Sentences with phrase «analysis see paper»

We have a mentioned of these errors above, but for a more detailed analysis see Paper 1.

Not exact matches

For an in - depth analysis of the chained CPI, see CRFB's Moment of Truth Project policy paper Measuring Up: The Case for the Chained CPI

See «The Usefulness and Applications of Economic Indicator Analysis», Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research Working Paper No. 9/1989.

We actually saw the original paper and analysis done by Borghesi which encouraged us to do our own research.

In the analysis — this was [all] originally published as a scientific paper in Nature last fall and then we see it again here in Scientific American in a more a distilled form — what we show is that in terms of climate change, in terms of nitrogen pollution into our waterways and oceans, and in terms of biodiversity loss, we have already caused irreparable harm to the planet.

He declined to discuss the details of the joint analysis because the paper was not yet available, but he noted that «what is clear from these plots is that the levels of dust were underestimated in the BICEP2 results presented in March, in agreement with what was said in our paper» (see «Gravitational wave discovery faces scrutiny»).

«Ricker saw that paper and said «let's repeat that refined stability analysis for the TESS orbit,»» Dichmann recalled.

A New Scientist analysis based on research papers from this year indicates that US research on hESCs leaves others trailing: 45 per cent of 204 papers mentioning hESCs had at least one US - based author; UK scientists were a distant second, with 17 per cent (for full details, see bit.ly / r7N3zm).

He was also told to steal from the navy Tomonaga's paper on waveguides, labeled «Secret,» which he accomplished by visiting an unsuspecting professor [see «Strings and Gluons — The Seer Saw Them All,» by Madhusree Mukerjee, News and Analysis; Scientific American, February 1995].

The main outcome that Stefan wants to see is that «if [a Ph.D. student] has a question about her data analysis, she knows enough that she can read a book chapter or a paper that explains that analysis and understand it,» or she can go and find help, Stefan says.

The revolution in neuroscience is often characterized as a revolution in new imaging technology.A long overdue reassessment of neuroimaging machines — in particular the functional magnetic resonance imager — has underlined that what you see is not always what you get.A study published this year in Perspectives on Psychological Science noted that many papers in social neuroscience, the field that examines the neurobiology of social behavior, suffered from faulty analyses that produced «voodoo correlations» in their data.

The paper, «Perturbations in the lipid profile of individuals with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes mellitus: lipidomics analysis of a Diabetes Antibody Standardization Program sample subset,» published in Clinical Biochemistry, described lipidomics (see sidebar) analyses of blood samples from patients recently diagnosed with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

For an analysis of this central bar see The Long Bar in the Milky Way by López - Corredoira, Cabrera - Lavers, Mahoney, Hammersley, Garzón, and González - Fernández, (2006), (and also their earlier 2001 paper).

Hansen also extends this analysis further (see also his 2008 Target CO2 paper for a lot of the methodology).

I've done papers on deeper learning and a case analysis, a statistics assignment and a microeconomics exam, in between attending office hours to see professors, dinner at the Faculty Club for Australian students, having a birthday picnic on Columbus Day and going to Oktoberfest celebrations and a party organized by the Harvard Graduate Council.

The critique was written by Jesse Rothstein, a highly respected Berkeley economist and author of an elegant and oft - cited paper demonstrating how non-random classroom assignment biases value - added estimates (also see the follow - up analysis).

You see you can speak about any kind of relationships in your relationship analysis paper, choose that very kind of relationships, which is most interesting and exciting for you, and try your best in order to reveal this very topic in your relationship analysis paper writing.

Well, now you see that writing a critical analysis paper can be a rather captivating work to do.

According to HedgeChatter's overview white paper, they see their platform, and as an extension, sentiment analysis, as providing the most value to technical traders.

For a sample analysis of how findings can be distorted by poor choice and use of cited material, see the 2016 open access paper in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior, «Who is minding the bibliography?

«The paper [Remedy's whitepaper] also states Xbox One's final output is 1920 × 1080, and that's where there is some confusion — as we've yet to see evidence of full HD 1080p gameplay in close analysis — barring the title's HUD elements and menus.

This week, PNAS published our paper Increase of Extreme Events in a Warming World, which analyses how many new record events you expect to see in a time series with a trend.

While I don't use the term sigma in my practice (except when seeing engineers as patients and they usually raise the term), many, many patients have little difficulty in grasping verbal analogues of the type of analysis presented in the Hansen paper.

As I see it, the following statement from the Nerem paper (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/02/06/1717312115) illustrates the problem more simply and clearly than Munshi's perhaps overly complicated analysis: «As described in ref.

I have not yet seen the «new» M&N paper, but it is very likely to be more of same attempts to rescue a flawed analysis.

The question remains: would science (or any other discipline) progress more satisfactorily and rapidly if significantly more time were spent on «auditing» other people's work (e.g. if referees demanded to always see all the original data, and used it to repeat all the analyses of every paper)?

