about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,739 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Air pollution in Atlanta and the second variable is The number of library assistants in Georgia.  The chart goes from 2003 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the air quality improved, the job market for library assistants became quite 'aerodynamic,' leading many to pursue other careers outside of the library system. The clean air acted as a catalyst for change, blowing away the old positions and paving the way for new opportunities elsewhere. The correlation suggests that in the battle of Atlanta air pollution versus library assistant jobs, the fresh, clean air came out as the unexpected winner, leaving behind nothing but 'book dust' in its wake. It seems like in this case, a breath of fresh air wasn't just a figure of speech, but a career-changing phenomenon!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a bustling Atlanta cityscape under clear skies, with the silhouette of a group of library assistants stepping out of a grand library. Their capes billow in the wind as they set out on the city's clean, fresh air, feeling revitalized and inspired. The image should capture the sense of newfound opportunity and the refreshing change in the city's atmosphere. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Air pollution in Atlanta and The number of library assistants in Georgia. 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 Discovery magazine cover image Woodblock painting Low poly Parallax art A TIME magazine cover image
ChatGPT: A Discovery magazine cover image

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Air pollution in Atlanta and The number of library assistants in Georgia, in the following situation: As the air quality improved, the job market for library assistants became quite 'aerodynamic,' leading many to pursue other careers outside of the library system. The clean air acted as a catalyst for change, blowing away the old positions and paving the way for new opportunities elsewhere. The correlation suggests that in the battle of Atlanta air pollution versus library assistant jobs, the fresh, clean air came out as the unexpected winner, leaving behind nothing but 'book dust' in its wake. It seems like in this case, a breath of fresh air wasn't just a figure of speech, but a career-changing phenomenon!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Atlanta, clear skies and fresh, clean air fill the city. As the haze of pollution dissipates, a group of library assistants can be seen stepping out of the library, their capes fluttering in the breeze. With renewed vigor, they set out on new paths, leaving behind the familiar stacks of books. The city's air, once heavy with pollution, now offers them a breath of fresh opportunity, propelling them towards new horizons.

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 Discovery magazine cover image ] and depicting this scene: In Atlanta, clear skies and fresh, clean air fill the city. As the haze of pollution dissipates, a group of library assistants can be seen stepping out of the library, their capes fluttering in the breeze. With renewed vigor, they set out on new paths, leaving behind the familiar stacks of books. The city's air, once heavy with pollution, now offers them a breath of fresh opportunity, propelling them towards new horizons. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a bustling Atlanta cityscape under clear skies, with the silhouette of a group of library assistants stepping out of a grand library. Their capes billow in the wind as they set out on the city's clean, fresh air, feeling revitalized and inspired. The image should capture the sense of newfound opportunity and the refreshing change in the city's atmosphere.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how a decrease in Air pollution in Atlanta caused The number of library assistants in Georgia to decrease. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
The Air-ious Connection: Examining the Correlation between Air Pollution in Atlanta and the Number of Library Assistants in Georgia

The Journal of Ecological Anomalies

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Air pollution in Atlanta and The number of library assistants in Georgia. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title punny if you can come up with clever pun. If not, make it sound serious.

Your research team used data from Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Larbor Statistics to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8983327 and p < 0.01 for 2003 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]]
The Air-ious Connection: Examining the Correlation between Air Pollution in Atlanta and the Number of Library Assistants in Georgia

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we set out to explore the unexpected, yet intriguing relationship between air pollution in Atlanta and the number of library assistants in Georgia. Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau of Labor Statistics spanning from 2003 to 2022, we analyzed the air quality index and the employment numbers in the field of library assistance. To our surprise, our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.8983327, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. While this connection may seem as elusive as a well-hidden book in a library, our research sheds light on the possible influence of air pollution on the demand for library assistants. Our results not only contribute to the growing field of environmental economics but also prompt further investigation into the interplay of atmospheric conditions and library staffing. This study serves as a breath of fresh air in the scholarly community and may inspire future research to delve deeper into the whimsical world of unexpected correlations.


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 Air pollution in Atlanta and The number of library assistants in Georgia. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Air-ious Connection: Examining the Correlation between Air Pollution in Atlanta and the Number of Library Assistants in Georgia

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we set out to explore the unexpected, yet intriguing relationship between air pollution in Atlanta and the number of library assistants in Georgia. Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau of Labor Statistics spanning from 2003 to 2022, we analyzed the air quality index and the employment numbers in the field of library assistance. To our surprise, our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.8983327, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. While this connection may seem as elusive as a well-hidden book in a library, our research sheds light on the possible influence of air pollution on the demand for library assistants. Our results not only contribute to the growing field of environmental economics but also prompt further investigation into the interplay of atmospheric conditions and library staffing. This study serves as a breath of fresh air in the scholarly community and may inspire future research to delve deeper into the whimsical world of unexpected correlations.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
Introduction

Ah, the sweet smell of academic inquiry in the morning! In this paper, we embark on an intellectual odyssey that explores the unlikely symbiosis between the air pollution levels in Atlanta and the bustling world of library assistants in Georgia. It's a tale of two seemingly unrelated domains coming together in a statistical waltz that has left us both intrigued and slightly breathless.

As researchers, we often find ourselves navigating through the maze of data, seeking correlations and causes that may not be immediately obvious. This endeavor has been likened to looking for a needle in a haystack, although in our case, we were hoping to stumble upon more of a literary artifact than a sharp object. Nonetheless, armed with our trusty statistical tools and a healthy dose of curiosity, we delved into the realms of air quality index and employment numbers, ready to uncover hidden connections like intrepid explorers in a jungle of numbers.

Now, if you're scratching your head and thinking, "What on Earth does air pollution have to do with library assistants?", fret not, dear reader, you are not alone. As we embarked on this research, even our colleagues raised an eyebrow or two, with some suggesting that perhaps we had inhaled too many fumes from our data-crunching machines. However, as the data unfolded before us, it became clear that there might just be more to this unlikely pair than initially meets the eye.

The correlation coefficient that emerged from our analysis was as striking as an astronomical event, with the numbers dancing in harmony to the tune of 0.8983327. This correlation was not just floating in the statistical ether; it pranced into the realm of significance with a p-value less than 0.01, much like a rare book suddenly surfacing in a neglected corner of a library.

Our findings serve as a reminder that in the intricate dance of economic and atmospheric forces, sometimes the partners are not those we expected. The interplay between air pollution and the demand for library assistants may seem as puzzling as a maze in a library, but as we present our results, we invite you to join us in this whimsical waltz through the realms of unexpected correlations.

With this study, we aspire to not only add a breath of fresh air to the scholarly discourse but also to incite a chuckle or two at the quirks of scientific exploration. So, buckle up and fasten your seatbelts, for we are about to embark on a journey that may leave you gasping for air—in scholarly amazement, that is.


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 Air pollution in Atlanta and The number of library assistants in Georgia. 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 devolve ever further, and mention something completely ridiculous, like you conducted literature review by reading CVS receipts.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Air-ious Connection: Examining the Correlation between Air Pollution in Atlanta and the Number of Library Assistants in Georgia

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we set out to explore the unexpected, yet intriguing relationship between air pollution in Atlanta and the number of library assistants in Georgia. Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau of Labor Statistics spanning from 2003 to 2022, we analyzed the air quality index and the employment numbers in the field of library assistance. To our surprise, our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.8983327, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. While this connection may seem as elusive as a well-hidden book in a library, our research sheds light on the possible influence of air pollution on the demand for library assistants. Our results not only contribute to the growing field of environmental economics but also prompt further investigation into the interplay of atmospheric conditions and library staffing. This study serves as a breath of fresh air in the scholarly community and may inspire future research to delve deeper into the whimsical world of unexpected correlations.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Introduction
Ah, the sweet smell of academic inquiry in the morning! In this paper, we embark on an intellectual odyssey that explores the unlikely symbiosis between the air pollution levels in Atlanta and the bustling world of library assistants in Georgia. It's a tale of two seemingly unrelated domains coming together in a statistical waltz that has left us both intrigued and slightly breathless.
As researchers, we often find ourselves navigating through the maze of data, seeking correlations and causes that may not be immediately obvious. This endeavor has been likened to looking for a needle in a haystack, although in our case, we were hoping to stumble upon more of a literary artifact than a sharp object. Nonetheless, armed with our trusty statistical tools and a healthy dose of curiosity, we delved into the realms of air quality index and employment numbers, ready to uncover hidden connections like intrepid explorers in a jungle of numbers.
Now, if you're scratching your head and thinking, "What on Earth does air pollution have to do with library assistants?", fret not, dear reader, you are not alone. As we embarked on this research, even our colleagues raised an eyebrow or two, with some suggesting that perhaps we had inhaled too many fumes from our data-crunching machines. However, as the data unfolded before us, it became clear that there might just be more to this unlikely pair than initially meets the eye.
The correlation coefficient that emerged from our analysis was as striking as an astronomical event, with the numbers dancing in harmony to the tune of 0.8983327. This correlation was not just floating in the statistical ether; it pranced into the realm of significance with a p-value less than 0.01, much like a rare book suddenly surfacing in a neglected corner of a library.
Our findings serve as a reminder that in the intricate dance of economic and atmospheric forces, sometimes the partners are not those we expected. The interplay between air pollution and the demand for library assistants may seem as puzzling as a maze in a library, but as we present our results, we invite you to join us in this whimsical waltz through the realms of unexpected correlations.
With this study, we aspire to not only add a breath of fresh air to the scholarly discourse but also to incite a chuckle or two at the quirks of scientific exploration. So, buckle up and fasten your seatbelts, for we are about to embark on a journey that may leave you gasping for air—in scholarly amazement, that is.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The investigation of seemingly disparate phenomena has long been a pursuit of scholarly curiosity, often leading to unexpected and sometimes comical revelations. Smith et al. (2015) delved into the complex world of environmental economics, aiming to untangle the intricate web of factors influencing labor demand. Meanwhile, Doe (2018) examined the nuances of atmospheric conditions and their potential impact on human activities. Through their rigorous analyses, both researchers highlighted the need to explore the uncharted territories where economic forces and environmental factors intersect.

The interplay between air pollution and library assistants may seem as unlikely as finding a unicorn browsing through a collection of fairy tales, and yet, our quest for understanding has unearthed intriguing parallels. In "Breathless: The Impact of Air Quality on Economic Trends" by Jones (2020), the author expounds on the far-reaching implications of air pollution on employment patterns. It appears that the influence of atmospheric conditions extends beyond mere inhalation, reaching into the realms of occupational demands.

In our pursuit of interconnections, we also ventured into the realms of literary works that, albeit fictitious, might offer metaphorical insights. "The Dusty Chronicles" by Orwell (1948) may not directly address air pollution, but its symbolic depiction of societal conditions and the quest for knowledge speaks to the subtle undercurrents we seek to unravel. Similarly, the whimsical musings found in "Cloudy with a Chance of Books" by Barrett (1978) invite us to contemplate the ethereal nature of information dissemination amid atmospheric variations.

As our exploration delved into unconventional sources, we could not ignore the occasional whimsy encountered in unexpected places. While perusing the aisles of knowledge, it became apparent that even the most unassuming artifacts hold clues to the enigmatic correlation we sought. A particularly enlightening find came in the form of a discarded CVS receipt, offering not just a record of mundane purchases, but also a testament to the ephemeral nature of transactions—much like the transitory dance of air pollutants and labor market dynamics.

In sum, our journey through the annals of academic investigations and literary musings has provided a fresh perspective on the interconnectedness of seemingly discrete domains. As we sail through the currents of scholarly discourse, we invite fellow seekers of knowledge to embrace the whimsy inherent in the pursuit of unexpected correlations and to revel in the delightful absurdity of our scholarly pursuits.


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 Air pollution in Atlanta and The number of library assistants in Georgia. 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 Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Larbor Statistics . You used data from 2003 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]]
The Air-ious Connection: Examining the Correlation between Air Pollution in Atlanta and the Number of Library Assistants in Georgia

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we set out to explore the unexpected, yet intriguing relationship between air pollution in Atlanta and the number of library assistants in Georgia. Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau of Labor Statistics spanning from 2003 to 2022, we analyzed the air quality index and the employment numbers in the field of library assistance. To our surprise, our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.8983327, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. While this connection may seem as elusive as a well-hidden book in a library, our research sheds light on the possible influence of air pollution on the demand for library assistants. Our results not only contribute to the growing field of environmental economics but also prompt further investigation into the interplay of atmospheric conditions and library staffing. This study serves as a breath of fresh air in the scholarly community and may inspire future research to delve deeper into the whimsical world of unexpected correlations.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Introduction
Ah, the sweet smell of academic inquiry in the morning! In this paper, we embark on an intellectual odyssey that explores the unlikely symbiosis between the air pollution levels in Atlanta and the bustling world of library assistants in Georgia. It's a tale of two seemingly unrelated domains coming together in a statistical waltz that has left us both intrigued and slightly breathless.
As researchers, we often find ourselves navigating through the maze of data, seeking correlations and causes that may not be immediately obvious. This endeavor has been likened to looking for a needle in a haystack, although in our case, we were hoping to stumble upon more of a literary artifact than a sharp object. Nonetheless, armed with our trusty statistical tools and a healthy dose of curiosity, we delved into the realms of air quality index and employment numbers, ready to uncover hidden connections like intrepid explorers in a jungle of numbers.
Now, if you're scratching your head and thinking, "What on Earth does air pollution have to do with library assistants?", fret not, dear reader, you are not alone. As we embarked on this research, even our colleagues raised an eyebrow or two, with some suggesting that perhaps we had inhaled too many fumes from our data-crunching machines. However, as the data unfolded before us, it became clear that there might just be more to this unlikely pair than initially meets the eye.
The correlation coefficient that emerged from our analysis was as striking as an astronomical event, with the numbers dancing in harmony to the tune of 0.8983327. This correlation was not just floating in the statistical ether; it pranced into the realm of significance with a p-value less than 0.01, much like a rare book suddenly surfacing in a neglected corner of a library.
Our findings serve as a reminder that in the intricate dance of economic and atmospheric forces, sometimes the partners are not those we expected. The interplay between air pollution and the demand for library assistants may seem as puzzling as a maze in a library, but as we present our results, we invite you to join us in this whimsical waltz through the realms of unexpected correlations.
With this study, we aspire to not only add a breath of fresh air to the scholarly discourse but also to incite a chuckle or two at the quirks of scientific exploration. So, buckle up and fasten your seatbelts, for we are about to embark on a journey that may leave you gasping for air—in scholarly amazement, that is.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

Data Collection:
Our research team embarked on a data-gathering extravaganza, traversing the digital expanse in search of the elusive tidbits that would shed light on the curious connection between air pollution in Atlanta and the number of library assistants in Georgia. To facilitate this expedition, we primarily tapped into the troves of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, treating their repositories of knowledge as treasure chests in our quest for statistical booty.

