Spurious correlation #3,037 · View random
A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Nuclear power generation in Romania and the second variable is Total number of live births in Australia. The chart goes from 1996 to 2021, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Nuclear power generation in Romania and the second variable is Total number of live births in Australia. The chart goes from 1996 to 2021, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

Download png, svg

AI explanation

The extra glow from the nuclear power plants somehow made its way to Australia, resulting in a baby boom down under. Talk about a power surge leading to population surge!

^{Show image generation prompt} Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image in the style of "a funny image you would see on reddit" that depicts a cozy Romanian village with a modern nuclear power plant standing tall against the serene landscape. Nearby, an elegant European castle serves as the perfect backdrop for romantic getaways, attracting couples from around the world. In the midst of this charming scene, a group of Australian honeymooners joyfully stroll through the cobbled streets, each carrying a precious baby in their arms as souvenirs of their travels. 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: Nuclear power generation in Romania and Total number of live births in Australia. 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: a funny image macro inspired by bauhaus Parallax art a funny image you would see on reddit Cyber folk
ChatGPT: a funny image you would see on reddit

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 Nuclear power generation in Romania and Total number of live births in Australia, in the following situation: Because the increased nuclear power in Romania caused a surge in romantic European getaways, which resulted in an influx of Australian honeymooners bringing back baby souvenirs.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a cozy Romanian village, a modern nuclear power plant stands tall against the serene landscape. Nearby, an elegant European castle serves as the perfect backdrop for romantic getaways, attracting couples from around the world. In the midst of this charming scene, a group of Australian honeymooners joyfully stroll through the cobbled streets, each carrying a precious baby in their arms as souvenirs of their travels.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ a funny image you would see on reddit ] and depicting this scene: In a cozy Romanian village, a modern nuclear power plant stands tall against the serene landscape. Nearby, an elegant European castle serves as the perfect backdrop for romantic getaways, attracting couples from around the world. In the midst of this charming scene, a group of Australian honeymooners joyfully stroll through the cobbled streets, each carrying a precious baby in their arms as souvenirs of their travels. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image in the style of "a funny image you would see on reddit" that depicts a cozy Romanian village with a modern nuclear power plant standing tall against the serene landscape. Nearby, an elegant European castle serves as the perfect backdrop for romantic getaways, attracting couples from around the world. In the midst of this charming scene, a group of Australian honeymooners joyfully stroll through the cobbled streets, each carrying a precious baby in their arms as souvenirs of their travels.

*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.
^{Show prompt for explanation} 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 Nuclear power generation in Romania caused Total number of live births in Australia to increase. Add a funny one-liner at the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)

Nuclear Nuptials: Navigating the Nuptial Nexus between Nuclear Power in Romania and the Number of Neonates in Australia

The Journal of Nuclear Kinetics

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!

^{Show prompt used to generate this paper} 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 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 Nuclear power generation in Romania and Total number of live births in Australia. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name some movies that you watched that are tangentially related to the topic.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Nuclear Nuptials: Navigating the Nuptial Nexus between Nuclear Power in Romania and the Number of Neonates in Australia

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we explore the unexpected connection between nuclear power generation in Romania and the total number of live births in Australia. Hatching this harebrained hypothesis, we gathered data from the Energy Information Administration and Wikipedia, cracking open the case to see if these seemingly unrelated variables harbor a secret connection. Our research uncovers a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9450672 and p < 0.01 for the years 1996 to 2021, leaving us positively glowing with the implications. Through this study, we shed light on an unlikely partnership, demonstrating that when it comes to nuclear power and the stork's delivery route, the lines may be more entangled than previously thought.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the realm of scientific inquiry, one often encounters unexpected relationships and peculiar pairings that prompt further investigation. Such is the case with our current endeavor, where we delved into the intertwining worlds of nuclear power generation in Romania and the total number of live births in Australia. As we embark on this whimsical quest, we find ourselves confronted with a peculiar conundrum – could there be a clandestine connection between these seemingly disparate variables, or are we simply chasing shadows in the laboratory of statistical analysis?
Nuclear power, with its atomic allure and electron enchantment, has long captivated the minds of scientists and policymakers alike. Meanwhile, the arrival of newborns, with their bundle of joys and sleep-deprived nights, has remained a timeless enigma for demographers and pediatricians. What strange forces could possibly bind these two phenomena together, if any? This is the puzzle that has led us down the colorful rabbit hole of correlation, causation, and cosmic coincidence.
As curious minds with a penchant for the peculiar, we could not resist the temptation to unearth the potential liaison between these variables. Armed with data from the Energy Information Administration and the vast troves of knowledge on Wikipedia, we embarked on a journey to explore whether nuclear power in Eastern Europe could somehow influence the cradle of life in the Land Down Under. We meandered through the maze of statistical analysis, armed with robust methodologies and a dash of scientific skepticism, in pursuit of unraveling this unorthodox relationship.
In the following pages, we will elucidate the methods used, the statistical findings obtained, and the implications of our unexpected findings. So, buckle up and prepare to navigate the nuptial nexus between nuclear power and newborns, as we embark on a scientific escapade unlike any other. For as the great scientific sage once quipped, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" (Isaac Asimov).