One thing I would have liked to see in the paper is a quantitative side - by - side comparison of sea - surface temperatures and upper ocean heat content; all the paper says is that only «a small amount of cooling is observed at the surface, although much less than the cooling at depth» though they do report that it is consistent with 2 - yr cooling SST trend — but again, no actual data analysis of the SST trend is reported.

In a section of the paper citing analysis in «The World Food Economy,» a book he co-authored in 2007, Southgate concludes that a low growth scenario for population, leading to just under 8 billion people by 2050, could see a 26 - percent drop in food prices even with substantial rise in consumption.

Schlesinger sees the papers, taken together, as providing good news, implying that the task of limiting warming could be more feasible than many analyses have concluded.

I'd love to hear from members of the Asociation for Behavioral Analysis International, which invited Thompson to give the lecture that's the basis for the paper, on why they see such a disconnect between information and response.

In a more conventional field, in which highly technical papers were published in professional journals rather than Nature or Science, the paper would be read by the few experts, who over the next few years would try to understand what it all means, whether it is really new, what the weaknesses might be, do their own analyses to see how robust the results are, and ask if there are conflicting data sets.

Nor, I fear is your analysis of orbital forcing quite right; see David Archer's new book «The Long Thaw» or various of his papers; these may be obtained from his publications web page.

Here's a presentation about the new analysis of global warming (the closest thing I've seen to the paper itself):

A paper on «hedging» that I publishedin Science in 2004 with Natasha Andronova and Michael Schlesinger (see Dot Earth for a discussion and link) indicated that starting mitigation now would be the right choice even if our analysis included a significant chance that doing nothing would turn out to be (in 2035) the right choice — that is, even with a 20 % chance that climate change would turn out to be a hoax.

I'll be interested to see any analysis of the paper by Matthew Nisbet of American University, who charted the flow from environmental groups.

a paper NCDC has chosen to ignore [another surface temperature analysis group has been open to scientific debate, however; see].

See: Comments On The Game Changer New Paper «An Area And Distance Weighted Analysis Of The Impacts Of Station Exposure On The U.S. Historical Climatology Network Temperatures And Temperature Trends» By Watts Et Al 2012 Today...

When I looked at the 230 page paper detailing the analysis, I saw that they're talking about incremental costs.

and b) the urban heat effect (see recent paper by McKitrick), the consensus on a warming trend would appear differently; add to that the fact that some analysis show that the 75 - 95 higher temperatures may be partly due to effectiveness of anti-pollution policies, and you may realise that a consensus on higher temperatures may be based on sand rather than anything else.

«Both [Fall et al. 2011 and Menne et al. 2010](and cited by Muller et al) do an analysis over a thirty year time period while the Muller et al paper uses data for comparison from 1950 — 2010... I see this as a basic failure in understanding the limitations of the siting survey we conducted on the USHCN, rendering the Muller et al paper conclusions highly uncertain, if not erroneous... I consider the paper fatally flawed as it now stands, and thus I recommend it be removed from publication consideration by JGR until such time that it can be reworked... it appears they have circumvented the scientific process in favor of PR.»

Scientific papers are often made available prior to publication (i.e. see arXiv, and by Watts himself), and there's no reason to believe that limiting their analysis to the past 30 years will change the BEST results (though Watts is welcome to try and demonstrate otherwise); obviously the 60 - year period includes the 30 - year window.

I would like to see more open discussion about the Hartwell paper analysis, and other nuanced analysis — but to repeat one last time: Categorizing any arguments for even strong carbon taxes as «Marxist» does not seem to me like a good starting point (as would categorizing the Hartwell paper as «denialist.»

See Leif, your dishonesty or incompetency is demonstrated by the fact that in your own power spectrum analysis of the sunspot record you found the three peaks that I found in my paper.

Nicola Scafetta says: October 29, 2012 at 10:38 am See Leif, your dishonesty or incompetency is demonstrated by the fact that in your own power spectrum analysis of the sunspot record you found the three peaks that I found in my paper.

To me it is major point of Steve's M analysis of the Parker paper and one that on reviewing the posts here I do not seen a detailed reply.

I know from my own analyses of climate science papers and those that I see analyzed at some of these blogs that the frequentists approach can be abused and unfortunately not acknowledged by those who like the conclusions derived from the abuse.

If you had bothered to look at the Science 1998 paper, you would have seen Figure 2 which shows the number of chronologies available for analysis at various times.

Since the paper's analysis did not go there I see no reason to do so myself in critiquing the paper.

In my first attempt at answering the question of whether condensation increased or decreased nT (before I saw Meesters» and Rosenfeld's analyses answering this question years ago in reviews of this ongoing series of papers from Makarieva and Gorshkov) I considered both cases in order to bracket the whole range of possibilities.

While the press releases around the paper have emphasized the conclusion that climate engineering offers no easy solution and the analysis favors mitigation (i.e. «Cutting Carbon Emissions Our Best Option for Slowing Global Warming Study Finds «-RRB-, I do not see this paper as the end of the conversation or providing an answer.