sexy_wash_bucket t1_iswjd0x wrote
Key seems to be mislabeled on the right.
earnest_dad OP t1_isxtgkg wrote
Can you say a bit more about the concern here? The code I used does the following:
(1) identifies the "maximal proportion" as the greatest share (of all female names in that year) a name receives in any year. Note that these maximal proportions are quite small -- the greatest value represented here is "Joanne" with 0.00420; the smallest values in this chart are less than 10^-5.
(2) convert to "1 name per..." by finding 1/maximal proportion, Note that by this measure, "Joanne" is roughly 1 per 238 names; the very uncommon names (e.g. lilylynn" are roughly 1 per 400,000.
(3) use a log scale gradient to plot
sexy_wash_bucket t1_isxtmmv wrote
You’re totally right. Misread it. My bad.
earnest_dad OP t1_isy0rkv wrote
No worries! There are *so* many bugs that end up making their way in here -- good for me to do the double-check!
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments