Sentences with phrase «by errors in the paper»

This eliminated penalization on mistakes caused by errors in the paper.

Not exact matches

As the paper indicates, companies often struggle with proper tariff classification as «the 2001 Report of the Auditor General of Canada revealed that 29 percent of tariff classifications provided by importers were incorrect, with 48 of the 53 companies examined making at least one error in classification».

The paper by Emma Derbyshire is an opinion piece, not a scientific study, and has been submitted for publication in the British Journal of Midwifery, which we note runs misleading formula advertising (some to be featured in the monitoring report) and published a highly - flawed article on Nestlé's practices with multiple errors.

«With regard to the non-complaint errors in respect of which our client expressed its inability to accept your client's nomination papers however, we have been instructed by our client that it was impossible to comply with strict time period specified by rules within which your clients are by law permitted to amend or alter their nomination papers to comply with the requirements of the law regulating same, especially that your clients presented their nomination papers a day to the expiry of the nomination period, although your clients and all candidates were urged to submit their nomination papers as early as possible

In a pair of papers published this month in Nature Communications and Physical Review Letters (PRL), a team of scientists led by Gerbrand Ceder has come up with a set of rules for making new disordered materials, a process that had previously been driven by trial - and - erroIn a pair of papers published this month in Nature Communications and Physical Review Letters (PRL), a team of scientists led by Gerbrand Ceder has come up with a set of rules for making new disordered materials, a process that had previously been driven by trial - and - erroin Nature Communications and Physical Review Letters (PRL), a team of scientists led by Gerbrand Ceder has come up with a set of rules for making new disordered materials, a process that had previously been driven by trial - and - error.

A new paper, co-authored by Woods Hole Research Center Senior Scientist Richard A. Houghton, entitled, «Audit of the global carbon budget: estimate errors and their impact on uptake uncertainty,» was published in the journal Biogeosciences.

«The brains of people with anorexia nervosa who have poor insight may not generate an «error message» when told, for example, that they are putting themselves at serious risk for death by severe restricting,» said Dr. Alex Leow, associate professor of psychiatry and bioengineering in the UIC College of Medicine and corresponding author on the paper.

As some readers may recall, I found six serious errors in a well - publicised 2016 paper by Kate Marvel and other GISS climate scientists on the topic of climate sensitivity.

However, satellite observations are notably cooler in the lower troposphere than predicted by climate models, and the research team in their paper acknowledge this, remarking: «One area of concern is that on average... simulations underestimate the observed lower stratospheric cooling and overestimate tropospheric warming... These differences must be due to some combination of errors in model forcings, model response errors, residual observational inhomogeneities, and an unusual manifestation of natural internal variability in the observations.»

A series of excellent papers by economists Thomas Kane, Douglas Staiger, and Dale Ballou (see «Randomly Accountable,» Education Next, Spring 2002, and «Sizing Up Value - Added Assessment,» this issue) scrutinize the error built into value - added test - score measures, many of which are used in state accountability systems.

There were «a number» of coding errors in the National 5 question paper, according to a report by the Scottish Qualification Authority (SQA).

While numerous papers have highlighted this imprecision, most studies of instability have not systematically considered the role of measurement error in estimates aside from the type that is caused by sampling error.

Plus, your paper will be read, proofread and edited by our staff in such a way that no errors will be found.

No grammatical mistake or spelling error can be found in the papers written by us.

In order to make the entire writing process error free, completed term papers are checked by senior writers from time to time.

A FAJ paper in 1998 (I think) came up with approximate error bounds, and proved it useless, but it is still used by some consultants today.

A new paper in press in Journal of Climate by Jason Smerdon et al from the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory documents errors in some previous pseudo-proxy studies by Mann and et al..

As detailed already on the pages of RealClimate, this so - called «correction» was nothing more than a botched application of the MBH98 procedure, where the authors (MM) removed 80 % of the proxy data actually used by MBH98 during the 15th century period (failing in the process to produce a reconstruction that passes standard «verification» procedures — an error that is oddly similar to that noted by Benestad (2004) with regard to another recent McKitrick paper).

Then — almost simultaneously — a heavily drum - rolled release of a new paper by a team led by WattsUpWithThat blogger Anthony Watts claiming to have identified big errors in how United States temperature patterns have been calculated.

Even if one were to stipulate all of the ostensible «errors» Lewis claims, the only way he is actually able to justify his claim of disagreement with observations» ICS is by throwing out the observational ICS estimate used in the paper in favor of once he likes and obviously likes simply because of their low values.

I think any mathematically - competent scientist who believes in objective inference from experimental results would accept that the IPCC replot of Forster / Gregory06 was wrong, in that it did not reflect the (standard) error distribution assumptions made by the paper's authors.

But some fundamental errors were made in that paper by opponents of AGW.

Michael MacCracken of the Climate Institute, in an analysis posted here for the first time, identifies dozens of scientific errors and misleading statements in a 2007 paper by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon entitled «Environmental Effects of Increased Carbon Dioxide» — a contrarian effort that exemplifies the sort of work that provides fodder for the global warming disinformation campaign.

A major peer - reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1 % scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

«July 24, 2010 A new paper in press in Journal of Climate by Jason Smerdon from the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory and collaborators documents surprising, and somewhat inexplicable, errors in some previous pseudo-proxy studies by Mann and collaborators.»