From the EPA, we meticulously extracted air quality index data related to the Atlanta metropolitan area, spanning the years 2003 to 2022. This endeavor involved navigating through virtual winds of data points, akin to kite enthusiasts navigating through a gusty day, in order to capture the essence of atmospheric conditions. Our data exploration at the EPA was like a quest for rare artifacts, with the yield of each data point akin to excavating a literary gem from the digital soil of pollution metrics.

As for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we scoured through employment figures specific to the field of library assistance in the state of Georgia over the same period. In a manner reminiscent of a forensic accountant scrutinizing financial records, we delved into the employment landscape with a focus as sharp as a precision tool, seeking the numerical footprints of library assistants amidst the statistical terrain.

Data Analysis:
Once our dexterous data-gathering foray concluded, we set sail into the tumultuous seas of data analysis. Our ship, equipped with the sturdy rudder of statistical software, navigated the tempestuous waves of correlations and significance with the skill of a seasoned sailor.

Employing a blend of correlation analysis and regression modeling, we endeavored to unveil the hidden ties between air pollution levels and the employment of library assistants. With the gusto of a chef meticulously crafting a delicate recipe, we combined the atmospheric ingredients from the EPA with the employment seasonings from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, allowing the data stew to simmer and reveal its tantalizing flavors.

To ensure the robustness of our findings, we conducted sensitivity analyses that involved adjusting parameters and testing alternate statistical models. This process was akin to fine-tuning a musical instrument, striving for harmonious melodies of data interpretation that would resonate with scholarly audiences.

In addition, we performed time-series analyses to capture the temporal nuances of the relationship between air pollution and library assistant employment. Like capturing the ephemeral beauty of a fleeting butterfly, we sought to capture the subtle dance of these variables over time, acknowledging the dynamic nature of both atmospheric conditions and labor market dynamics.

Statistical Interpretation:
As we emerged from the statistical crucible with our findings in hand, we donned the metaphorical robes of data interpreters, ready to present the fruits of our labor to the academic jury.

Through the lens of correlation coefficients and p-values, we elucidated the strength and significance of the relationship between air pollution in Atlanta and the number of library assistants in Georgia. The correlation coefficient, akin to a celestial constellation of data points, illuminated the extent of the connection, while the p-value, akin to a statistical truth serum, revealed the veracity of our findings.

Our statistical interpretations were peppered with cautionary notes, akin to the annotations of a conscientious librarian, reminding readers of the limitations and caveats inherent in our data analysis. We acknowledged the complexities of causal inference in observational studies, underscoring that correlation does not imply causation, much like a detective emphasizing that a mere coincidence does not indicate guilt.

In summary, our methodology was a tapestry woven from the threads of data exploration, statistical analysis, and cautious interpretation. With our academic quill and statistical ink, we invite fellow scholars to peruse the symphony of our methodology and partake in the intellectual feast of our findings, all while savoring the occasional statistical pun or whimsical metaphor woven into our scholarly narrative.


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 Air pollution in Atlanta and The number of library assistants in Georgia. 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 Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Larbor Statistics .

For the time period 2003 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.8983327, r-squared of 0.8070016, 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]]
The Air-ious Connection: Examining the Correlation between Air Pollution in Atlanta and the Number of Library Assistants in Georgia

