Sentences with phrase «most significance tests»

Not exact matches

Correspondence, in the sense specified, is the nature of truth, the meaning of truth; yet the test of truth that we most frequently employ in connection with the past is the test of coherence: historians and archeologists have nothing available to them that is not given in the present — this book, the reliability of which must be evaluated; this artifact, the significance of which must be construed — and coherence is the final test of their theories about the past built up from the givens of the present.

But in most such instances the statistics applied in court have been primarily the standard type that scientists use to test hypotheses (producing numbers for gauging «statistical significance»).

... It is a safe bet that people have suffered or died because scientists (and editors, regulators, journalists and others) have used significance tests to interpret results, and have consequently failed to identify the most beneficial courses of action.»

(By contrast, Amrein and Berliner did no significance testing whatsoever, neglecting one of the oldest and most basic tools of social - science research.)

These were always the most low - key tests - not tied to such high - profile league tables as the tests for 11 year olds and without the significance of GCSE exams.

Almost all of the factors and smart beta strategies exhibit a negative relationship between starting valuation and subsequent performance whether we use the aggregate measure or P / B to define relative valuation.9 Out of 192 tests shown here, not a single test has the «wrong» sign: in every case, the cheaper the factor or strategy gets, relative to its historical average, the more likely it is to deliver positive performance.10 For most factors and strategies (two - thirds of the 192 tests) the relationship holds with statistical significance for horizons ranging from one month to five years and using both valuation measures (44 % of these results are significant at the 1 % level).

Most strategies produce results which pass tests of statistical significance at 95 % confidence.

RA Fisher (essentially the inventor of null hypothesis statistical tests) wrote that the significance level should depend on the nature of the hypothesis and the experiment (most particularly your prior beliefs about the plausibility of the two hypotheses under consideration — ironically something that frequentist statistics can not quantify directly).

It's sometimes called the likelihood ratio test, and by the Neyman - Pearson lemma is the most powerful against a given significance level.

In other words, both positive and negative results tend to flunk the test for statistical significance; in neither case can most managers» investment performance be attributed to anything more than chance.

The most significant technical element of the judgment is the abandonment of the triviality test and its replacement with a test of «seriousness or significance» of the failure to comply with any rule, practice direction or court order.