The frontpage implies that climate science to date has not been «real,» while the many errors made by the speakers as well as their serious credibility issues (Willie Soon's infamous paper, another paper more recently with Noah Robinson that made up data, Spencer's flawed book on climate sensitivity, Singer's history since about 1990, Schmitt's uncorrected error in a NASA paper, Bast and Taylor's lies in defense of Schmitt, and so on) suggest the opposite — the speakers at the ICCC are the ones attempting to falsify the science.

In one case, according to the economist Mark Thoma, the flagship American Economic Review declined to correct a mistake in a paper written by Ben S. Bernanke and Alan Blinder, even though the authors acknowledged the erroIn one case, according to the economist Mark Thoma, the flagship American Economic Review declined to correct a mistake in a paper written by Ben S. Bernanke and Alan Blinder, even though the authors acknowledged the erroin a paper written by Ben S. Bernanke and Alan Blinder, even though the authors acknowledged the error.

If Kau or Kevin, or someone else decides to engage the systematic measurement error that turned up in the basic dO18 calibration papers, you can let me know and I'll drop by.

By the way, although I have not read the paper, «variance corrected means» probably refers to some technique to obtain more accurate estimates of the means, the averages in the series, using information on the variance of the error of estimating these averages which would have varied from year to year.

I'm basically uneducated, but I found an error in a well cited scientific paper — I'll say by accident, but actually by a compelling interest — then I checked with forums, then personally checked with the world's most knowledgable expert on that subject... bingo..

In this thread my point is only that the paper being discussed does not have any results that would add to our understanding, because everything is affected so strongly by the error (except the results of the chapter 3 that are irrelevant and misleading and agreed as irrelevant also by Anastassia Makarieva in one of her commentsIn this thread my point is only that the paper being discussed does not have any results that would add to our understanding, because everything is affected so strongly by the error (except the results of the chapter 3 that are irrelevant and misleading and agreed as irrelevant also by Anastassia Makarieva in one of her commentsin one of her comments.)

As noted already, this work has already been peer - reviewed by several (about ten, from memory) people who have expert knowledge in the area (e.g. 20 + years experience post-PhD), and none has found any error; indeed, most are astonished by the rather silly mistake I have identified in various climate change papers where the authors have assumed that they can subtract the insolation at a certain ecliptic longitude in one epoch from that in another and that the result gives them the insolation change.

In short, the paper was repudiated by one of the authors due to some significant math errors.

They have said above (in their replies, but not in the paper itself) that that particular AGW signal is bounded by a maximum of.66 C per century, and that the AGW signal may come from (1) a recent CO2 increase — which you are apparently assuming is the sole source), (2) measurement error / bias (UHI and bad thermometer sites) and (3) other causes.

I don't think it's enough to say that its been dealt with by Marcott's admissions when the paper is promoted in that way, with graphics like that one, but by the same token, I don't see the errors in some of these claims rise enough to the level to doubt things like the instrumental temperature record.

Video abstract for paper «Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors» published in Environmental Research Letters by John Cook, Peter Ellerton, and David Kinkead.

One person commenting on the Frontiers» website asked for the «full details of the investigation,» saying the paper had been «derogatory and insulting» by naming people as conspiracy theorists who were «merely pointing out errors in the previous paper»... John Cook, a researcher at the University of Queensland and a co-author of the second paper, said the Frontiers» decision to retract the work might have a «chilling effect» on research.

In other news, we've been informed by Ben Santer that our paper contains a referencing error (i.e., Santer et al. 2005 is used in the introduction where it should instead be Santer et al. 2000) and a typo (i.e., it reports a «p - test» rather than a «t - test»In other news, we've been informed by Ben Santer that our paper contains a referencing error (i.e., Santer et al. 2005 is used in the introduction where it should instead be Santer et al. 2000) and a typo (i.e., it reports a «p - test» rather than a «t - test»in the introduction where it should instead be Santer et al. 2000) and a typo (i.e., it reports a «p - test» rather than a «t - test»).

They require digitisation of old paper - based records, as well as the identification and quality assurance for inconsistencies created by weather station site moves, changes in the surroundings, technology development and random errors.

As some readers may recall, I found six serious errors in a well - publicised 2016 paper by Kate Marvel and other GISS climate scientists on the topic of climate sensitivity.

Interestingly enough with regards to LC09, aside from the errors discussed above, there was a paper by Forester & Gregory published in 2006 that also analyzed the ERBE data and came to the exact opposite conclusion — a positive feedback factor of around 2.3 Wm - 2 / K, implying a climate sensitivity higher than the IPCC.

My own attempt, by email, to suggest to the offending editor the error of her ways (by quoting the statute and referring her to two resources), resulted in an angry rebuff, in which I was accused of practicing law without a license, told that my email would therefore be forwarded to the Attorney General and the paper's lawyer (who it was implied had okayed their statement denying Fair Use rights), and threatened with hearing from said lawyer, should I take any of their materials.

Abergavenny was highlighted by Lord Justice Goldring in October as evidence of «significant errors» in the consultation paper.

In this paper we have corrected for two fundamental errors in the previous analysis by AF leading to their erroneous conclusioIn this paper we have corrected for two fundamental errors in the previous analysis by AF leading to their erroneous conclusioin the previous analysis by AF leading to their erroneous conclusion.

Though the report did not go into the specifics of how government agencies may improve their functions by using blockchain tech, the paper's authors peppered references throughout on how blockchain could reduce paperwork burdens, and prevent errors in data.