausible, between these disparate domains.
The allure of uncovering tantalizing connections between unrelated phenomena beckoned us to embark on a meticulous examination, guided by the beacon of statistical inquiry. Harnessing the formidable power of data from the Environmental Protection Agency documenting the atmospheric composition of Marietta, Ohio, and juxtaposing it with the viewership statistics of Days of Our Lives gleaned from the digital archives of Wikipedia, we set out on a quantitative odyssey to unearth any hint of coherence between these seemingly incongruous variables. With the venerable tools of correlation analysis and hypothesis testing as our compass, we endeavored to navigate the labyrinthine terrain of environmental pollution and soap opera fervor, fortified by a steadfast commitment to scientific rigor and a penchant for the unexpected.
In the pages that ensue, we unveil the fruits of our labor, shedding light on a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.7726602 and a resoundingly significant p-value of less than 0.01, spanning the temporal expanse from 1990 to 2020. But our journey does not conclude merely with these statistical revelations; we embark on a quest to discern the potential mechanisms underpinning this curious relationship, probing the depths of possible explanations for the entwined fates of polluted air and televised drama. As we venture forth, we are mindful of the weighty responsibility that accompanies our findings, refraining from attributing causality to mere correlation, as befits the humble ethos of empirical inquiry.
As we invite our esteemed readers to accompany us on this scholarly escapade, we hope to evoke a spirit of inquisitiveness and contemplation, prompting a reconsideration of the hidden influences that shape our entertainment preferences and, by extension, the peculiarly far-reaching consequences of environmental factors. Ultimately, our foray into the intersection of pollution and plotlines stands as a testament to the boundless vistas of inquiry that await those audacious enough to peer into the nebulous depths of scientific curiosity.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Numerous scholarly inquiries have probed the intriguing interplay between seemingly disconnected phenomena, offering a panoramic view of the unexpected associations that pervade our world. In "Air Pollution and Its Effects on Human Health," Smith and Doe delve into the multifaceted consequences of airborne contaminants, elucidating the pervasive impacts on respiratory well-being and environmental equilibrium. Similarly, Jones et al., in "Soap Operas and Viewership Dynamics," scrutinize the intricate dynamics of television ratings and audience engagement, unraveling the enigmatic allure of daytime melodramas within the realm of popular culture.
Venturing beyond the confines of scholarly journals, the exploration of tangential links between environmental factors and entertainment choices beckons us to scrutinize a diverse array of literature. From "The Global Economic Impact of Air Pollution" to "The Soap Opera Effect: How TV Viewership Shapes Social Norms," the interdisciplinary web of evidence serves as a testament to the persistent human fascination with the unexpected and the peculiar. Turning to the realm of fiction, the novels "The Polluted Plotline" and "Days of Smoggy Lives" offer whimsical renderings of the potential influence of atmospheric malaise on the melodramatic tapestries of fictional narratives, underscoring the blurred boundaries between reality and imaginative storytelling in the collective consciousness.
Supplementing the formal literature, anecdotal fragments of insight gleaned from social media platforms offer a glimpse into the zeitgeist surrounding the confluence of pollution and plotlines. A tweet asserting, "The fumes of Marietta seem to have seeped into my soap opera viewing habits #DramaInTheAir," encapsulates the subtle infusion of levity and astuteness that mark the discourse surrounding this uncanny correlation. Furthermore, a Facebook post pondering, "Is there a connection between polluted air and perplexing plot twists? #AirPollutionConspiracies," embodies the spirit of speculation and inquiry that permeates public contemplation of this curious juxtaposition.
In synthesizing this diverse array of sources, we confront a kaleidoscope of perspectives that converge to illuminate the cryptic relationship between air pollution in Marietta and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives. As we navigate the labyrinthine terrain of empirical inquiry, the unanticipated convergence of environmental malaise and televised drama unveils a rich tapestry of discovery, compelling us to consider the unexpected implications of environmental factors on the fabric of our entertainment preferences.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and Viewership count for Days of Our Lives. 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 Environmental Protection Agency and Wikipedia . You used data from 1990 to 2020
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]]
Pollution and Plotlines: Probing the Relationship between Air Pollution in Marietta and the Viewership of Days of Our Lives
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the potential link between air pollution levels in Marietta, Ohio, and the viewership count for the long-running soap opera, Days of Our Lives. Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Wikipedia, we employed rigorous statistical analyses to illuminate the intricate interplay between toxic air emissions and daytime drama enthusiasts. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.7726602 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 1990 to 2020, establishing a compelling connection between the two seemingly disparate phenomena. Furthermore, our study sheds light on the possible mechanisms underlying this relationship, offering intriguing insights into the potential influence of air quality on television preferences. While we refrain from drawing causal inferences, the implications of our research provoke contemplation on the unexpected ramifications of environmental factors on entertainment choices. This investigation not only advances our understanding of the complex dynamics between pollution and plotlines but also underscores the importance of considering unconventional determinants of media consumption.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the annals of scientific inquiry, researchers have undertaken explorations of the most unexpected and improbable associations, delving into the enigmatic interconnections that permeate the fabric of our world. From the symbiotic relationship between bees and flowers to the perplexing correlation between the consumption of spicy foods and the frequency of superhero dreams, the realm of empirical investigation is replete with surprises and curiosities. In this vein, the present study embarks on an expedition into the uncharted territory of entertainment and environmental factors, seeking to unravel the intriguing nexus between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio, and the viewership count for the venerable soap opera, Days of Our Lives.
As the world grapples with the pernicious effects of air pollution, particularly in industrialized regions such as Marietta, the ramifications of this environmental malaise extend beyond the confines of respiratory health and ecological equilibrium. Meanwhile, the enduring saga of Days of Our Lives has captivated audiences for decades, weaving a tapestry of melodrama and intrigue that has withstood the test of time. It is amidst this backdrop of polluted skies and televised plotlines that our inquisitive minds were drawn to explore the possibility of a correlation, no matter how seemingly implausible, between these disparate domains.
The allure of uncovering tantalizing connections between unrelated phenomena beckoned us to embark on a meticulous examination, guided by the beacon of statistical inquiry. Harnessing the formidable power of data from the Environmental Protection Agency documenting the atmospheric composition of Marietta, Ohio, and juxtaposing it with the viewership statistics of Days of Our Lives gleaned from the digital archives of Wikipedia, we set out on a quantitative odyssey to unearth any hint of coherence between these seemingly incongruous variables. With the venerable tools of correlation analysis and hypothesis testing as our compass, we endeavored to navigate the labyrinthine terrain of environmental pollution and soap opera fervor, fortified by a steadfast commitment to scientific rigor and a penchant for the unexpected.
In the pages that ensue, we unveil the fruits of our labor, shedding light on a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.7726602 and a resoundingly significant p-value of less than 0.01, spanning the temporal expanse from 1990 to 2020. But our journey does not conclude merely with these statistical revelations; we embark on a quest to discern the potential mechanisms underpinning this curious relationship, probing the depths of possible explanations for the entwined fates of polluted air and televised drama. As we venture forth, we are mindful of the weighty responsibility that accompanies our findings, refraining from attributing causality to mere correlation, as befits the humble ethos of empirical inquiry.
As we invite our esteemed readers to accompany us on this scholarly escapade, we hope to evoke a spirit of inquisitiveness and contemplation, prompting a reconsideration of the hidden influences that shape our entertainment preferences and, by extension, the peculiarly far-reaching consequences of environmental factors. Ultimately, our foray into the intersection of pollution and plotlines stands as a testament to the boundless vistas of inquiry that await those audacious enough to peer into the nebulous depths of scientific curiosity.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In the pursuit of unraveling the enigmatic entanglement between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio, and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives, our research team embarked on a methodologically rigorous expedition, navigating the labyrinthine terrain of data collection, statistical analysis, and the occasional cup of coffee for sustained cognitive performance. Our data collection process was akin to a complex puzzle, with pieces sourced from diverse digital archives and repositories scattered across the vast expanse of the internet, resembling a quest to gather scattered treasures while navigating the perils of misinformation and erroneous data entry.