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

As we wade into the tumultuous tides of this uncharted research endeavor, we set our sights on the existing literature that may shed some light on the bizarre ballet between nuclear power generation in Romania and the total number of live births in Australia. Our search leads us to a myriad of studies, some as solemn as a scientific symposium and others as whimsical as a carnival sideshow.

In "Smith and Doe's Analysis of Nuclear Energy and Demographic Dynamics," the authors find a resounding chorus of skepticism regarding any conceivable connection between the energy patterns of Eastern Europe and the birthing fancies of the Southern Hemisphere. However, our intrepid quest pushes past such skepticism, propelling us into realms where curiosity and statistical significance intersect amidst a nonsensical nexus.

Turning to a more somber tome, "Jones's Demographic Dalliances: A Statistical Study of Unlikely Correlations," we encounter a stern warning against venturing into the land of spurious correlations and caustic conjecture. Nevertheless, armed with our veneer of scientific rigor and a pinch of puckishness, we proceed undeterred into the land of improbable liaisons.

Venturing beyond the confines of scientific treatises, we stumble upon non-fiction works like "The History of Nuclear Power in Eastern Europe" and "The Demographic Dilemma: Exploring Birth Trends Around the World." These tomes, brimming with facts and figures, offer a stern countenance but fail to dampen our fervor for uncovering the clandestine courtship between nuclear power and newborns.

Shifting gears with a touch of levity, we enter the realm of fiction with titles such as "Atomic Babies: A Tale of Nuclear Newborns" and "The Reactor's Lullaby: A Melodic Musing on Nuclear Power and Parenthood." While these works of whimsy offer no empirical insights, their imaginative exploration of atomic allegories is a testament to the human fascination with unlikely connections.

In our gallant pursuit of tangentially related media, we cannot overlook the silver screen. Movies such as "Nuclear Nuptials: From Romania with Love" and "Birthing Bonds: The Atomic Connection" serve as delightful distractions, interweaving the esoteric elements of nuclear power and newborns into cinematic tapestries that range from the intriguing to the absurd. While these motion picture marvels provide entertaining diversions, their contribution to the empirical discourse is, regrettably, scant.

As we conclude this whimsical romp through the annals of literature, we acknowledge the vast expanse of knowledge that awaits us in our quest. Our journey, while peppered with jest, is anchored in the rigorous pursuit of scientific understanding. With a robust foundation laid by previous studies and a dash of mirth to guide us, we press onward to dissect the peculiar pairing of nuclear power in Romania and the number of bouncing bundles Down Under.

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 Nuclear power generation in Romania and Total number of live births in Australia. Make lots of 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 Energy Information Administration and Wikipedia . You used data from 1996 to 2021

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]]
Nuclear Nuptials: Navigating the Nuptial Nexus between Nuclear Power in Romania and the Number of Neonates in Australia

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we explore the unexpected connection between nuclear power generation in Romania and the total number of live births in Australia. Hatching this harebrained hypothesis, we gathered data from the Energy Information Administration and Wikipedia, cracking open the case to see if these seemingly unrelated variables harbor a secret connection. Our research uncovers a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9450672 and p < 0.01 for the years 1996 to 2021, leaving us positively glowing with the implications. Through this study, we shed light on an unlikely partnership, demonstrating that when it comes to nuclear power and the stork's delivery route, the lines may be more entangled than previously thought.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the realm of scientific inquiry, one often encounters unexpected relationships and peculiar pairings that prompt further investigation. Such is the case with our current endeavor, where we delved into the intertwining worlds of nuclear power generation in Romania and the total number of live births in Australia. As we embark on this whimsical quest, we find ourselves confronted with a peculiar conundrum – could there be a clandestine connection between these seemingly disparate variables, or are we simply chasing shadows in the laboratory of statistical analysis?
Nuclear power, with its atomic allure and electron enchantment, has long captivated the minds of scientists and policymakers alike. Meanwhile, the arrival of newborns, with their bundle of joys and sleep-deprived nights, has remained a timeless enigma for demographers and pediatricians. What strange forces could possibly bind these two phenomena together, if any? This is the puzzle that has led us down the colorful rabbit hole of correlation, causation, and cosmic coincidence.
As curious minds with a penchant for the peculiar, we could not resist the temptation to unearth the potential liaison between these variables. Armed with data from the Energy Information Administration and the vast troves of knowledge on Wikipedia, we embarked on a journey to explore whether nuclear power in Eastern Europe could somehow influence the cradle of life in the Land Down Under. We meandered through the maze of statistical analysis, armed with robust methodologies and a dash of scientific skepticism, in pursuit of unraveling this unorthodox relationship.
In the following pages, we will elucidate the methods used, the statistical findings obtained, and the implications of our unexpected findings. So, buckle up and prepare to navigate the nuptial nexus between nuclear power and newborns, as we embark on a scientific escapade unlike any other. For as the great scientific sage once quipped, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" (Isaac Asimov).

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To begin untangling the enigmatic relationship between nuclear power in Romania and the total number of live births in Australia, our research team employed a mix of conventional statistical methods and whimsical wizardry to navigate this peculiar pathway of inquiry. The data for nuclear power generation in Romania was obtained from the Energy Information Administration, while the total number of live births in Australia was graciously provided by the land of wisdom and wonder that is Wikipedia. As we embarked on this curious endeavor, our approach involved a series of steps that would make even the most seasoned researcher do a double take.

Step 1: Data Decontamination
Before diving into the analytical abyss, we first had to ensure the purity of our dataset. Just as a diligent chemist purifies their concoctions, we meticulously examined and cleansed the data to ensure that no extraneous factors contaminated our journey into correlation country. We stirred the statistical cauldron with a pinch of precise procedures and a dash of data purification spells, banishing any outliers and anomalies to the scientific underworld where they belong.

Step 2: Nuclear Number-Crunching
With our data decontaminated and ready for scrutiny, we delved into the nuclear power generation figures in Romania. Donning our data hazmat suits, we waded through the fission figures and electron emissions, making sure to handle each kilowatt-hour of data with the utmost care. Armed with calculators sharper than a Geiger counter and statistical software more powerful than a particle accelerator, we tallied, tabulated, and tangoed with the numbers to extract the essence of Romania's nuclear prowess.

Step 3: Birthing By The Numbers
Simultaneously, we turned our gaze to the newborn narratives of Australia, where the stork's logistics and the cradle's occupancy awaited our analytical embrace. With a keen eye for detail and a calculator in hand, we waltzed through the historical accounts of live births, discerning the annual rhythmic rise and fall of the infant influx with the precision of a midwife's watchful eye. Each birth record was examined more thoroughly than a lab rat in a maze, as we decoded the numerical nuances of the neonatal narrative.

Step 4: Statistical Sorcery
The true magic unfolded as we summoned the forces of correlation computation and regression rituals to reveal the hidden harmony of our two variables. Armed with the spells of Pearson, Spearman, and Kendall, we conjured the spirits of statistical significance and p-values, casting light on the clandestine connection that had eluded scientific scrutiny until now.

Step 5: Tall Tales and T-Tests
Finally, we rounded out our methodological melange with the inclusion of t-tests, confidence intervals, and effect size calculations, ensuring that our statistical storytelling would leave no hypothesis unturned. We spun narratives of significance and effect, weaving a statistical tapestry that captured the essence of our findings with the finesse of a statistical bard.

In this bewitching ballet of methodologies, we combined the rigor of research with a touch of scientific whimsy, traversing the realms of nuclear power and neonatal numbers with unyielding curiosity. The results of our methodological medley are forthcoming, promising to illuminate the improbable intersection between these entangled variables.

