Technology Tales

Adventures & experiences in contemporary technology

Some online writing tools

15th October 2021

Every week, I get an email newsletter from Woody’s Office Watch. This was something to which I started subscribing in the 1990’s but I took a break from it for a good while for reasons that I cannot recall and returned to it only in recent years. This week’s issue featured a list of online paraphrasing tools that are part of what is offered by Quillbot, Paraphraser, Dupli Checker and Pre Post Seo. Each got their own reviews in the newsletter so I will just outline other features in this posting.

In Quillbot’s case, the toolkit includes a grammar checker, summary generator, and citation generator. In addition to the online offering, there are extensions for Microsoft Word, Google Chrome, and Google Docs. In addition to the free version, a paid subscription option is available.

In spite of the name, Paraphraser is about more than what the title purports to do. There is article rewriting, plagiarism checking, grammar checking and text summarisation. Because there is no premium version, the offering is funded by advertising and it will not work with an ad blocker enabled. The mention of plagiarism suggests a perhaps murkier side to writing that cuts both ways: one is to avoid copying other work while another is the avoidance of groundless accusations of copying.

It was appear that the main role of Dupli Checker is to avoid accusations of plagiarism by checking what you write yet there is a grammar checker as well as a paraphrasing tool on there too. When I tried it, the English that it produced looked a little convoluted and there is a lack of fluency in what is written on its website as well. Together with a free offering that is supported by ads that were not blocked by my ad blocker, there are premium subscriptions too.

In web publishing, they say that content is king so the appearance of an option using the acronym for Search Engine Optimisation in it name may not be as strange as it might as first glance. There are numerous tools here with both free and paid tiers of service. While paraphrasing and plagiarism checking get top billing in the main menu on the home page, further inspection reveals that there is a lot more to check on this site.

In writing, inspiration is a fleeting and ephemeral quantity so anything that helps with this has to be of interest. While any rewriting of initial content may appear less smooth than the starting point, any help with the creation process cannot go amiss. For that reason alone, I might be tempted to try these tools from time to time and they might assist with proof reading as well because that can be a hit and miss affair for some.

 

Creating a Data Set Containing Confidence Intervals Using PROC UNIVARIATE

5th September 2010

While you could generate data sets containing means and confidence intervals using PROC SUMMARY or PROC MEANS, curiosity and the need to verify a program using a different technique were what drove me to consider using PROC UNIVARIATE for the task. For the record, the PROC SUMMARY code is below and the only difference between it and MEANS is that it doesn’t produce output by default, something that’s not needed in this case anyway. Quite why there are two SAS procedures doing exactly the same thing is beyond me though I do wonder if the NOPRINT options was a later addition than these two procedures. The LCLM and UCLM keywords are what triggers the calculation of confidence limits and the ALPHA option controls the confidence interval used; 0.05 specifies a 95% interval, 0.1 a 90% one and so on.

proc summary data=sashelp.class mean lclm uclm alpha=0.05;
var age;
output out=sasuser.lims mean=mean lclm=lclm uclm=uclm;
run;

Given that I have had PROC UNIVARIATE producing statistics that MEANS/SUMMARY didn’t in previous versions of SAS (I believe that is was standard deviation that was absent from MEANS/SUMMARY), I might have expected the calculation and export of confidence limits to a data set to be straightforward. Sadly, it’s not a case of simply adding LCLM and UCLM keywords in the OUTPUT statement for the procedure and ODS OUTPUT is needed to create the data set instead. An ODS SELECT statement is needed to pick out the BasicIntervals output object (UNIVARIATE creates quite a few, it seems) that is created through specification of the CIBASIC and ALPHA (performs the same role as it does for PROC MEANS/SUMMARY) options on the PROC UNIVARIATE statement. The reason for the ODS LISTING and ODS RTF statements below is to stop output being sent to the output window in a standard SAS session. For some reason, it appears that you need the sending of output to one of the LISTING, HTML or RTF destinations or there will be no data in the data set; I met up with the same behaviour when using ODS PS, an ODS PRINTER destination. The data set will contain statistics for mean, standard deviation and variance so that’s why there is a WHERE clause on the ODS OUTPUT statement.

ods listing close;
ods rtf body="c:\temp\uni_eg.doc";
ods select BasicIntervals;
ods output BasicIntervals=sasuser.stats(where=(lowcase(parameter)="mean") );

proc univariate cibasic alpha=0.05 data=sashelp.class;
var age;
run;

ods output close;
ods rtf close;
ods listing;

  • All the views that you find expressed on here in postings and articles are mine alone and not those of any organisation with which I have any association, through work or otherwise. As regards editorial policy, whatever appears here is entirely of my own choice and not that of any other person or organisation.

  • Please note that everything you find here is copyrighted material. The content may be available to read without charge and without advertising but it is not to be reproduced without attribution. As it happens, a number of the images are sourced from stock libraries like iStockPhoto so they certainly are not for abstraction.

  • With regards to any comments left on the site, I expect them to be civil in tone of voice and reserve the right to reject any that are either inappropriate or irrelevant. Comment review is subject to automated processing as well as manual inspection but whatever is said is the sole responsibility of the individual contributor.