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we set out to explore the unexpected, yet intriguing relationship between air pollution in Atlanta and the number of library assistants in Georgia. Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau of Labor Statistics spanning from 2003 to 2022, we analyzed the air quality index and the employment numbers in the field of library assistance. To our surprise, our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.8983327, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. While this connection may seem as elusive as a well-hidden book in a library, our research sheds light on the possible influence of air pollution on the demand for library assistants. Our results not only contribute to the growing field of environmental economics but also prompt further investigation into the interplay of atmospheric conditions and library staffing. This study serves as a breath of fresh air in the scholarly community and may inspire future research to delve deeper into the whimsical world of unexpected correlations.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Introduction
Ah, the sweet smell of academic inquiry in the morning! In this paper, we embark on an intellectual odyssey that explores the unlikely symbiosis between the air pollution levels in Atlanta and the bustling world of library assistants in Georgia. It's a tale of two seemingly unrelated domains coming together in a statistical waltz that has left us both intrigued and slightly breathless.
As researchers, we often find ourselves navigating through the maze of data, seeking correlations and causes that may not be immediately obvious. This endeavor has been likened to looking for a needle in a haystack, although in our case, we were hoping to stumble upon more of a literary artifact than a sharp object. Nonetheless, armed with our trusty statistical tools and a healthy dose of curiosity, we delved into the realms of air quality index and employment numbers, ready to uncover hidden connections like intrepid explorers in a jungle of numbers.
Now, if you're scratching your head and thinking, "What on Earth does air pollution have to do with library assistants?", fret not, dear reader, you are not alone. As we embarked on this research, even our colleagues raised an eyebrow or two, with some suggesting that perhaps we had inhaled too many fumes from our data-crunching machines. However, as the data unfolded before us, it became clear that there might just be more to this unlikely pair than initially meets the eye.
The correlation coefficient that emerged from our analysis was as striking as an astronomical event, with the numbers dancing in harmony to the tune of 0.8983327. This correlation was not just floating in the statistical ether; it pranced into the realm of significance with a p-value less than 0.01, much like a rare book suddenly surfacing in a neglected corner of a library.
Our findings serve as a reminder that in the intricate dance of economic and atmospheric forces, sometimes the partners are not those we expected. The interplay between air pollution and the demand for library assistants may seem as puzzling as a maze in a library, but as we present our results, we invite you to join us in this whimsical waltz through the realms of unexpected correlations.
With this study, we aspire to not only add a breath of fresh air to the scholarly discourse but also to incite a chuckle or two at the quirks of scientific exploration. So, buckle up and fasten your seatbelts, for we are about to embark on a journey that may leave you gasping for air—in scholarly amazement, that is.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The data analysis conducted in this study revealed a striking correlation between air pollution in Atlanta and the number of library assistants in Georgia. Our correlation coefficient of 0.8983327 indicates a robust relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. If correlations were superheroes, this one would be Superman - strong, significant, and capable of flying through statistical paradigms in a single bound!

Further bolstering the strength of our findings, the r-squared value of 0.8070016 attests to the fact that a whopping 80.7% of the variation in the number of library assistants can be explained by changes in air pollution levels. It's like having a crystal-clear map guiding us through the labyrinth of library staffing trends, with air pollution serving as the unexpected cartographer.

In addition, our p-value of less than 0.01 adds a dash of statistical sparkle to our results, implying that the observed correlation is not just a fluke - it's a bona fide discovery worthy of exploration. If statistical significance were a literary genre, this result would be a captivating mystery novel, unraveling the enigmatic link between air pollution and the demand for library assistants.

Not to get too carried away, but the strength of this correlation is like finding a long-lost book on a dusty shelf - unexpected, yet remarkably satisfying. We can't help but be amused by the whimsical nature of scientific inquiry, where the correlation between air pollution and library assistants has emerged as a surprising protagonist, weaving an intriguing tale that transcends conventional wisdom.

But fear not, dear readers, for we don't just expect you to take our word for it. We've depicted this delightful association in all its glory in the form of a stunning scatterplot (Fig. 1), showing the clear relationship between air pollution levels and the number of library assistants. This visual representation is akin to a masterpiece painting, capturing the essence of this unlikely correlation with artistic flair.

In conclusion, our results highlight the unexpected harmony between air pollution in Atlanta and the employment of library assistants in Georgia, providing a fresh perspective on the intricate interplay between atmospheric conditions and staffing dynamics. This study is not just a breath of fresh air in the scholarly community; it's a gust of whimsical wind that invites us to ponder the mysteries of correlation with a wry smile and a raised eyebrow.


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 Air pollution in Atlanta and The number of library assistants in Georgia. 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]]
The Air-ious Connection: Examining the Correlation between Air Pollution in Atlanta and the Number of Library Assistants in Georgia

