Page 1 of 268

Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:25 pm
by _Daniel Peterson
An "Advance Access" version of a reply to the locally popular paper on Book of Mormon authorship that was written some time back by Criddle and Jockers and etc. is now available on-line:

G. Bruce Schaalje, Paul J. Fields, Matthew Roper, and Gregory L. Snow, "Extended Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification: A New Method for Open-Set Authorship Attribution of Texts of Varying Sizes," Literary and Linguistic Computing.

http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/recent

Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:08 pm
by _Kishkumen
I look forward to reading it. Unfortunately I am unable to access it using the link you have provided.

Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:35 pm
by _Daniel Peterson
I think there may be another form in which it can be more generally accessed. I'll try to come up with that.

The particular mode of access mentioned in the opening post may work for me because I use a BYU address; BYU subscribes to the journal.

Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:42 pm
by _MCB
The principal point is that the more possible authors are in the test set, the more likely that the results will be reliable. Very simple, and legitimate concern. <shrug> I already knew that.

Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:48 pm
by _Daniel Peterson
It's pretty damaging, I think, to the Criddle/Jockers paper.

Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:52 pm
by _MCB
The Jockers et al paper was only a beginning. There are a lot of other possibilities and controls that can be plugged in on another go-round.

Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:25 pm
by _Benjamin McGuire
You can get to it from here:

http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/recent

MCB writes:
The principal point is that the more possible authors are in the test set, the more likely that the results will be reliable. Very simple, and legitimate concern. <shrug> I already knew that.

And -
The Jockers et al paper was only a beginning. There are a lot of other possibilities and controls that can be plugged in on another go-round.
You should read it. One of the conclusions - after putting in appropriate controls - is that neither Spalding nor Rigdon can be considered potential authors of the Book of Mormon.

Ben M.

Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:29 pm
by _MCB
One of the conclusions....is that neither Spalding nor Rigdon can be considered potential authors of the Book of Mormon.
No--- the jury is still out. Based on the data that your team analyzed, the initial Jockers et al study is not conclusive.

Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:47 pm
by _Daniel Peterson
MCB wrote:No--- the jury is still out. Based on the data that your team analyzed, the initial Jockers et al study is not conclusive

That's a remarkably upbeat way of reading it. Oh well. We can't live without hope.

Sadly, though, as far as more general access goes, here's the response that I just received from this new paper's principal author:

"Unfortunately there isn't a more accessible form of the paper. According to the agreement I signed, I am allowed to post a draft version of the paper as it was prior to revisions, but I made quite a few revisions to the article as a result of the reviews' suggestions. I would be willing to do that if it would be of help, though. I can also post a draft of the 'post-review' manuscript, but only after 12 months have elapsed."

I'll see, perhaps, whether I can get him to post the pre-revision form of the paper. That's not ideal, and I hate to make any additional work for him, but it might be worthwhile.

In the meantime, those who work at universities might well be able to gain access to the paper via their universities' subscriptions, if there are such.

Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:30 pm
by _GlennThigpen
Daniel Peterson wrote:
MCB wrote:No--- the jury is still out. Based on the data that your team analyzed, the initial Jockers et al study is not conclusive

That's a remarkably upbeat way of reading it. Oh well. We can't live without hope.

Sadly, though, as far as more general access goes, here's the response that I just received from this new paper's principal author:

"Unfortunately there isn't a more accessible form of the paper. According to the agreement I signed, I am allowed to post a draft version of the paper as it was prior to revisions, but I made quite a few revisions to the article as a result of the reviews' suggestions. I would be willing to do that if it would be of help, though. I can also post a draft of the 'post-review' manuscript, but only after 12 months have elapsed."

I'll see, perhaps, whether I can get him to post the pre-revision form of the paper. That's not ideal, and I hate to make any additional work for him, but it might be worthwhile.

In the meantime, those who work at universities might well be able to gain access to the paper via their universities' subscriptions, if there are such.


Strange, but I was able to access the full article and download the PDF from my home without a subscription. I may have the LLC police knocking at my door any time now.

After reading and the article, are we allowed to quote any portion of it in a discussion?

Glenn