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 Nuclear power generation in Romania and Total number of live births in Australia. Make lots of 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]]
Nuclear Nuptials: Navigating the Nuptial Nexus between Nuclear Power in Romania and the Number of Neonates in Australia

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we explore the unexpected connection between nuclear power generation in Romania and the total number of live births in Australia. Hatching this harebrained hypothesis, we gathered data from the Energy Information Administration and Wikipedia, cracking open the case to see if these seemingly unrelated variables harbor a secret connection. Our research uncovers a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9450672 and p < 0.01 for the years 1996 to 2021, leaving us positively glowing with the implications. Through this study, we shed light on an unlikely partnership, demonstrating that when it comes to nuclear power and the stork's delivery route, the lines may be more entangled than previously thought.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
As we wade into the tumultuous tides of this uncharted research endeavor, we set our sights on the existing literature that may shed some light on the bizarre ballet between nuclear power generation in Romania and the total number of live births in Australia. Our search leads us to a myriad of studies, some as solemn as a scientific symposium and others as whimsical as a carnival sideshow.
In "Smith and Doe's Analysis of Nuclear Energy and Demographic Dynamics," the authors find a resounding chorus of skepticism regarding any conceivable connection between the energy patterns of Eastern Europe and the birthing fancies of the Southern Hemisphere. However, our intrepid quest pushes past such skepticism, propelling us into realms where curiosity and statistical significance intersect amidst a nonsensical nexus.
Turning to a more somber tome, "Jones's Demographic Dalliances: A Statistical Study of Unlikely Correlations," we encounter a stern warning against venturing into the land of spurious correlations and caustic conjecture. Nevertheless, armed with our veneer of scientific rigor and a pinch of puckishness, we proceed undeterred into the land of improbable liaisons.
Venturing beyond the confines of scientific treatises, we stumble upon non-fiction works like "The History of Nuclear Power in Eastern Europe" and "The Demographic Dilemma: Exploring Birth Trends Around the World." These tomes, brimming with facts and figures, offer a stern countenance but fail to dampen our fervor for uncovering the clandestine courtship between nuclear power and newborns.
Shifting gears with a touch of levity, we enter the realm of fiction with titles such as "Atomic Babies: A Tale of Nuclear Newborns" and "The Reactor's Lullaby: A Melodic Musing on Nuclear Power and Parenthood." While these works of whimsy offer no empirical insights, their imaginative exploration of atomic allegories is a testament to the human fascination with unlikely connections.
In our gallant pursuit of tangentially related media, we cannot overlook the silver screen. Movies such as "Nuclear Nuptials: From Romania with Love" and "Birthing Bonds: The Atomic Connection" serve as delightful distractions, interweaving the esoteric elements of nuclear power and newborns into cinematic tapestries that range from the intriguing to the absurd. While these motion picture marvels provide entertaining diversions, their contribution to the empirical discourse is, regrettably, scant.
As we conclude this whimsical romp through the annals of literature, we acknowledge the vast expanse of knowledge that awaits us in our quest. Our journey, while peppered with jest, is anchored in the rigorous pursuit of scientific understanding. With a robust foundation laid by previous studies and a dash of mirth to guide us, we press onward to dissect the peculiar pairing of nuclear power in Romania and the number of bouncing bundles Down Under.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our investigation into the peculiar partnership between nuclear power generation in Romania and the total number of live births in Australia left us more electrified than a charged particle in a magnetic field. Our statistical analysis revealed a positively staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9450672 and an r-squared of 0.8931521 for the time period spanning from 1996 to 2021. As statistical sorcerers, we also observed a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a relationship so robust, it could power a nuclear reactor with its strength!
Fig. 1 illustrates the strong correlation between these unlikely bedfellows, showcasing a scatterplot that would make even the most seasoned statistician do a double take. The data points hug the line of best fit with such fervor, one might mistake them for long-lost cousins at a family reunion!
The gravitational pull of this correlation is stronger than the bonds holding atomic nuclei together. This unexpected kinship between nuclear power generation in Romania and the number of live births in Australia certainly raises more than a few eyebrows, and possibly a couple of Geiger counters as well.
In the grand scheme of scientific discoveries, it's often the unlikeliest of pairings that yield the most fascinating insights. From the ashes of skepticism, a phoenix of statistical significance has arisen, shedding light on a connection that was virtually invisible to the naked eye. Who would have thought that nuclear power and the pitter-patter of newborn feet down under could strike such a chord together?
Our findings open the door to a myriad of implications and hypotheses, sparking new questions and perhaps even more peculiar connections waiting to be unraveled. As we wrap up this section, we can't help but feel a surge of excitement akin to a physicist witnessing the birth of a new particle. It seems that in the realm of statistics and science, stranger connections abound than even the most imaginative minds could fathom.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

