Additional Info: I asked a large language model, 'On a scale of 1-10, how _______ do you think this YouTube video title is?' for every video.
Report an error
How nerdy Computerphile YouTube video titles are correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Air pollution in Provo, Utah | r=0.98 | 6yrs | No |
The number of tapers in New Mexico | r=0.96 | 7yrs | Yes! |
Christmas Trees Sold in the US | r=0.94 | 7yrs | Yes! |
The number of audiologists in California | r=0.92 | 10yrs | No |
Hydopower energy generated in South Africa | r=0.91 | 9yrs | No |
Points allowed by the Minnesota Vikings | r=0.85 | 11yrs | No |
Drenching rain in Sydney | r=0.76 | 10yrs | No |
US production of butter | r=0.74 | 9yrs | No |
Points allowed by the New England Patriots | r=0.71 | 11yrs | No |
How nerdy Computerphile YouTube video titles are also correlates with...
<< Back to discover a correlation
You caught me! While it would be intuitive to sort only by "correlation," I have a big, weird database. If I sort only by correlation, often all the top results are from some one or two very large datasets (like the weather or labor statistics), and it overwhelms the page.
I can't show you *all* the correlations, because my database would get too large and this page would take a very long time to load. Instead I opt to show you a subset, and I sort them by a magic system score. It starts with the correlation, but penalizes variables that repeat from the same dataset. (It also gives a bonus to variables I happen to find interesting.)