To begin, we amassed atmospheric data on air quality in Marietta, Ohio, from the Environmental Protection Agency, navigating through a maze of pollutant concentrations and meteorological metrics with the keen-eyed precision akin to a detective in a crime novel. Our extraction and compilation of these emissions records were conducted with methodical care, meticulously organizing the data points into a coherent timeline spanning the years from 1990 to 2020, ensuring that no stray molecule of statistical information eluded our grasp.
Simultaneously, we scoured the digital annals of Wikipedia, sifting through the historical archives of television viewership statistics for the venerable soap opera Days of Our Lives, akin to intrepid explorers seeking clues amidst fragments of online trivia and cultural chronicles. This endeavor involved meticulous verification and cross-referencing of data, akin to deciphering ancient texts, to ascertain the accuracy and reliability of our soap opera viewership figures, an endeavor not without its fair share of unexpected plot twists and cliffhangers.
With our dataset meticulously assembled, we invoked the formidable tools of correlation analysis, unleashing the power of statistical computation reminiscent of a mighty sorcerer casting intricate spells of numerical scrutiny. We used the Spearman rank correlation coefficient to explore the association between air pollution levels and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives, attempting to discern amidst the statistical noise, a whisper of potential relationship, akin to detecting a subtle plot twist amidst the tumultuous drama of daytime television.
Additionally, we performed hypothesis testing to evaluate the significance of the observed correlation, subjecting our data to the crucible of statistical scrutiny where p-values were scrutinized with a diligence reminiscent of a detective interrogating a suspect in a high-stakes mystery novel. The meticulousness of our statistical procedures was akin to carefully balancing the chemical equations of an intricate experiment, striving to discern the hidden alchemy of environmental pollution and televised narrative appeal.
Throughout our endeavor, we remained vigilant and attuned to the potential caveats and confounding variables that could confound our analysis, akin to navigating a labyrinth fraught with unexpected detours and false leads. The overarching aim of our methodological approach was not only to illuminate the statistical connection between air pollution in Marietta and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives but also to mitigate biases and ensure the robustness of our findings, akin to a scientific guardian protecting the integrity of empirical inquiry against the whims of chance and serendipity.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and Viewership count for Days of Our Lives. 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 Environmental Protection Agency and Wikipedia .
For the time period 1990 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.7726602, r-squared of 0.5970037, 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]]
Pollution and Plotlines: Probing the Relationship between Air Pollution in Marietta and the Viewership of Days of Our Lives
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the potential link between air pollution levels in Marietta, Ohio, and the viewership count for the long-running soap opera, Days of Our Lives. Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Wikipedia, we employed rigorous statistical analyses to illuminate the intricate interplay between toxic air emissions and daytime drama enthusiasts. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.7726602 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 1990 to 2020, establishing a compelling connection between the two seemingly disparate phenomena. Furthermore, our study sheds light on the possible mechanisms underlying this relationship, offering intriguing insights into the potential influence of air quality on television preferences. While we refrain from drawing causal inferences, the implications of our research provoke contemplation on the unexpected ramifications of environmental factors on entertainment choices. This investigation not only advances our understanding of the complex dynamics between pollution and plotlines but also underscores the importance of considering unconventional determinants of media consumption.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In the annals of scientific inquiry, researchers have undertaken explorations of the most unexpected and improbable associations, delving into the enigmatic interconnections that permeate the fabric of our world. From the symbiotic relationship between bees and flowers to the perplexing correlation between the consumption of spicy foods and the frequency of superhero dreams, the realm of empirical investigation is replete with surprises and curiosities. In this vein, the present study embarks on an expedition into the uncharted territory of entertainment and environmental factors, seeking to unravel the intriguing nexus between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio, and the viewership count for the venerable soap opera, Days of Our Lives.
As the world grapples with the pernicious effects of air pollution, particularly in industrialized regions such as Marietta, the ramifications of this environmental malaise extend beyond the confines of respiratory health and ecological equilibrium. Meanwhile, the enduring saga of Days of Our Lives has captivated audiences for decades, weaving a tapestry of melodrama and intrigue that has withstood the test of time. It is amidst this backdrop of polluted skies and televised plotlines that our inquisitive minds were drawn to explore the possibility of a correlation, no matter how seemingly implausible, between these disparate domains.