In the wake of our mind-boggling results, we find ourselves traversing through a labyrinth of bewildering wonder and statistical astonishment, akin to stumbling upon a platypus in a physics lab. Our findings not only corroborate the empirical exhortations of prior research but also unfurl a tapestry of improbable intrigue that would make even the most stoic of researchers crack a knowing smile.

Returning to the literature review that danced on the precipice of skepticism and whimsy, we find that our results, like a mischievous imp, have gleefully upended the wary admonishments of prior studies. Smith and Doe's skepticism, once stern and resolute as a fortress, now quivers in the wake of our robust correlation coefficient, akin to a leaf caught in a tempest. Yet, let us not forget the sly nod to whimsy in "Atomic Babies: A Tale of Nuclear Newborns" — for who could have foreseen that fiction would find its reflection in our factual findings?

In essence, our results are more than just a mere statistical flourish; they are an accordant symphony, conducting an overture that unites the disparate notes of nuclear power in Romania and the arrival of cherubic bundles in Australia. The strength of this correlation, akin to the magnetic pull of a celestial body, reveals a clandestine connection that even the most perspicacious of minds may have overlooked.

Yet, as we bask in the glow of our findings, one cannot help but wonder about the underlying mechanisms orchestrating this enigmatic entanglement. Is it merely happenstance, or perhaps a manifestation of an as-yet-unknown force weaving the whims of demographic destiny? Like intrepid explorers setting sail into uncharted waters, we are beckoned to delve deeper into the murky depths of causation and speculation.

The implications of our findings are as abundant as particles in a collider, sparking conversations and inquiries that transcend the traditional boundaries of scientific inquiry. This unexpected liaison between nuclear power and newborns has illuminated a chink in the armor of conventional wisdom, reminding us that the contours of statistical significance are as malleable as a pliable polymer.

In conclusion, our journey through the esoteric terrain of nuclear nuptials has not only solidified the bond between seemingly unrelated variables but has also emboldened our resolve to embrace the unexpected, whether it be in the realm of research or the serendipitous interplay of nuclear power and natal numbers. As we march forward, our quiver brimming with statistical arrows and our wit honed by the humor of improbable correlations, we stand at the threshold of new vistas awaiting discovery.

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 Nuclear power generation in Romania and Total number of live births in Australia. Make lots of 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]]
Nuclear Nuptials: Navigating the Nuptial Nexus between Nuclear Power in Romania and the Number of Neonates in Australia

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we explore the unexpected connection between nuclear power generation in Romania and the total number of live births in Australia. Hatching this harebrained hypothesis, we gathered data from the Energy Information Administration and Wikipedia, cracking open the case to see if these seemingly unrelated variables harbor a secret connection. Our research uncovers a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9450672 and p < 0.01 for the years 1996 to 2021, leaving us positively glowing with the implications. Through this study, we shed light on an unlikely partnership, demonstrating that when it comes to nuclear power and the stork's delivery route, the lines may be more entangled than previously thought.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
In the realm of scientific inquiry, one often encounters unexpected relationships and peculiar pairings that prompt further investigation. Such is the case with our current endeavor, where we delved into the intertwining worlds of nuclear power generation in Romania and the total number of live births in Australia. As we embark on this whimsical quest, we find ourselves confronted with a peculiar conundrum – could there be a clandestine connection between these seemingly disparate variables, or are we simply chasing shadows in the laboratory of statistical analysis?
Nuclear power, with its atomic allure and electron enchantment, has long captivated the minds of scientists and policymakers alike. Meanwhile, the arrival of newborns, with their bundle of joys and sleep-deprived nights, has remained a timeless enigma for demographers and pediatricians. What strange forces could possibly bind these two phenomena together, if any? This is the puzzle that has led us down the colorful rabbit hole of correlation, causation, and cosmic coincidence.
As curious minds with a penchant for the peculiar, we could not resist the temptation to unearth the potential liaison between these variables. Armed with data from the Energy Information Administration and the vast troves of knowledge on Wikipedia, we embarked on a journey to explore whether nuclear power in Eastern Europe could somehow influence the cradle of life in the Land Down Under. We meandered through the maze of statistical analysis, armed with robust methodologies and a dash of scientific skepticism, in pursuit of unraveling this unorthodox relationship.
In the following pages, we will elucidate the methods used, the statistical findings obtained, and the implications of our unexpected findings. So, buckle up and prepare to navigate the nuptial nexus between nuclear power and newborns, as we embark on a scientific escapade unlike any other. For as the great scientific sage once quipped, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" (Isaac Asimov).

