AI explanation
As households stocked up on air fresheners, the collective scent of ocean breeze and lavender fields wafted all the way to Cincinnati, purifying the air through sheer aromatic power. Remember, when it comes to cleaning up, the nostrils of Ohio shall not be soiled!Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Create an image with the style of a vintage Polaroid photo that captures a serene Cincinnati neighborhood scene. Colorful, freshly scented air fresheners hang from the open windows, casting a warm and inviting glow. The stocked shelves of a nearby store filled with housekeeping supplies are visible in the background, subtly hinting at increased household spending. The soft, golden light streaming through the open windows accentuates the improved air circulation, contributing to the overall enhanced air quality in the city. 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: Annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and Air quality in Cincinnati. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie a Polaroid photo Psychedelic Woodblock painting a meme
ChatGPT: a Polaroid photo
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 Annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and Air quality in Cincinnati, in the following situation: Because the increase in Annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies led to a rise in the demand for air fresheners, which then caused a surge in the number of people opening their windows in Cincinnati to let in the pleasant scents. The increased ventilation allowed for better air circulation, improving overall air quality in the city.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a cozy Cincinnati neighborhood, colorful, freshly scented air fresheners hang from open windows, filling the air with a delightful fragrance. The increased household spending on housekeeping supplies is evident in the stocked shelves of a nearby store. As the windows are opened, the improved air circulation contributes to the overall improved air quality in the city.
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 Polaroid photo ] and depicting this scene: In a cozy Cincinnati neighborhood, colorful, freshly scented air fresheners hang from open windows, filling the air with a delightful fragrance. The increased household spending on housekeeping supplies is evident in the stocked shelves of a nearby store. As the windows are opened, the improved air circulation contributes to the overall improved air quality in the city. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Create an image with the style of a vintage Polaroid photo that captures a serene Cincinnati neighborhood scene. Colorful, freshly scented air fresheners hang from the open windows, casting a warm and inviting glow. The stocked shelves of a nearby store filled with housekeeping supplies are visible in the background, subtly hinting at increased household spending. The soft, golden light streaming through the open windows accentuates the improved air circulation, contributing to the overall enhanced air quality in the city.
*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 an increase in Annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies caused Air quality in Cincinnati to increase. Add a funny one-liner at the end.
AI academic paper
Dusting Off the Facts: Examining the Link Between Annual US Household Spending on Housekeeping Supplies and Air Quality in Cincinnati Journal of Domestic Hygiene and Environmental Health Jan 2024 |
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and Air quality in Cincinnati. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Make the title punny if you can come up with clever pun. If not, just make it sound clever.
Your research team used data from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Environmental Protection Agency to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.7766831 and p < 0.01 for 2000 to 2022.
Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)
[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit
[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit
ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
Dusting Off the Facts: Examining the Link Between Annual US Household Spending on Housekeeping Supplies and Air Quality in Cincinnati
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we dusted off some data to explore the potential link between annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality in Cincinnati. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency for the years 2000 to 2022, our research team uncovered some surprising findings. Our analysis revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.7766831 and p < 0.01, suggesting a strong relationship between the two variables. This correlation, while not necessarily causation, certainly adds some polish to the notion that a clean house might lead to cleaner air. Our study not only sweeps away doubts about the impact of housekeeping practices on air quality but also brings a breath of fresh air to the field of environmental economics.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and Air quality in Cincinnati. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Dusting Off the Facts: Examining the Link Between Annual US Household Spending on Housekeeping Supplies and Air Quality in Cincinnati
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we dusted off some data to explore the potential link between annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality in Cincinnati. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency for the years 2000 to 2022, our research team uncovered some surprising findings. Our analysis revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.7766831 and p < 0.01, suggesting a strong relationship between the two variables. This correlation, while not necessarily causation, certainly adds some polish to the notion that a clean house might lead to cleaner air. Our study not only sweeps away doubts about the impact of housekeeping practices on air quality but also brings a breath of fresh air to the field of environmental economics.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ah, the age-old debate: does a tidy house lead to cleaner air, or is it all just a load of hot air? For years, researchers and homemakers alike have pondered the potential link between annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality. Some have claimed that a clean house equates to cleaner air, while others have dismissed the idea as nothing more than dust in the wind.
In this study, we decided to roll up our sleeves and dig deep into the data to settle this household hygiene hullabaloo once and for all. Armed with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency, our team embarked on a journey of exploration, armed with feather dusters and statistical software.
We were not content to simply sweep the issue under the rug. Instead, we wanted to dust off the facts and uncover any hidden connections between household spending on cleaning supplies and the quality of the air we breathe. Our mission was to uncover the truth, come what may, and to provide a breath of fresh air to the world of environmental economics.
This paper details our endeavor, revealing the surprising correlation that emerged from our analysis. So sit back, relax, and prepare to be blown away by our squeaky clean findings. It's time to clear the air and unveil the sparkling truth about the link between household spending and air quality in Cincinnati.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and Air quality in Cincinnati. 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 you might move on to cartoons and children's shows that you watched for research.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Dusting Off the Facts: Examining the Link Between Annual US Household Spending on Housekeeping Supplies and Air Quality in Cincinnati
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we dusted off some data to explore the potential link between annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality in Cincinnati. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency for the years 2000 to 2022, our research team uncovered some surprising findings. Our analysis revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.7766831 and p < 0.01, suggesting a strong relationship between the two variables. This correlation, while not necessarily causation, certainly adds some polish to the notion that a clean house might lead to cleaner air. Our study not only sweeps away doubts about the impact of housekeeping practices on air quality but also brings a breath of fresh air to the field of environmental economics.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ah, the age-old debate: does a tidy house lead to cleaner air, or is it all just a load of hot air? For years, researchers and homemakers alike have pondered the potential link between annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality. Some have claimed that a clean house equates to cleaner air, while others have dismissed the idea as nothing more than dust in the wind.
In this study, we decided to roll up our sleeves and dig deep into the data to settle this household hygiene hullabaloo once and for all. Armed with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency, our team embarked on a journey of exploration, armed with feather dusters and statistical software.
We were not content to simply sweep the issue under the rug. Instead, we wanted to dust off the facts and uncover any hidden connections between household spending on cleaning supplies and the quality of the air we breathe. Our mission was to uncover the truth, come what may, and to provide a breath of fresh air to the world of environmental economics.
This paper details our endeavor, revealing the surprising correlation that emerged from our analysis. So sit back, relax, and prepare to be blown away by our squeaky clean findings. It's time to clear the air and unveil the sparkling truth about the link between household spending and air quality in Cincinnati.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The connection between household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality has been a matter of debate for decades. Smith et al. (2010) first delved into this topic, examining the potential impact of cleaning habits on indoor air quality. Their findings suggested that regular cleaning and dusting activities can reduce indoor air pollution, providing an early glimpse into the intricate relationship between household cleanliness and air quality.
Jones and Doe (2015) further explored this link, focusing on the economic aspects of household spending in relation to environmental outcomes. Their study highlighted the potential cost savings associated with maintaining a clean home environment, shedding light on the financial implications of dusting versus air purification technologies.
As the research expanded, books such as "Clean and Green: A Wellness Guide to Sustainable Living" by Environmentalist Expert (2018) and "The Air-pocalypse: How Dust Bunnies Contribute to Global Warming" by Climate Change Crusader (2021) captured the attention of both scholars and lay readers, emphasizing the broader implications of household cleanliness on environmental sustainability.
Moving beyond the non-fiction realm, fictional works such as "The Dusty Chronicles" by Novel Author (2017) and "Airborne Adventures of the Tidy Crew" by Children's Writer (2019) introduced whimsical narratives that playfully intertwined the concepts of household cleaning and air quality, demonstrating the pervasive nature of this topic in popular culture.
To further understand the cultural impact, the researchers also extended their investigation into the television series "Clean House Crusaders" and the animated show "Dust Busters: A Tale of Tidy Tornadoes," extracting insights from these unconventional sources to supplement their scholarly inquiry.
As the literature surrounding this topic continued to expand, it became evident that the relationship between household spending on cleaning supplies and air quality is not merely a mundane matter but a rich tapestry of interconnected factors, filled with surprises and unexpected twists.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and Air quality in Cincinnati. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Environmental Protection Agency . You used data from 2000 to 2022
Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.
Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Dusting Off the Facts: Examining the Link Between Annual US Household Spending on Housekeeping Supplies and Air Quality in Cincinnati
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we dusted off some data to explore the potential link between annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality in Cincinnati. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency for the years 2000 to 2022, our research team uncovered some surprising findings. Our analysis revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.7766831 and p < 0.01, suggesting a strong relationship between the two variables. This correlation, while not necessarily causation, certainly adds some polish to the notion that a clean house might lead to cleaner air. Our study not only sweeps away doubts about the impact of housekeeping practices on air quality but also brings a breath of fresh air to the field of environmental economics.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ah, the age-old debate: does a tidy house lead to cleaner air, or is it all just a load of hot air? For years, researchers and homemakers alike have pondered the potential link between annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality. Some have claimed that a clean house equates to cleaner air, while others have dismissed the idea as nothing more than dust in the wind.
In this study, we decided to roll up our sleeves and dig deep into the data to settle this household hygiene hullabaloo once and for all. Armed with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency, our team embarked on a journey of exploration, armed with feather dusters and statistical software.
We were not content to simply sweep the issue under the rug. Instead, we wanted to dust off the facts and uncover any hidden connections between household spending on cleaning supplies and the quality of the air we breathe. Our mission was to uncover the truth, come what may, and to provide a breath of fresh air to the world of environmental economics.
This paper details our endeavor, revealing the surprising correlation that emerged from our analysis. So sit back, relax, and prepare to be blown away by our squeaky clean findings. It's time to clear the air and unveil the sparkling truth about the link between household spending and air quality in Cincinnati.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
To clean up the murky waters surrounding the relationship between annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality in Cincinnati, our research team employed a combination of statistical analysis and some good old-fashioned investigative sleuthing.
First, we meticulously collected data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency, scouring the web for every bit of information related to household spending on cleaning products and air quality measurements from the years 2000 to 2022. Our internet sleuthing skills were put to the test, as we navigated through digital dust bunnies and electronic cobwebs to gather the most comprehensive dataset possible.
Once armed with a treasure trove of data, we utilized sophisticated statistical software to conduct a thorough analysis. Our trusty statistical tools allowed us to perform various regression analyses, correlation tests, and other fancy number-crunching exercises. We laid out our data like a perfectly set dining table, ready to serve up some tasty statistical insights.
In order to ensure the validity and reliability of our findings, we also employed robust sensitivity analyses and conducted rigorous checks for spurious correlations. No statistical stone was left unturned as we sought to separate the wheat from the chaff, or in this case, the dust from the air.
Furthermore, we did not shy away from engaging in some unconventional investigative techniques. Armed with feather dusters and magnifying glasses, our team ventured into households in Cincinnati to observe cleaning practices firsthand and even take air quality measurements on the spot. Yes, we were not afraid to get our hands dirty, all in the name of science!
Finally, to add an extra dash of rigor to our study, we consulted with experts in the fields of environmental economics and household hygiene to ensure that our approach was as spotless as a newly polished mirror.
In summary, our methodology combined thorough data collection, sophisticated statistical analysis, on-the-ground investigations, and expert consultations to uncover the hidden link between household spending and air quality. So, take a deep breath and get ready to marvel at the sparkling results of our squeaky-clean research endeavor.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and Air quality in Cincinnati. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Environmental Protection Agency .
For the time period 2000 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.7766831, r-squared of 0.6032367, 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]]
Dusting Off the Facts: Examining the Link Between Annual US Household Spending on Housekeeping Supplies and Air Quality in Cincinnati
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we dusted off some data to explore the potential link between annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality in Cincinnati. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency for the years 2000 to 2022, our research team uncovered some surprising findings. Our analysis revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.7766831 and p < 0.01, suggesting a strong relationship between the two variables. This correlation, while not necessarily causation, certainly adds some polish to the notion that a clean house might lead to cleaner air. Our study not only sweeps away doubts about the impact of housekeeping practices on air quality but also brings a breath of fresh air to the field of environmental economics.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Ah, the age-old debate: does a tidy house lead to cleaner air, or is it all just a load of hot air? For years, researchers and homemakers alike have pondered the potential link between annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality. Some have claimed that a clean house equates to cleaner air, while others have dismissed the idea as nothing more than dust in the wind.
In this study, we decided to roll up our sleeves and dig deep into the data to settle this household hygiene hullabaloo once and for all. Armed with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency, our team embarked on a journey of exploration, armed with feather dusters and statistical software.
We were not content to simply sweep the issue under the rug. Instead, we wanted to dust off the facts and uncover any hidden connections between household spending on cleaning supplies and the quality of the air we breathe. Our mission was to uncover the truth, come what may, and to provide a breath of fresh air to the world of environmental economics.
This paper details our endeavor, revealing the surprising correlation that emerged from our analysis. So sit back, relax, and prepare to be blown away by our squeaky clean findings. It's time to clear the air and unveil the sparkling truth about the link between household spending and air quality in Cincinnati.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis of the relationship between annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality in Cincinnati revealed some fascinating insights. The correlation coefficient of 0.7766831 and r-squared value of 0.6032367 emphasized the strong bond between these seemingly unrelated variables. With a p-value of less than 0.01, we can confidently say that the relationship is not just a pile of dust bunnies blowing in the wind.
Fig. 1 depicts our findings in a scatterplot that clearly illustrates the robust correlation between household spending on cleaning supplies and air quality. The data points align like a perfectly made bed, leaving no room for doubt that there is something in the air when it comes to the cleanliness of our homes and the air we breathe.
Our results speak volumes, suggesting that as households invest more in cleaning supplies, the air quality in Cincinnati is positively influenced. While our study doesn't establish a cause-and-effect relationship, it does provide a refreshing perspective on the potential impact of household cleanliness on the surrounding environment.
It seems that in the battle for a cleaner environment, a little extra spending on cleaning supplies might just sweep away some of the pollutants lingering in the air. Our findings not only highlight the interconnectedness of household habits and environmental conditions but also bring a fresh breeze of insight into the ongoing discourse on environmental economics.
So, it's time to put our feather dusters and statistical software on display as we celebrate the empirical evidence that a tidy house might indeed lead to fresher air. The relationship between household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality isn't just a load of hot air after all!
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and Air quality in Cincinnati. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
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]]
Dusting Off the Facts: Examining the Link Between Annual US Household Spending on Housekeeping Supplies and Air Quality in Cincinnati
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we dusted off some data to explore the potential link between annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality in Cincinnati. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency for the years 2000 to 2022, our research team uncovered some surprising findings. Our analysis revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.7766831 and p < 0.01, suggesting a strong relationship between the two variables. This correlation, while not necessarily causation, certainly adds some polish to the notion that a clean house might lead to cleaner air. Our study not only sweeps away doubts about the impact of housekeeping practices on air quality but also brings a breath of fresh air to the field of environmental economics.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The connection between household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality has been a matter of debate for decades. Smith et al. (2010) first delved into this topic, examining the potential impact of cleaning habits on indoor air quality. Their findings suggested that regular cleaning and dusting activities can reduce indoor air pollution, providing an early glimpse into the intricate relationship between household cleanliness and air quality.
Jones and Doe (2015) further explored this link, focusing on the economic aspects of household spending in relation to environmental outcomes. Their study highlighted the potential cost savings associated with maintaining a clean home environment, shedding light on the financial implications of dusting versus air purification technologies.
As the research expanded, books such as "Clean and Green: A Wellness Guide to Sustainable Living" by Environmentalist Expert (2018) and "The Air-pocalypse: How Dust Bunnies Contribute to Global Warming" by Climate Change Crusader (2021) captured the attention of both scholars and lay readers, emphasizing the broader implications of household cleanliness on environmental sustainability.
Moving beyond the non-fiction realm, fictional works such as "The Dusty Chronicles" by Novel Author (2017) and "Airborne Adventures of the Tidy Crew" by Children's Writer (2019) introduced whimsical narratives that playfully intertwined the concepts of household cleaning and air quality, demonstrating the pervasive nature of this topic in popular culture.
To further understand the cultural impact, the researchers also extended their investigation into the television series "Clean House Crusaders" and the animated show "Dust Busters: A Tale of Tidy Tornadoes," extracting insights from these unconventional sources to supplement their scholarly inquiry.
As the literature surrounding this topic continued to expand, it became evident that the relationship between household spending on cleaning supplies and air quality is not merely a mundane matter but a rich tapestry of interconnected factors, filled with surprises and unexpected twists.
[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis of the relationship between annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality in Cincinnati revealed some fascinating insights. The correlation coefficient of 0.7766831 and r-squared value of 0.6032367 emphasized the strong bond between these seemingly unrelated variables. With a p-value of less than 0.01, we can confidently say that the relationship is not just a pile of dust bunnies blowing in the wind.
Fig. 1 depicts our findings in a scatterplot that clearly illustrates the robust correlation between household spending on cleaning supplies and air quality. The data points align like a perfectly made bed, leaving no room for doubt that there is something in the air when it comes to the cleanliness of our homes and the air we breathe.
Our results speak volumes, suggesting that as households invest more in cleaning supplies, the air quality in Cincinnati is positively influenced. While our study doesn't establish a cause-and-effect relationship, it does provide a refreshing perspective on the potential impact of household cleanliness on the surrounding environment.
It seems that in the battle for a cleaner environment, a little extra spending on cleaning supplies might just sweep away some of the pollutants lingering in the air. Our findings not only highlight the interconnectedness of household habits and environmental conditions but also bring a fresh breeze of insight into the ongoing discourse on environmental economics.
So, it's time to put our feather dusters and statistical software on display as we celebrate the empirical evidence that a tidy house might indeed lead to fresher air. The relationship between household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality isn't just a load of hot air after all!
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
Our study aimed to add some shine to the debate surrounding the relationship between household spending on cleaning supplies and air quality, and we can confidently say that our findings have added some glitter to this rather dusty topic. Our results build upon prior research, echoing the sentiments of Smith et al. (2010) and Jones and Doe (2015) regarding the potential impact of household cleaning practices on air quality. The correlation coefficient of 0.7766831 we uncovered is not just a mere dusting but a robust confirmation of the significant connection between these variables. It seems that cold hard cash invested in cleaning supplies might be the key to breathing a little easier in Cincinnati.
While some may dismiss this connection as a mere "sweeping statement," our results stand tall, much like a freshly vacuumed carpet. The r-squared value of 0.6032367 speaks volumes, suggesting that over 60% of the variation in air quality can be explained by annual household spending on cleaning supplies. Maybe those dust bunnies are more powerful than we thought.
Our findings also provide a breath of fresh air to the field of environmental economics, supporting the notion put forward by Jones and Doe (2015) that maintaining a clean home environment can lead to financial savings. It appears that a little investment in cleaning supplies might not only keep the dust at bay but also contribute to cleaner air, all while potentially saving households a few pennies. It's a win-win situation that not even the most stubborn stain could resist.
In the broader context, our results add substance to the whimsical narratives outlined in "The Dusty Chronicles" by Novel Author (2017) and "Airborne Adventures of the Tidy Crew" by Children's Writer (2019). These fictional works, often scoffed at in academic circles, have actually tapped into an underlying truth about the intertwined nature of household cleaning and environmental quality. It seems there might be more to those whimsical tales than meets the eye.
Fig. 1, with its tidy scatterplot, echoes the neatly aligned data points that illuminate the definitive relationship we've unearthed. It's not just a pretty picture; it's a snapshot of a significant connection that could impact how we view the role of household spending in environmental outcomes. It seems that in the battle for a cleaner environment, a little extra spending on cleaning supplies might just sweep away some of the pollutants lingering in the air. Our findings not only highlight the interconnectedness of household habits and environmental conditions but also bring a fresh breeze of insight into the ongoing discourse on environmental economics.
So, it's time to put our feather dusters and statistical software on display as we celebrate the empirical evidence that a tidy house might indeed lead to fresher air. The relationship between household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality isn't just a load of hot air after all!
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and Air quality in Cincinnati. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
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]]
Dusting Off the Facts: Examining the Link Between Annual US Household Spending on Housekeeping Supplies and Air Quality in Cincinnati
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we dusted off some data to explore the potential link between annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality in Cincinnati. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency for the years 2000 to 2022, our research team uncovered some surprising findings. Our analysis revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.7766831 and p < 0.01, suggesting a strong relationship between the two variables. This correlation, while not necessarily causation, certainly adds some polish to the notion that a clean house might lead to cleaner air. Our study not only sweeps away doubts about the impact of housekeeping practices on air quality but also brings a breath of fresh air to the field of environmental economics.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
Ah, the age-old debate: does a tidy house lead to cleaner air, or is it all just a load of hot air? For years, researchers and homemakers alike have pondered the potential link between annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality. Some have claimed that a clean house equates to cleaner air, while others have dismissed the idea as nothing more than dust in the wind.
In this study, we decided to roll up our sleeves and dig deep into the data to settle this household hygiene hullabaloo once and for all. Armed with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency, our team embarked on a journey of exploration, armed with feather dusters and statistical software.
We were not content to simply sweep the issue under the rug. Instead, we wanted to dust off the facts and uncover any hidden connections between household spending on cleaning supplies and the quality of the air we breathe. Our mission was to uncover the truth, come what may, and to provide a breath of fresh air to the world of environmental economics.
This paper details our endeavor, revealing the surprising correlation that emerged from our analysis. So sit back, relax, and prepare to be blown away by our squeaky clean findings. It's time to clear the air and unveil the sparkling truth about the link between household spending and air quality in Cincinnati.
[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis of the relationship between annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality in Cincinnati revealed some fascinating insights. The correlation coefficient of 0.7766831 and r-squared value of 0.6032367 emphasized the strong bond between these seemingly unrelated variables. With a p-value of less than 0.01, we can confidently say that the relationship is not just a pile of dust bunnies blowing in the wind.
Fig. 1 depicts our findings in a scatterplot that clearly illustrates the robust correlation between household spending on cleaning supplies and air quality. The data points align like a perfectly made bed, leaving no room for doubt that there is something in the air when it comes to the cleanliness of our homes and the air we breathe.
Our results speak volumes, suggesting that as households invest more in cleaning supplies, the air quality in Cincinnati is positively influenced. While our study doesn't establish a cause-and-effect relationship, it does provide a refreshing perspective on the potential impact of household cleanliness on the surrounding environment.
It seems that in the battle for a cleaner environment, a little extra spending on cleaning supplies might just sweep away some of the pollutants lingering in the air. Our findings not only highlight the interconnectedness of household habits and environmental conditions but also bring a fresh breeze of insight into the ongoing discourse on environmental economics.
So, it's time to put our feather dusters and statistical software on display as we celebrate the empirical evidence that a tidy house might indeed lead to fresher air. The relationship between household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality isn't just a load of hot air after all!
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
As we wrap up this dusting dance of data, it's clear that our findings blow away any lingering doubts about the link between annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality in Cincinnati. The correlation coefficient of 0.7766831 has really swept us off our feet! Our results suggest that a little extra spending on cleaning supplies might just be the air-tight solution to fresher air.
But let's not jump to conclusions like an overzealous vacuum cleaner just yet. While our findings sparkle like a well-polished surface, it's important to remember that correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. We don't want to suck all the fun out of cleaning, after all!
In the grand scheme of household economics and environmental quality, our study adds a breath of fresh air to the ongoing discourse. It's time to give credit where credit is due and acknowledge the impact of household habits on the world around us. Who knew that a tidy house could be a breath of fresh air in more ways than one?
In conclusion, our research has put the dust to rest on the debate about the connection between household spending on cleaning supplies and air quality in Cincinnati. It's time to clear the air and declare that no more research is needed in this area. Our findings stand tall and proud, like a freshly mopped floor, presenting a polished perspective on the intertwined relationship between household cleanliness and environmental conditions. It's time to take a deep breath and revel in the delightful revelation that a clean house might just be the foundation for cleaner air.
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 Dusting Off the Facts: Examining the Link Between Annual US Household Spending on Housekeeping Supplies and Air Quality in Cincinnati. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
Journal of Domestic Hygiene and Environmental Health
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 Dusting Off the Facts: Examining the Link Between Annual US Household Spending on Housekeeping Supplies and Air Quality in Cincinnati. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Society for Domestic Hygiene Research
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 Dusting Off the Facts: Examining the Link Between Annual US Household Spending on Housekeeping Supplies and Air Quality in Cincinnati with an abstract of In this study, we dusted off some data to explore the potential link between annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies and air quality in Cincinnati. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency for the years 2000 to 2022, our research team uncovered some surprising findings. Our analysis revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.7766831 and p < 0.01, suggesting a strong relationship between the two variables. This correlation, while not necessarily causation, certainly adds some polish to the notion that a clean house might lead to cleaner air. Our study not only sweeps away doubts about the impact of housekeeping practices on air quality but also brings a breath of fresh air to the field of environmental economics.
ChatGPT:
annual US household spending, housekeeping supplies, air quality, Cincinnati, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Environmental Protection Agency, correlation coefficient, environmental economics
*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
Annual US household spending on housekeeping suppliesDetailed data title: Average annual household spend on housekeeping supplies
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
See what else correlates with Annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies
Air quality in Cincinnati
Detailed data title: Percentage of days with good air quality in Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air quality in Cincinnati
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 = 0.6032367 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 60.3% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Air quality in Cincinnati) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies) over the 23 years from 2000 through 2022.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 1.3E-5. 0.0000131310711680741890000000
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 0.78 in 0.0013% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 76,155 random variables You don't actually need 76 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.
p-value calculations are useful for understanding the probability of a result happening by chance. They are most useful when used to highlight the risk of a fluke outcome. For example, if you calculate a p-value of 0.30, the risk that the result is a fluke is high. It is good to know that! But there are lots of ways to get a p-value of less than 0.01, as evidenced by this project.
In this particular case, the values are so extreme as to be meaningless. That's why no one reports p-values with specificity after they drop below 0.01.
Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 22 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 22 because we have two variables measured over a period of 23 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.
[ 0.54, 0.9 ] 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.
2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
Annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies (Household spend) | 482 | 509 | 545 | 529 | 594 | 611 | 640 | 639 | 654 | 659 | 612 | 615 | 610 | 645 | 632 | 655 | 660 | 755 | 747 | 766 | 837 | 803 | 787 |
Air quality in Cincinnati (Good air quality) | 13.6612 | 19.726 | 17.2603 | 22.4658 | 29.235 | 45.2055 | 55.8904 | 30.137 | 40.1639 | 37.5342 | 12.8767 | 35.0685 | 27.5956 | 25.2055 | 28.7671 | 44.6575 | 45.6284 | 47.3973 | 44.9315 | 41.0959 | 55.7377 | 45.7534 | 50.137 |
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. - 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.
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.
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([482,509,545,529,594,611,640,639,654,659,612,615,610,645,632,655,660,755,747,766,837,803,787,])
array_2 = np.array([13.6612,19.726,17.2603,22.4658,29.235,45.2055,55.8904,30.137,40.1639,37.5342,12.8767,35.0685,27.5956,25.2055,28.7671,44.6575,45.6284,47.3973,44.9315,41.0959,55.7377,45.7534,50.137,])
array_1_name = "Annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies"
array_2_name = "Air quality in Cincinnati"
# 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 Annual US household spending on housekeeping supplies
- Line chart for only Air quality in Cincinnati
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: Dusting Off the Facts: Examining the Link Between Annual US Household Spending on Housekeeping Supplies and Air Quality in Cincinnati
You're a rater extraordinaire!
Correlation ID: 3551 · Black Variable ID: 19912 · Red Variable ID: 20467