A split bar chart of YouGov polling data with the headline: "Americans are most likely to say T. Rex is their favorite dinosaur, but many don't have a favorite." The chart has the sub-headline: "Which of the following is your favorite dinosaur? (%)." The chart has the note: "Note: "Other" includes responses of archaeopteryx, spinosaurus, plesiosaur, ankylosaurus, allosaurus, parasaurolophus, dilophosaurus, diplodocus, iguanadon, and pachycephalosaurus, as well as responses of "other." We know pterodactyls and plesiosaurs aren't dinosaurs. Opinion about dinosaurs comes from the question, "How much do you like or dislike dinosaurs?""

A shocking new poll result: Many Americans somehow don't have a favorite dinosaur.

And only 6% give the correct answer (triceratops).

Check out YouGov's new polling on Americans and dinosaurs: yougovamerica.substack.com/p/whats-your...

As we note, this non-effect could easily be a Obama specific--his judicial nominee strategy was focused on other areas beyond ideology.

My colleagues and I studied the effect on Obama nominees alone, pre- and post- Nov 2013. We find post-filibuster: faster confirmation times, higher confirmation rates, but not a big shift to appoint more liberal nominees (plotted here). www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi...

Definitely potential for a post-filibuster effect, but not enough presidencies per party yet to really see (e.g., for Rs, impossible to untangle filibuster end from a pure Trump effect).

Blue digital grid background with University of Michigan ISR logo at the top followed by the headline text "Now On Bluesky" featuring the Bluesky logo and handle "@umisr.bsky.social" at the bottom.

Now on Bluesky: University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research (ISR)! We’re a leading social science research institution, with studies on politics, health, inequality, and economic behavior. Follow for research highlights, behind-the-scenes looks, and insights from our scholars!

#Science

The research provides important insights into criminal adjudications in the U.S. and includes "expanding, testing, and disseminating novel plea-simulation software designed for both research and educational purposes."
2/2

File this under "cool research" . . . In 2019, the NSF funded Wilford's CAREER grant "A system of pleas: Using a role-playing simulation to test plea decision models."
1/

Home | Supreme Court Database The Supreme Court Database is the definitive source for researchers, students, journalists, and citizens interested in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Database contains over two hundred pieces of informat...

Current SCDB flat data files (along with lots more info on the SCDB) are here: scdb.la.psu.edu

Online queryable data--one of my personal favorite features of the modern SCBD--are available through 2023 here: scdb.wustl.edu/analysis.php

4/4

The SCDB contains 247 pieces of info across 6 categories of variables: identifiers, background, chronological, substantive, outcome, and voting/opinion.

3/

The database "is a comprehensive, public, multi-user data resource containing information about every case decided by the United States Supreme Court from its first decision in 1791 to today."

2/

After a little STL tornado delay...let's get back to highlighting some great NSF-sponsored projects.

Today's highlight has significant STL connections and has made multiple generations of scholarship (and journalism and teaching) better: The U.S. Supreme Court Database (SCDB)

1/

Today's NSF Funding Highlight: The many dissertation improvement grants (and equivalents) funded by the NSF. These grants are small in size but help launch research agendas & careers. These awards=a better dissertation in scope and design. #LowCostHighImpact

🤞

The really great news? Avraham continues to update the database today! See papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.... and links within.

#LowCostHighImpact 4/4

The data have been frequently used and cited, with an impact that extends from scholars to policymakers to journalists. 3/

The data record things like details on the reform, whether juries are allowed to be informed of it, how state courts responded to the reform, and whether it was amended by the state legislature. 2/

Today's NSF Funding Highlight: In 2006, state tort reform was hugely salient, and that continues to endure. Avraham's "Database of State Tort Law Reforms" yielded a state-by-state database tracking state and DC laws. 1/

Users of the manual include judges (federal and state) but also attorneys, legal scholars, and law students (and likely many more). 4/4 #LowCostHighImpact

Coverage includes important but highly technical topics like DNA identification and genetic testing, expert testimony, statistical models, survey research, economic damages calculation, toxicology, and more. 3/

This project brings together a "committee of 10-12 members representing...legal and scientific/ engineering/ medical communities" to partner with the Federal Judicial Center to develop an updated "science for judges" manual. 2/

Today's NSF Funded Research Highlight: 2021's "Science for Judges-Development of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 4th Ed." by Mazza. Scientific evidence is everywhere in courts today. NSF funding of scientific evidence evaluation improves court processes & outcomes. 1/

The project uses jury simulations to "examine jurors' and juries' sensitivity to strong versus weak scientific information presented in court" and whether safeguards can improve jurors' inferences from scientific information. 3/3

As the investigators note, jurors are "non-experts who do not possess the necessary tools to differentiate between weak and strong scientific information when making decisions." 2/

NSF Funded Research Highlight of the Day: 2017's "Jurors' Use of Scientific Information" by Neal, Gervais, & Schweitzer. The project "addresses fundamental Qs about how humans reason w/ & make inferences & decisions based on the quality of relevant scientific data" w/ jurors. 1/

I'll feature recent & older grants. Some by people I know, some by folks I have never met. I will start in the law & science area but over time may veer beyond that. I'll use data on grants archived by the NSF, w/ titles, names, and abstracts sourced from there. 4/4

The projects yield publicly-available datasets that go on to serve as the backbone for books & articles & introduce students & policymakers to powerful new ways to think in depth about judges, lawyers, litigants, defendants, policies, & more. 3/

These funded projects are/were often low cost & high impact, tackling significant legal research Qs that help to better society, shape future practices & processes in courts, inform us on public opinion & policy effectiveness, & impact litigants. 2/

In the small way that I can--via posts on here in the coming weeks--I want to highlight/celebrate some important NSF-funded projects (& resulting societal knowledge) over the years. 1/

Useful thread about the restructuring of NSF. Expertise out. Political priorities in. Our science will suffer.