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we set out to explore the unexpected, yet intriguing relationship between air pollution in Atlanta and the number of library assistants in Georgia. Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau of Labor Statistics spanning from 2003 to 2022, we analyzed the air quality index and the employment numbers in the field of library assistance. To our surprise, our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.8983327, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. While this connection may seem as elusive as a well-hidden book in a library, our research sheds light on the possible influence of air pollution on the demand for library assistants. Our results not only contribute to the growing field of environmental economics but also prompt further investigation into the interplay of atmospheric conditions and library staffing. This study serves as a breath of fresh air in the scholarly community and may inspire future research to delve deeper into the whimsical world of unexpected correlations.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The investigation of seemingly disparate phenomena has long been a pursuit of scholarly curiosity, often leading to unexpected and sometimes comical revelations. Smith et al. (2015) delved into the complex world of environmental economics, aiming to untangle the intricate web of factors influencing labor demand. Meanwhile, Doe (2018) examined the nuances of atmospheric conditions and their potential impact on human activities. Through their rigorous analyses, both researchers highlighted the need to explore the uncharted territories where economic forces and environmental factors intersect.
The interplay between air pollution and library assistants may seem as unlikely as finding a unicorn browsing through a collection of fairy tales, and yet, our quest for understanding has unearthed intriguing parallels. In "Breathless: The Impact of Air Quality on Economic Trends" by Jones (2020), the author expounds on the far-reaching implications of air pollution on employment patterns. It appears that the influence of atmospheric conditions extends beyond mere inhalation, reaching into the realms of occupational demands.
In our pursuit of interconnections, we also ventured into the realms of literary works that, albeit fictitious, might offer metaphorical insights. "The Dusty Chronicles" by Orwell (1948) may not directly address air pollution, but its symbolic depiction of societal conditions and the quest for knowledge speaks to the subtle undercurrents we seek to unravel. Similarly, the whimsical musings found in "Cloudy with a Chance of Books" by Barrett (1978) invite us to contemplate the ethereal nature of information dissemination amid atmospheric variations.
As our exploration delved into unconventional sources, we could not ignore the occasional whimsy encountered in unexpected places. While perusing the aisles of knowledge, it became apparent that even the most unassuming artifacts hold clues to the enigmatic correlation we sought. A particularly enlightening find came in the form of a discarded CVS receipt, offering not just a record of mundane purchases, but also a testament to the ephemeral nature of transactions—much like the transitory dance of air pollutants and labor market dynamics.
In sum, our journey through the annals of academic investigations and literary musings has provided a fresh perspective on the interconnectedness of seemingly discrete domains. As we sail through the currents of scholarly discourse, we invite fellow seekers of knowledge to embrace the whimsy inherent in the pursuit of unexpected correlations and to revel in the delightful absurdity of our scholarly pursuits.

[[RESULTS]]
The data analysis conducted in this study revealed a striking correlation between air pollution in Atlanta and the number of library assistants in Georgia. Our correlation coefficient of 0.8983327 indicates a robust relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. If correlations were superheroes, this one would be Superman - strong, significant, and capable of flying through statistical paradigms in a single bound!
Further bolstering the strength of our findings, the r-squared value of 0.8070016 attests to the fact that a whopping 80.7% of the variation in the number of library assistants can be explained by changes in air pollution levels. It's like having a crystal-clear map guiding us through the labyrinth of library staffing trends, with air pollution serving as the unexpected cartographer.
In addition, our p-value of less than 0.01 adds a dash of statistical sparkle to our results, implying that the observed correlation is not just a fluke - it's a bona fide discovery worthy of exploration. If statistical significance were a literary genre, this result would be a captivating mystery novel, unraveling the enigmatic link between air pollution and the demand for library assistants.
Not to get too carried away, but the strength of this correlation is like finding a long-lost book on a dusty shelf - unexpected, yet remarkably satisfying. We can't help but be amused by the whimsical nature of scientific inquiry, where the correlation between air pollution and library assistants has emerged as a surprising protagonist, weaving an intriguing tale that transcends conventional wisdom.
But fear not, dear readers, for we don't just expect you to take our word for it. We've depicted this delightful association in all its glory in the form of a stunning scatterplot (Fig. 1), showing the clear relationship between air pollution levels and the number of library assistants. This visual representation is akin to a masterpiece painting, capturing the essence of this unlikely correlation with artistic flair.
In conclusion, our results highlight the unexpected harmony between air pollution in Atlanta and the employment of library assistants in Georgia, providing a fresh perspective on the intricate interplay between atmospheric conditions and staffing dynamics. This study is not just a breath of fresh air in the scholarly community; it's a gust of whimsical wind that invites us to ponder the mysteries of correlation with a wry smile and a raised eyebrow.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our results have unraveled an unexpected, yet remarkably robust correlation between air pollution in Atlanta and the number of library assistants in Georgia. It's as if the particles in the air and the library assistants are in cahoots, dancing to an unseen chemical signal. Such a strong correlation can't simply be attributed to sheer coincidence; it's like finding a pearl in an oyster - rare and precious, and certainly not something you stumble upon every day at the beach.

Our findings align with previous research by Smith et al. (2015), who emphasized the multifaceted influences on labor demand, much like different books stacked on a shelf, each contributing to the overall allure of the library. Likewise, the results substantiate Doe's (2018) investigation into the impact of atmospheric conditions on human activities. It's as if our study has taken a dusty old book and given it a newfound relevance, breathing life back into the overlooked pages of ecological economics.

Our robust correlation coefficient and r-squared value lend support to the notion that changes in air pollution levels play a substantial role in shaping the demand for library assistants. It's as if the molecules of pollutants and the job applications are engaged in a lively tango, each move influencing the other in a mesmerizing duet of labor dynamics. The statistical significance we've uncovered is akin to discovering a hidden treasure in an old library - it's an unexpected delight that beckons further exploration and investigation.

The visually compelling scatterplot further emphasizes the solid relationship we've unveiled. It's as if we've captured a fleeting rainbow in a jar, allowing others to marvel at the magnificence of this unexpected connection. The whimsical nature of this correlation cannot be overstated; it's like stumbling upon a literary Easter egg, hidden in plain sight yet overlooked until the precise moment of discovery.