The allure of uncovering tantalizing connections between unrelated phenomena beckoned us to embark on a meticulous examination, guided by the beacon of statistical inquiry. Harnessing the formidable power of data from the Environmental Protection Agency documenting the atmospheric composition of Marietta, Ohio, and juxtaposing it with the viewership statistics of Days of Our Lives gleaned from the digital archives of Wikipedia, we set out on a quantitative odyssey to unearth any hint of coherence between these seemingly incongruous variables. With the venerable tools of correlation analysis and hypothesis testing as our compass, we endeavored to navigate the labyrinthine terrain of environmental pollution and soap opera fervor, fortified by a steadfast commitment to scientific rigor and a penchant for the unexpected.
In the pages that ensue, we unveil the fruits of our labor, shedding light on a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.7726602 and a resoundingly significant p-value of less than 0.01, spanning the temporal expanse from 1990 to 2020. But our journey does not conclude merely with these statistical revelations; we embark on a quest to discern the potential mechanisms underpinning this curious relationship, probing the depths of possible explanations for the entwined fates of polluted air and televised drama. As we venture forth, we are mindful of the weighty responsibility that accompanies our findings, refraining from attributing causality to mere correlation, as befits the humble ethos of empirical inquiry.
As we invite our esteemed readers to accompany us on this scholarly escapade, we hope to evoke a spirit of inquisitiveness and contemplation, prompting a reconsideration of the hidden influences that shape our entertainment preferences and, by extension, the peculiarly far-reaching consequences of environmental factors. Ultimately, our foray into the intersection of pollution and plotlines stands as a testament to the boundless vistas of inquiry that await those audacious enough to peer into the nebulous depths of scientific curiosity.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
The findings of our investigation into the potential connection between air pollution levels in Marietta, Ohio, and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives paint an intriguing portrait of the interplay between environmental quality and television viewership. Our rigorous statistical analyses revealed a notable correlation coefficient of 0.7726602, with an r-squared value of 0.5970037, and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicative of a strong and statistically significant association between these seemingly disparate variables.
Figure 1 visually encapsulates the robust relationship uncovered in our study, depicting a scatterplot that vividly illustrates the striking correlation between air pollution in Marietta and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives. It is indeed a testament to the adage that correlation does not imply causation, but it certainly makes for an entertainingly curious observation when these seemingly unrelated elements coalesce in such a statistical manner.
These findings not only highlight the unexpected implications of environmental factors on entertainment choices but also emphasize the importance of considering unconventional determinants of media consumption. The undeniable connection we uncovered provokes contemplation on the intricate web of influences that undergird individuals' preferences, from atmospheric conditions to daytime drama plotlines.
The robustness of the statistical evidence we have amassed compels a reevaluation of the nuanced factors that shape our recreational inclinations. While we exercise caution in drawing causal inferences from this correlation, the implications of our research are nothing short of compelling, urging further inquiry into the captivating convergence of pollution and plotlines.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and Viewership count for Days of Our Lives. 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]]
Pollution and Plotlines: Probing the Relationship between Air Pollution in Marietta and the Viewership of Days of Our Lives
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the potential link between air pollution levels in Marietta, Ohio, and the viewership count for the long-running soap opera, Days of Our Lives. Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Wikipedia, we employed rigorous statistical analyses to illuminate the intricate interplay between toxic air emissions and daytime drama enthusiasts. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.7726602 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 1990 to 2020, establishing a compelling connection between the two seemingly disparate phenomena. Furthermore, our study sheds light on the possible mechanisms underlying this relationship, offering intriguing insights into the potential influence of air quality on television preferences. While we refrain from drawing causal inferences, the implications of our research provoke contemplation on the unexpected ramifications of environmental factors on entertainment choices. This investigation not only advances our understanding of the complex dynamics between pollution and plotlines but also underscores the importance of considering unconventional determinants of media consumption.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Numerous scholarly inquiries have probed the intriguing interplay between seemingly disconnected phenomena, offering a panoramic view of the unexpected associations that pervade our world. In "Air Pollution and Its Effects on Human Health," Smith and Doe delve into the multifaceted consequences of airborne contaminants, elucidating the pervasive impacts on respiratory well-being and environmental equilibrium. Similarly, Jones et al., in "Soap Operas and Viewership Dynamics," scrutinize the intricate dynamics of television ratings and audience engagement, unraveling the enigmatic allure of daytime melodramas within the realm of popular culture.
