Correlation is the degree and direction in which two variables are related or associated. Therefore, correlation coefficients are used to measure the strength of the relationship between two variables.

Let me tell you about them and their usefulness in #DataAnalytics 🧵

1/7

A correlation can be positive, meaning that the 2 variables move in the same direction, or negative, meaning that they move in opposite directions. When the correlation is neutral (close to 0) it means that the 2 variables are unrelated.

2/7
Two of the most important correlation coefficients are:
▪️ Pearson
▪️ Spearman

and what is the difference between them?

3/7
Pearson's correlation coefficient is a statistical measure of the strength of the linear relationship between two numerical variables.

It is a very useful coefficient , but it is also very sensitive to outliers.

4/7
Spearman correlation coefficient is a statistical measure of the strength of a monotonic relationship between two variables.

Spearman correlation is less sensitive than the Pearson correlation to outliers.

5/7
And what is its importance?

In many sciences (economics, physics, psychology, etc.) it is of utmost importance, as it allows us to calculate how much and in what way two phenomena are related to each other.

Keep in mind that correlation does not mean causation.

6/7
Finally, let me share with you a @GoogleColab with an example code step-by-step, where I use everything explained previously.

Any additional comments or questions are welcome.

https://t.co/IQKPG3iMJH

7/7

More from Andres Segura-Tinoco

More from All

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?