Sentences with phrase «give the dataset used»

Still waiting for you to give the dataset used to calculate that bogus probability you cited.

@Hawaiiguest «Still waiting for you to give the dataset used to calculate that bogus probability you cited.»

Not exact matches

The resulting dataset was then used to train a classifier algorithm that gives any headline posted on Facebook a «clickbait» score based on patterns.

I've just come across this article looking at another on this site, but I couldn't help noticing the absence of statistical comparability between the two datasets cited above, particularly given a sample size of one (1) is used.

This position will give me the opportunity to put what I have learned about dealing with big datasets over the last few years into practical use to ensure that MDI Biological Laboratory scientists are using, vetting and processing datasets in a rigorous, reproducible way.»

These datasets give information on the demographic makeup of wards and local authorities, which may be useful when used in conjunction with the DfE Schools, Pupils and their Characteristics data.

I'd love to see an updated report in 5 years time using the same criteria... Given the recent volatility I think abnormal returns would be far higher with a this new dataset... Someone want to give it a crack??

, only that «this worked flawlessly when used in our working (computer and software) environment, on a given dataset, in this way».

Nonetheless, it's easy to see how sensitive the impression being given is to the last point and the dataset used.

We also checked that using different observational datasets (NOAA, Berkeley, GISTEMP) gave similar results (results shown in Extended Data).

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0628.1 In our discussion exploring the (very minor) differences in results when using different datasets we said: - «Dataset creation approaches that infill missing data areas may give overconfidence to climate changes in regions where there are no direct measurements, when compared with model simulations that have data in those regions.»

This draws into question the justification for changing the baseline for the cumulative emissions analysis, given it quickly becomes apparent is that the use of a different dataset can undermine the conclusion that present day temperatures lie outside of the model distribution.

If I took the 1200 + tide gauges in the PSMSL RLR dataset, I could give you almost any GMSL trend you ask for (within reason) through selective editing of the tide gauges and using a simple (weighted) average.

If I gave the «impression» that CRU used an «inadequate» dataset, so be it.

It is interesting how using long national records that are known to be reliable - which arent that many - often gives different answers to the global temperatures dataset which I increasingly think is «manufactured» to suit various purposes.

If we look at the GISS dataset (I'm using [raw GHCN + USHCN corrections] at the moment) as a matrix of year - months x stations, how should one go about getting the data into a single global average annual series, given that there's so many missing values?

They do say they calibrate it against the lake itself, but they give absolutely no indication as to what temperature dataset they are using or how they are doing the «calibration»... which makes me suspicious.

Given the number of datasets used and the number of fitting parameters your correlation coeff is hardly surprising.

Since the early 1980s, some NMSs, other organizations and individual scientists have given or sold us (see Hulme, 1994, for a summary of European data collection efforts) additional data for inclusion in the gridded datasets, often on the understanding that the data are only used for academic purposes with the full permission of the NMSs, organizations and scientists and the original station data are not passed onto third parties.

A further complication arises if datasets used in the model evaluation process are the same as those used for calibration, which gives rise to circular reasoning (confirming the antecedent) in the evaluation process.

As he has explained repeatedly, there are often several versions of any given dataset, and it is important to make sure you have the same one used by the author in question.

«This paper gives an update on the observed decadal variability of the earth radiation budget (ERB) using the latest altitude - corrected Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) / Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) Nonscanner Wide Field of View (WFOV) instrument Edition3 dataset.

As Anthony said in his post, in their paper, MW made it abundantly clear that they used the M08 dataset as given, and in its entirety:

Using the land - only and Land + ocean datasets both from Hadley almost gives the impression you included 2 station datasets when really they come from the same organization.

For the «2013 as observed» experiment, the atmospheric model uses observed sea surface temperature data from December 2012 to November 2013 from the Operational Sea Surface Temperature and Sea Ice Analysis (OSTIA) dataset (Stark et al. 2007; Donlon et al. 2012) and present day atmospheric gas concentrations to simulate weather events that are possible given the observed climate conditions.

Reanalyzing the west Pacific data, using a new WPR and environmental wind pressure data from the NCAR / NCEP reanalysis, Knaff and Sampson get 93 cat 4 or 5 storms from 1975 - 1989, instead of the 75 from the Webster et al. dataset (there's an error in Table 1 of Webster et al. giving that number as 85).

I hope that the current rumpus does not diminish the commitment to making datasets available; however, given the general direction of FOIPOP legislation being used as a shield rather than a mechanism to liberate information over the past several years, I look forward to being convinced that this is simply not a token gesture.