Sentences with phrase «not by statisticians»

Not exact matches

The upshot is that developers use one set of statistics and logic to calculate their «total returns» on their properties, but support a different logic for use by government statisticians and Congressional authors of the nation's tax laws, whose support from the FIRE sector depends largely on their not understanding its essential dynamics.

(These assists are judged not for the last touch but by the subjective view of the club statistician for a crucial part played in the goal).

Randomly generated numbers were provided by a statistician who was not involved in the recruitment process.

He did not demonstrate any stronger knowledge on crime fighting and public safety, beginning by stating that «statisticians will tell you crime is down, but read the fine print.»

At the University of Illinois Urbana — Champaign, political statistician Wendy Tam Cho has designed algorithms to draw district maps that use the criteria mandated by state law, but do not include partisan information such as an area's voting history.

When the test information was reviewed by statisticians, it was determined that it was statistically impossible (or less likely than winning the lottery) that there was not cheating.

VAM — evaluating teachers based on student test scores — has been disproved time and again, most recently by statisticians who aren't invested in the outcome.

«The international community seems to have developed a terrible Congo - fatigue, where deaths and suffering, even on the enormous scale reported by statisticians, somehow don't register.

Married for 35 years with no children, and nearing the age of 60, she has just been informed by her faithful husband — at least as far as she knows — that he wants, not a divorce, but her consent to an affair he's determined to have with a 28 - year - old statistician.

Although statisticians like to measure risk by standard deviation, I don't think this is a very relevant guide to the way human beings actually experience risk.

Without being a statistician it's hard to tell if Ed's personal analysis of a limited series of returns of 1 stock market is accurate and useful for future correlations, or if the fundamental belief that you can't profit by the random movements of the market still holds true.

These trends are derived from exactly the same data as those used in the original figure, that was used to argue that the global warming had stopped — by two professors and a statistician, the very same who performed curve - fitting and removed data not fitting their conclusion.

Given that the «wiggles» have a random phase, can't you estimate (from computer experiments with different initial conditions) some of the higher moments used by the statisticians?

I'm a software developer and I've worked with statistical models (not creating them, just coding them as specified by the actual statisticians).

And that includes statistical research, by the way — though I'm not a statistician I've worked closely with some of the best.

As with NEMS, the methodologies, assumptions, conclusions, and opinions in this report are entirely the work of CDA statisticians and economists, and have not been endorsed by, and do not necessarily reflect the view of, the owners of the IHS Global Insight model.

The methodologies, assumptions, conclusions, and opinions in this Backgrounder are entirely the work of statisticians and economists in the Center for Data Analysis (CDA) at The Heritage Foundation, and have not been endorsed by, and do not necessarily reflect the views of, the developers of NEMS.

The methodologies, assumptions, conclusions, and opinions in this report are entirely the work of statisticians and economists at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis and have not been endorsed by and do not necessarily reflect the views of the developers of NEMS.

Where statistics is involved (in much science it seems), the institution frequently audits, via independent analysis by house statisticians who do not know what the data represents.

I used to get criticized by statisticians that plots with an R ** 2 of 0.7 weren't strong enough evidence for my conclusions, and you're showing a scatter plot and saying it says something is happening??

Show me a scientific field that * wouldn't * be improved by having professional statisticians.

The report for Barton was prepared by three statisticians, Edward Wegman, David Scott and Yasmin Said, and its only novel contribution is a social network analysis, which is meant to show that the various independent studies aren't really independent and that peer review has broken down, since the same group of interlinked academics is reviewing each others» papers.

UHI is under estimated, the homogenization method is not accepted by statisticians outside of the small club who created the technique — the climate-gate emails showed severe uncertainties and lack of knowledge of proper analytical and statistical techniques, and even suppression of information, even if this is more common practice than people believe... just unacceptable.

Not only that, but some aspects (e.g. the statistical process applied in MBH) would be best analysed by an independent statistician who has little or no knowledge of climate science, because they are most likely to spot a lack of rigour or bias in the process, because they will view the data with a more independent eye.

If these kinds of questions can not be settled by competent statisticians, we're all in a lot of trouble.

What do you think of the way «climate scientists» have abandoned the r2 statistic used by all statisticians (because it did nt give the results they wanted), and invented their own «RE» statistic?

This has been criticised by statistician Steve Jewson in comments at RealClimate, who claims that the IPCC should not use sensitivity studies that use uniform priors.

I certainly don't think that, and in fact over the long term I suspect the people who will be most appalled by this mess are good statisticians.

Wahl and Ammann argue that this is evidence that the bristlecones should be included in the reconstruction; this argument has not been accepted by any third party statistician.

In particular, climates scientists often get very «creative» with statistical methods, and often create results which don't stand up to review by qualified statisticians outside the field.

This particular econonomist (McKitrick is not a statistician, by the way) has gotten the climate science and history wrong over and over, and continues to spew false accusations (see the most recent post here and many more besides).

By saying «scientists and statisticians can always learn to communicate their knowledge more effectively» shows you are not really interested in the issue I raised.

Perhaps involving a statistician would be helpful but then tens of thousands of papers have been published by scientists with functional application knowledge of stats that did not require such special assistance and yet involved much more thorny statistical challenges.

After the NRC review was released, another analysis by four statisticians, called the Wegman report, which was not formally peer - reviewed, was more critical of the hockey - stick paper.

The only way a statistician is going to be able to advance the subject is by taking the time to familiarize himself with it at a professional level, not by jumping in to debate one narrow point.

I wholeheartedly agree that understanding the underlying physical mechanisms is key, and this seems to be missed by VS. I think the physics of the problem bounds the temperature to such a degree that it is not properly characterized as a stackable random component, though I'm not a statistician by any means.