In closing, our study has shed light on the unanticipated harmony between air pollution and the employment of library assistants. It's a testament to the charming unpredictability of scholarly inquiry, where the most unlikely pairings can reveal compelling insights. As we continue to explore the realms of unlikely correlations, let's remember to cherish the unexpected connections that pepper the landscape of academic investigation.


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 Air pollution in Atlanta and The number of library assistants in Georgia. 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]]
The Air-ious Connection: Examining the Correlation between Air Pollution in Atlanta and the Number of Library Assistants in Georgia

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we set out to explore the unexpected, yet intriguing relationship between air pollution in Atlanta and the number of library assistants in Georgia. Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau of Labor Statistics spanning from 2003 to 2022, we analyzed the air quality index and the employment numbers in the field of library assistance. To our surprise, our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.8983327, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. While this connection may seem as elusive as a well-hidden book in a library, our research sheds light on the possible influence of air pollution on the demand for library assistants. Our results not only contribute to the growing field of environmental economics but also prompt further investigation into the interplay of atmospheric conditions and library staffing. This study serves as a breath of fresh air in the scholarly community and may inspire future research to delve deeper into the whimsical world of unexpected correlations.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Introduction
Ah, the sweet smell of academic inquiry in the morning! In this paper, we embark on an intellectual odyssey that explores the unlikely symbiosis between the air pollution levels in Atlanta and the bustling world of library assistants in Georgia. It's a tale of two seemingly unrelated domains coming together in a statistical waltz that has left us both intrigued and slightly breathless.
As researchers, we often find ourselves navigating through the maze of data, seeking correlations and causes that may not be immediately obvious. This endeavor has been likened to looking for a needle in a haystack, although in our case, we were hoping to stumble upon more of a literary artifact than a sharp object. Nonetheless, armed with our trusty statistical tools and a healthy dose of curiosity, we delved into the realms of air quality index and employment numbers, ready to uncover hidden connections like intrepid explorers in a jungle of numbers.
Now, if you're scratching your head and thinking, "What on Earth does air pollution have to do with library assistants?", fret not, dear reader, you are not alone. As we embarked on this research, even our colleagues raised an eyebrow or two, with some suggesting that perhaps we had inhaled too many fumes from our data-crunching machines. However, as the data unfolded before us, it became clear that there might just be more to this unlikely pair than initially meets the eye.
The correlation coefficient that emerged from our analysis was as striking as an astronomical event, with the numbers dancing in harmony to the tune of 0.8983327. This correlation was not just floating in the statistical ether; it pranced into the realm of significance with a p-value less than 0.01, much like a rare book suddenly surfacing in a neglected corner of a library.
Our findings serve as a reminder that in the intricate dance of economic and atmospheric forces, sometimes the partners are not those we expected. The interplay between air pollution and the demand for library assistants may seem as puzzling as a maze in a library, but as we present our results, we invite you to join us in this whimsical waltz through the realms of unexpected correlations.
With this study, we aspire to not only add a breath of fresh air to the scholarly discourse but also to incite a chuckle or two at the quirks of scientific exploration. So, buckle up and fasten your seatbelts, for we are about to embark on a journey that may leave you gasping for air—in scholarly amazement, that is.

[[RESULTS]]
The data analysis conducted in this study revealed a striking correlation between air pollution in Atlanta and the number of library assistants in Georgia. Our correlation coefficient of 0.8983327 indicates a robust relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. If correlations were superheroes, this one would be Superman - strong, significant, and capable of flying through statistical paradigms in a single bound!
Further bolstering the strength of our findings, the r-squared value of 0.8070016 attests to the fact that a whopping 80.7% of the variation in the number of library assistants can be explained by changes in air pollution levels. It's like having a crystal-clear map guiding us through the labyrinth of library staffing trends, with air pollution serving as the unexpected cartographer.
In addition, our p-value of less than 0.01 adds a dash of statistical sparkle to our results, implying that the observed correlation is not just a fluke - it's a bona fide discovery worthy of exploration. If statistical significance were a literary genre, this result would be a captivating mystery novel, unraveling the enigmatic link between air pollution and the demand for library assistants.
Not to get too carried away, but the strength of this correlation is like finding a long-lost book on a dusty shelf - unexpected, yet remarkably satisfying. We can't help but be amused by the whimsical nature of scientific inquiry, where the correlation between air pollution and library assistants has emerged as a surprising protagonist, weaving an intriguing tale that transcends conventional wisdom.
But fear not, dear readers, for we don't just expect you to take our word for it. We've depicted this delightful association in all its glory in the form of a stunning scatterplot (Fig. 1), showing the clear relationship between air pollution levels and the number of library assistants. This visual representation is akin to a masterpiece painting, capturing the essence of this unlikely correlation with artistic flair.
In conclusion, our results highlight the unexpected harmony between air pollution in Atlanta and the employment of library assistants in Georgia, providing a fresh perspective on the intricate interplay between atmospheric conditions and staffing dynamics. This study is not just a breath of fresh air in the scholarly community; it's a gust of whimsical wind that invites us to ponder the mysteries of correlation with a wry smile and a raised eyebrow.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

Rounding off this expedition into the enigmatic realms of unusual correlations, we find ourselves marveling at the unexpected tango between air pollution in Atlanta and the number of library assistants in Georgia. If scientific inquiry were a game of hide-and-seek, this correlation would be the elusive library cat that knows all the best hiding spots - remarkable, unexpected, and mildly perplexing.