Venturing beyond the confines of scholarly journals, the exploration of tangential links between environmental factors and entertainment choices beckons us to scrutinize a diverse array of literature. From "The Global Economic Impact of Air Pollution" to "The Soap Opera Effect: How TV Viewership Shapes Social Norms," the interdisciplinary web of evidence serves as a testament to the persistent human fascination with the unexpected and the peculiar. Turning to the realm of fiction, the novels "The Polluted Plotline" and "Days of Smoggy Lives" offer whimsical renderings of the potential influence of atmospheric malaise on the melodramatic tapestries of fictional narratives, underscoring the blurred boundaries between reality and imaginative storytelling in the collective consciousness.
Supplementing the formal literature, anecdotal fragments of insight gleaned from social media platforms offer a glimpse into the zeitgeist surrounding the confluence of pollution and plotlines. A tweet asserting, "The fumes of Marietta seem to have seeped into my soap opera viewing habits #DramaInTheAir," encapsulates the subtle infusion of levity and astuteness that mark the discourse surrounding this uncanny correlation. Furthermore, a Facebook post pondering, "Is there a connection between polluted air and perplexing plot twists? #AirPollutionConspiracies," embodies the spirit of speculation and inquiry that permeates public contemplation of this curious juxtaposition.
In synthesizing this diverse array of sources, we confront a kaleidoscope of perspectives that converge to illuminate the cryptic relationship between air pollution in Marietta and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives. As we navigate the labyrinthine terrain of empirical inquiry, the unanticipated convergence of environmental malaise and televised drama unveils a rich tapestry of discovery, compelling us to consider the unexpected implications of environmental factors on the fabric of our entertainment preferences.
[[RESULTS]]
The findings of our investigation into the potential connection between air pollution levels in Marietta, Ohio, and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives paint an intriguing portrait of the interplay between environmental quality and television viewership. Our rigorous statistical analyses revealed a notable correlation coefficient of 0.7726602, with an r-squared value of 0.5970037, and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicative of a strong and statistically significant association between these seemingly disparate variables.
Figure 1 visually encapsulates the robust relationship uncovered in our study, depicting a scatterplot that vividly illustrates the striking correlation between air pollution in Marietta and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives. It is indeed a testament to the adage that correlation does not imply causation, but it certainly makes for an entertainingly curious observation when these seemingly unrelated elements coalesce in such a statistical manner.
These findings not only highlight the unexpected implications of environmental factors on entertainment choices but also emphasize the importance of considering unconventional determinants of media consumption. The undeniable connection we uncovered provokes contemplation on the intricate web of influences that undergird individuals' preferences, from atmospheric conditions to daytime drama plotlines.
The robustness of the statistical evidence we have amassed compels a reevaluation of the nuanced factors that shape our recreational inclinations. While we exercise caution in drawing causal inferences from this correlation, the implications of our research are nothing short of compelling, urging further inquiry into the captivating convergence of pollution and plotlines.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
The results of our investigation into the potential nexus between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio, and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives reveal an intriguing correlation that defies conventional expectations. Our findings not only support prior research on the multifaceted ramifications of airborne contaminants but also illuminate the unanticipated influence of environmental quality on television preferences.
The robust correlation coefficient of 0.7726602 generated by our analysis aligns with the broader body of literature, echoing the intricate dynamics elucidated by Smith and Doe in their exploration of the profound implications of air pollution on human health. Just as atmospheric malaise exerts subtle yet pervasive effects on respiratory well-being, our study unravels the subtle, albeit statistically significant, influence of polluted air on the fervent viewership of daytime melodramas. The unexpected convergence of pollution and plotlines thus provokes contemplation on the intricate web of influences that undergird individuals' recreational inclinations, reaffirming the subtle yet indelible imprint of environmental factors on entertainment choices.
Our results also resonate with the scholarly inquiry into viewership dynamics and audience engagement epitomized by Jones et al., as they unraveled the enigmatic allure of soap operas within the realm of popular culture. The strong statistical association between air pollution in Marietta and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives underscores the intricate interplay between environmental quality and television preferences, compelling us to reconsider the conventional determinants of media consumption. While our study refrains from drawing causal inferences, the profound correlation we have unveiled underscores the importance of considering unconventional determinants of entertainment choices, ushering in a new era of contemplation on the unexpected implications of environmental factors on the fabric of our recreational inclinations.
Figure 1 visually encapsulates the robust relationship uncovered in our study, vividly illustrating the striking correlation between air pollution in Marietta and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives. This visual representation not only serves as a testament to the adage that correlation does not imply causation but also conveys the entertainingly curious observation that these seemingly unrelated elements coalesce in such a statistical manner. As researchers, it is both a delight and a humbling reminder of the complex and often whimsical facets of statistical inquiry.
The undeniable connection we have unearthed between pollution and plotlines serves as a nod to the persistent human fascination with the unexpected and the peculiar, underscoring the nuanced factors that shape our recreational inclinations. Our study, while offering a lighthearted departure from conventional research inquiries, presents compelling evidence that beseeches further exploration into the captivating convergence of pollution and plotlines, ushering in a new era of contemplation on the intricate web of influences that undergird individuals' entertainment preferences.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and Viewership count for Days of Our Lives. 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]]
Pollution and Plotlines: Probing the Relationship between Air Pollution in Marietta and the Viewership of Days of Our Lives
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the potential link between air pollution levels in Marietta, Ohio, and the viewership count for the long-running soap opera, Days of Our Lives. Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Wikipedia, we employed rigorous statistical analyses to illuminate the intricate interplay between toxic air emissions and daytime drama enthusiasts. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.7726602 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 1990 to 2020, establishing a compelling connection between the two seemingly disparate phenomena. Furthermore, our study sheds light on the possible mechanisms underlying this relationship, offering intriguing insights into the potential influence of air quality on television preferences. While we refrain from drawing causal inferences, the implications of our research provoke contemplation on the unexpected ramifications of environmental factors on entertainment choices. This investigation not only advances our understanding of the complex dynamics between pollution and plotlines but also underscores the importance of considering unconventional determinants of media consumption.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
In the annals of scientific inquiry, researchers have undertaken explorations of the most unexpected and improbable associations, delving into the enigmatic interconnections that permeate the fabric of our world. From the symbiotic relationship between bees and flowers to the perplexing correlation between the consumption of spicy foods and the frequency of superhero dreams, the realm of empirical investigation is replete with surprises and curiosities. In this vein, the present study embarks on an expedition into the uncharted territory of entertainment and environmental factors, seeking to unravel the intriguing nexus between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio, and the viewership count for the venerable soap opera, Days of Our Lives.
As the world grapples with the pernicious effects of air pollution, particularly in industrialized regions such as Marietta, the ramifications of this environmental malaise extend beyond the confines of respiratory health and ecological equilibrium. Meanwhile, the enduring saga of Days of Our Lives has captivated audiences for decades, weaving a tapestry of melodrama and intrigue that has withstood the test of time. It is amidst this backdrop of polluted skies and televised plotlines that our inquisitive minds were drawn to explore the possibility of a correlation, no matter how seemingly implausible, between these disparate domains.
The allure of uncovering tantalizing connections between unrelated phenomena beckoned us to embark on a meticulous examination, guided by the beacon of statistical inquiry. Harnessing the formidable power of data from the Environmental Protection Agency documenting the atmospheric composition of Marietta, Ohio, and juxtaposing it with the viewership statistics of Days of Our Lives gleaned from the digital archives of Wikipedia, we set out on a quantitative odyssey to unearth any hint of coherence between these seemingly incongruous variables. With the venerable tools of correlation analysis and hypothesis testing as our compass, we endeavored to navigate the labyrinthine terrain of environmental pollution and soap opera fervor, fortified by a steadfast commitment to scientific rigor and a penchant for the unexpected.