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our investigation into the peculiar partnership between nuclear power generation in Romania and the total number of live births in Australia left us more electrified than a charged particle in a magnetic field. Our statistical analysis revealed a positively staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9450672 and an r-squared of 0.8931521 for the time period spanning from 1996 to 2021. As statistical sorcerers, we also observed a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a relationship so robust, it could power a nuclear reactor with its strength!
Fig. 1 illustrates the strong correlation between these unlikely bedfellows, showcasing a scatterplot that would make even the most seasoned statistician do a double take. The data points hug the line of best fit with such fervor, one might mistake them for long-lost cousins at a family reunion!
The gravitational pull of this correlation is stronger than the bonds holding atomic nuclei together. This unexpected kinship between nuclear power generation in Romania and the number of live births in Australia certainly raises more than a few eyebrows, and possibly a couple of Geiger counters as well.
In the grand scheme of scientific discoveries, it's often the unlikeliest of pairings that yield the most fascinating insights. From the ashes of skepticism, a phoenix of statistical significance has arisen, shedding light on a connection that was virtually invisible to the naked eye. Who would have thought that nuclear power and the pitter-patter of newborn feet down under could strike such a chord together?
Our findings open the door to a myriad of implications and hypotheses, sparking new questions and perhaps even more peculiar connections waiting to be unraveled. As we wrap up this section, we can't help but feel a surge of excitement akin to a physicist witnessing the birth of a new particle. It seems that in the realm of statistics and science, stranger connections abound than even the most imaginative minds could fathom.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our foray into the captivating conundrum of the correlation between nuclear power generation in Romania and the total number of live births in Australia has illuminated a connection as unexpected as a chemistry experiment gone awry. The striking correlation coefficient and p-value that would make any statistician do a double take have left us more astounded than a physicist stumbling upon a parallel universe.

This peculiar partnership, reminiscent of a scientific odd couple, has certainly added a splash of intrigue to the otherwise sober world of statistical analysis. It seems that in the labyrinthine landscape of variables and values, even the unlikeliest bedfellows can dance to the same statistical tune, much like electrons performing a quantum jig.

As we peer through the prism of our findings, it becomes clear that this unusual nexus between nuclear power and newborns may herald a new era of statistical exploration and unexpected relationships. It's a bit like stumbling upon a black swan in a statistical lake – a rarity that challenges our conventional wisdom and beckons us to venture into uncharted statistical waters.

In light of these revelations, it appears that no further research is warranted in this area, as we've cracked open this enigmatic egg to reveal a correlation as solid as a proton in the nucleus. It's time to bid farewell to this nuclear-fueled expedition and turn our scientific gaze toward the next quirky quest, for there are plenty more statistical fish in the sea waiting to surprise us with their whimsical wigglings.

As the great scientific bard, Dr. Seuss, once said, "Sometimes the questions are complicated, and the answers are simple." In this case, the question led us down a curious path, and the answer unfolded before us with a statistical sparkle that even the most staid of researchers couldn't help but marvel at. With that, we conclude our investigation, leaving the door ajar for the next band of curious explorers to unravel the next statistical mystery.

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 Nuclear Nuptials: Navigating the Nuptial Nexus between Nuclear Power in Romania and the Number of Neonates in Australia. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Nuclear Kinetics

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 Nuclear Nuptials: Navigating the Nuptial Nexus between Nuclear Power in Romania and the Number of Neonates in Australia. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Transcontinental Technological Ties (IT3)

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 Nuclear Nuptials: Navigating the Nuptial Nexus between Nuclear Power in Romania and the Number of Neonates in Australia with an abstract of In this study, we explore the unexpected connection between nuclear power generation in Romania and the total number of live births in Australia. Hatching this harebrained hypothesis, we gathered data from the Energy Information Administration and Wikipedia, cracking open the case to see if these seemingly unrelated variables harbor a secret connection. Our research uncovers a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9450672 and p < 0.01 for the years 1996 to 2021, leaving us positively glowing with the implications. Through this study, we shed light on an unlikely partnership, demonstrating that when it comes to nuclear power and the stork's delivery route, the lines may be more entangled than previously thought.

ChatGPT:

nuclear power generation Romania, live births Australia, correlation coefficient nuclear power live births, nuclear power impact on births, nuclear power statistics, nuclear power and birth rate correlation, nuclear power generation data, Australia birth statistics, nuclear power energy information administration, relationship between nuclear power and births

*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

Nuclear power generation in Romania
Detailed data title: Total nuclear power generation in Romania in billion kWh
Source: Energy Information Administration
See what else correlates with Nuclear power generation in Romania

Total number of live births in Australia
Source: Wikipedia
See what else correlates with Total number of live births in Australia

Correlation r = 0.9450672 (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 = 0.8931521 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 89.3% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Total number of live births in Australia) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Nuclear power generation in Romania) over the 26 years from 1996 through 2021.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 3.8E-13.^Show 0.0000000000003758935895397330
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme.^Note 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 0.95 in 3.8E-11% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 2,660,327,358,135 random variables^Note You don't actually need 2 trillion variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

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

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

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 25 degrees of freedom, ^Note Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 25 because we have two variables measured over a period of 26 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.

[ 0.88, 0.98 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
^{Read more about the confidence interval} 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: ^Note 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.

	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	2021
Nuclear power generation in Romania (Billion kWh)	0.91	5.13022	4.9	4.81	5.225	5.037	5.11	4.54	5.271	5.113	5.178	7.07854	10.334	10.82	10.705	10.811	10.564	10.6958	10.754	10.698	10.366	10.5579	10.4417	10.3454	10.5567	10.3767
Total number of live births in Australia (Live births per year)	250438	253660	249105	249965	249310	247500	250988	246663	249082	255934	263540	274330	302300	295700	297900	301617	309582	308065	299697	305377	311104	309142	315147	305832	294369	309996

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^Note 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^Note 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.
Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves. ^Note Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.
Outlandish outliers: There are "outliers" in this data.^Note In concept, "outlier" just means "way different than the rest of your dataset." When calculating a correlation like this, they are particularly impactful because a single outlier can substantially increase your correlation.

For the purposes of this project, I counted a point as an outlier if it the residual was two standard deviations from the mean.

(This bullet point only shows up in the details page on charts that do, in fact, have outliers.)
They stand out on the scatterplot above: notice the dots that are far away from any other dots. I intentionally mishandeled outliers, which makes the correlation look extra strong.

Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. ^{Show the steps to do this.} 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([0.91,5.13022,4.9,4.81,5.225,5.037,5.11,4.54,5.271,5.113,5.178,7.07854,10.334,10.82,10.705,10.811,10.564,10.6958,10.754,10.698,10.366,10.5579,10.4417,10.3454,10.5567,10.3767,])
array_2 = np.array([250438,253660,249105,249965,249310,247500,250988,246663,249082,255934,263540,274330,302300,295700,297900,301617,309582,308065,299697,305377,311104,309142,315147,305832,294369,309996,])
array_1_name = "Nuclear power generation in Romania"
array_2_name = "Total number of live births in Australia"

# 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. ^Note 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 ^Note 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 Nuclear power generation in Romania
Line chart for only Total number of live births in Australia
AI-generated correlation image
The spurious research paper: Nuclear Nuptials: Navigating the Nuptial Nexus between Nuclear Power in Romania and the Number of Neonates in Australia

View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Big thanks for reviewing!

Correlation ID: 3037 · Black Variable ID: 23914 · Red Variable ID: 51


Problem variable:
Issue:
Additional details: Optional
Confirm you are a human: