There are no decades of
credible studies like has been discussed before.
Not exact matches
Look at
credible websites
like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and talk about the facts and
studies.
On the other hand, any
study that looks for data in obscure factors
like eye movements can be justly criticized for missing the main event, despite the fact that it qualifies for publication in any number of relatively
credible journals.
On this note, and «[i] n sum, recent research on value added tells us that, by using data from student perceptions, classroom observations, and test score growth, we can obtain
credible evidence [albeit weakly related evidence, referring to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's MET
studies] of the relative effectiveness of a set of teachers who teach similar kids [emphasis added] under similar conditions [emphasis added]... [Although] if a district administrator uses data
like that collected in MET, we can anticipate that an attempt to classify teachers for personnel decisions will be characterized by intolerably high error rates [emphasis added].
And with respect to bird - blending in particular, are you aware of any
credible studies which compare the number of avians, you know, bats, eagles and the
like, per megawatt it takes?
Lamb, a well - known and
credible researcher (although he has written soft papers
like this article all too often since, apparently, being given fatherhood promotion marching orders from the federal government), squirrels out of being called on his sleight of hand by setting up as his precursor alibi, that he did this in this article in this way (without citation to supportive research findings) in order to «facilitate readability» and that «readers can
study the cited articles for references to the primary literature.»