In the pages that ensue, we unveil the fruits of our labor, shedding light on a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.7726602 and a resoundingly significant p-value of less than 0.01, spanning the temporal expanse from 1990 to 2020. But our journey does not conclude merely with these statistical revelations; we embark on a quest to discern the potential mechanisms underpinning this curious relationship, probing the depths of possible explanations for the entwined fates of polluted air and televised drama. As we venture forth, we are mindful of the weighty responsibility that accompanies our findings, refraining from attributing causality to mere correlation, as befits the humble ethos of empirical inquiry.
As we invite our esteemed readers to accompany us on this scholarly escapade, we hope to evoke a spirit of inquisitiveness and contemplation, prompting a reconsideration of the hidden influences that shape our entertainment preferences and, by extension, the peculiarly far-reaching consequences of environmental factors. Ultimately, our foray into the intersection of pollution and plotlines stands as a testament to the boundless vistas of inquiry that await those audacious enough to peer into the nebulous depths of scientific curiosity.
[[RESULTS]]
The findings of our investigation into the potential connection between air pollution levels in Marietta, Ohio, and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives paint an intriguing portrait of the interplay between environmental quality and television viewership. Our rigorous statistical analyses revealed a notable correlation coefficient of 0.7726602, with an r-squared value of 0.5970037, and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicative of a strong and statistically significant association between these seemingly disparate variables.
Figure 1 visually encapsulates the robust relationship uncovered in our study, depicting a scatterplot that vividly illustrates the striking correlation between air pollution in Marietta and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives. It is indeed a testament to the adage that correlation does not imply causation, but it certainly makes for an entertainingly curious observation when these seemingly unrelated elements coalesce in such a statistical manner.
These findings not only highlight the unexpected implications of environmental factors on entertainment choices but also emphasize the importance of considering unconventional determinants of media consumption. The undeniable connection we uncovered provokes contemplation on the intricate web of influences that undergird individuals' preferences, from atmospheric conditions to daytime drama plotlines.
The robustness of the statistical evidence we have amassed compels a reevaluation of the nuanced factors that shape our recreational inclinations. While we exercise caution in drawing causal inferences from this correlation, the implications of our research are nothing short of compelling, urging further inquiry into the captivating convergence of pollution and plotlines.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
In conclusion, our investigation sheds luminous insight into the enigmatic interplay between environmental pollution and scripted melodrama, illuminating a correlation that is as captivating as a cliffhanger finale. The robust correlation coefficient of 0.7726602 and a resoundingly significant p-value of less than 0.01, spanning the temporal expanse from 1990 to 2020, leaves little room for doubt regarding the entwined destinies of toxic air emissions and daytime drama devotees.
The ethereal dance of statistics has unveiled a connection that is as inexplicable as the sudden appearance of an amnesiac character in a long-running soap opera. While our results beckon the audience to consider the potential influence of air quality on television preferences, we remain mindful of the perils of attributing causation to mere correlation, like a red herring in a compelling storyline.
As we bid adieu to this enthralling saga, our findings stand as a testament to the unbounded vistas of scientific inquiry, reminding us that even the most improbable associations may harbor profound implications. However, like a well-resolved plotline, there is no need for further research in this area, as we have unraveled the suspenseful mystery of pollution and plotlines to its statistical denouement.
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 Pollution and Plotlines: Probing the Relationship between Air Pollution in Marietta and the Viewership of Days of Our Lives. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
Journal of Environmental Media Studies
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 Pollution and Plotlines: Probing the Relationship between Air Pollution in Marietta and the Viewership of Days of Our Lives. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Society for Environmental Entertainment 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 Pollution and Plotlines: Probing the Relationship between Air Pollution in Marietta and the Viewership of Days of Our Lives with an abstract of This paper investigates the potential link between air pollution levels in Marietta, Ohio, and the viewership count for the long-running soap opera, Days of Our Lives. Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Wikipedia, we employed rigorous statistical analyses to illuminate the intricate interplay between toxic air emissions and daytime drama enthusiasts. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.7726602 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 1990 to 2020, establishing a compelling connection between the two seemingly disparate phenomena. Furthermore, our study sheds light on the possible mechanisms underlying this relationship, offering intriguing insights into the potential influence of air quality on television preferences. While we refrain from drawing causal inferences, the implications of our research provoke contemplation on the unexpected ramifications of environmental factors on entertainment choices. This investigation not only advances our understanding of the complex dynamics between pollution and plotlines but also underscores the importance of considering unconventional determinants of media consumption.
ChatGPT:
Marietta, Ohio air pollution, Days of Our Lives viewership, environmental influence on TV preferences, air quality and entertainment choices, relationship between air pollution and TV viewership, pollution effects on media consumption, Marietta EPA data, Days of Our Lives viewership statistics, air pollution correlation with TV preferences
*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.
Discover a new correlation
View all correlations
View all research papers
Report an error
Data details
Air pollution in Marietta, OhioDetailed data title: Percentage of days with air quality at 'unhealthy for sensitive groups' or worse in Marietta, OH
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio
Viewership count for Days of Our Lives
Detailed data title: Metered viewership count for Days of Our Lives
Source: Wikipedia
See what else correlates with Viewership count for Days of Our Lives
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 = 0.5970037 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 59.7% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Viewership count for Days of Our Lives) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio) over the 31 years from 1990 through 2020.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 3.5E-7. 0.0000003522534595861756000000
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 0.77 in 3.5E-5% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 2,838,865 random variables You don't actually need 2 million 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 30 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 30 because we have two variables measured over a period of 31 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.
[ 0.58, 0.88 ] 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.
1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | |
Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio (Bad air quality days) | 0.160377 | 0.209524 | 0.0772947 | 0.231959 | 0.184834 | 0.135922 | 0.0819672 | 0.0452962 | 0.131488 | 0.153025 | 0.0631579 | 0.087108 | 0.144876 | 0.0445344 | 0.0337553 | 0.128205 | 0.0548523 | 0.10917 | 0.046729 | 0 | 0.046729 | 0.0189573 | 0.0327103 | 0.00469484 | 0.01 | 0.0046729 | 0 | 0 | 0.0122449 | 0 | 0.00408163 |
Viewership count for Days of Our Lives (Nielson share) | 5200000 | 5400000 | 4900000 | 5600000 | 5300000 | 5800000 | 5800000 | 5100000 | 5800000 | 4200000 | 3800000 | 3600000 | 3100000 | 3100000 | 2700000 | 2600000 | 2300000 | 2100000 | 2200000 | 2200000 | 2000000 | 2000000 | 2100000 | 1900000 | 2050000 | 1800000 | 1600000 | 1600000 | 1600000 | 1400000 | 1200000 |
Why this works
- 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.
- 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. - 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([0.160377,0.209524,0.0772947,0.231959,0.184834,0.135922,0.0819672,0.0452962,0.131488,0.153025,0.0631579,0.087108,0.144876,0.0445344,0.0337553,0.128205,0.0548523,0.10917,0.046729,0,0.046729,0.0189573,0.0327103,0.00469484,0.01,0.0046729,0,0,0.0122449,0,0.00408163,])
array_2 = np.array([5200000,5400000,4900000,5600000,5300000,5800000,5800000,5100000,5800000,4200000,3800000,3600000,3100000,3100000,2700000,2600000,2300000,2100000,2200000,2200000,2000000,2000000,2100000,1900000,2050000,1800000,1600000,1600000,1600000,1400000,1200000,])
array_1_name = "Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio"
array_2_name = "Viewership count for Days of Our Lives"
# 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:
- High resolution line chart
The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.
If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.
Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape. - High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
- Alternative high resolution line chart
- Scatterplot
- Portable line chart (png)
- Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
- Line chart for only Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio
- Line chart for only Viewership count for Days of Our Lives
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: Pollution and Plotlines: Probing the Relationship between Air Pollution in Marietta and the Viewership of Days of Our Lives
Hats off to you for rating!
Correlation ID: 2504 · Black Variable ID: 22221 · Red Variable ID: 87