As we bid adieu to this peculiar partnership, we can't help but marvel at the quirks of statistical exploration. It's like stumbling upon a statistical unicorn in a field of data, simultaneously baffling and delightful. Our correlation coefficient and p-value have left us as gobsmacked as a librarian finding a dinosaur in the stacks - an oddity that defies expectations in the best possible way.

With a mixture of amusement and scholarly intrigue, we present our findings as a gentle reminder that in the labyrinth of statistical inquiry, surprises are often the most captivating treasures. So, as if we were closing the final chapter of a whimsical novel, we assert that no further research is needed in this area. We bid adieu to the land of air pollution and library assistants, leaving it as a curious enigma for future generations to muse over.

And thus, we close this chapter with a wink and a nod to the capricious nature of scientific exploration. Until the next statistical surprise beckons, let us revel in the joy of whimsy and the marvels of correlation, for in the end, it's not just about the destination, but the delightfully unexpected journey.


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 The Air-ious Connection: Examining the Correlation between Air Pollution in Atlanta and the Number of Library Assistants in Georgia. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Ecological Anomalies


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 The Air-ious Connection: Examining the Correlation between Air Pollution in Atlanta and the Number of Library Assistants in Georgia. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Atmospheric and Occupational Studies


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled The Air-ious Connection: Examining the Correlation between Air Pollution in Atlanta and the Number of Library Assistants in Georgia with an abstract of In this study, we set out to explore the unexpected, yet intriguing relationship between air pollution in Atlanta and the number of library assistants in Georgia. Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau of Labor Statistics spanning from 2003 to 2022, we analyzed the air quality index and the employment numbers in the field of library assistance. To our surprise, our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.8983327, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. While this connection may seem as elusive as a well-hidden book in a library, our research sheds light on the possible influence of air pollution on the demand for library assistants. Our results not only contribute to the growing field of environmental economics but also prompt further investigation into the interplay of atmospheric conditions and library staffing. This study serves as a breath of fresh air in the scholarly community and may inspire future research to delve deeper into the whimsical world of unexpected correlations.

ChatGPT:

Atlanta, air pollution, library assistants, Georgia, correlation, Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Labor Statistics, air quality index, employment numbers, correlation coefficient, p-value, environmental economics, atmospheric conditions, staffing, unexpected correlations

*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

Air pollution in Atlanta
Detailed data title: Percentage of days with moderate or worse air quality in Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air pollution in Atlanta

The number of library assistants in Georgia
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of library assistants, clerical in Georgia
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of library assistants in Georgia

Correlation r = 0.8983327 (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 = 0.8070016 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 80.7% of the change in the one variable (i.e., The number of library assistants in Georgia) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Air pollution in Atlanta) over the 20 years from 2003 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 7.6E-8. 0.0000000758158053748229900000
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 0.9 in 7.6E-6% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 13,189,862 random variables You don't actually need 13 million variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

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

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

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 19 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 19 because we have two variables measured over a period of 20 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.

[ 0.76, 0.96 ] 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.
20032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
Air pollution in Atlanta (Bad air quality days)79.72680.327978.904182.739778.082276.77666.027469.86368.767171.038353.972663.835661.643871.311552.328842.191855.616434.15342.739742.1918
The number of library assistants in Georgia (Laborers)18202230221026002380229017402100199018101270167016001800179014701070570510710




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Confounding variable: 2020 is particularly different from the other years on this graph. Confounding variables (like global pandemics) will cause two variables to look connected when in fact a "sneaky third" variable is influencing both of them behind the scenes.




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([79.726,80.3279,78.9041,82.7397,78.0822,76.776,66.0274,69.863,68.7671,71.0383,53.9726,63.8356,61.6438,71.3115,52.3288,42.1918,55.6164,34.153,42.7397,42.1918,])
array_2 = np.array([1820,2230,2210,2600,2380,2290,1740,2100,1990,1810,1270,1670,1600,1800,1790,1470,1070,570,510,710,])
array_1_name = "Air pollution in Atlanta"
array_2_name = "The number of library assistants in Georgia"

# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)

# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)



Reuseable content

You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.

You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.

For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."

When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.

Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

You're the correlation whisperer we needed!


Correlation ID: 4739 · Black Variable ID: 20290 · Red Variable ID: 6857
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0