Sentences with phrase «papers discussing the results»

More recently a paper discussed the results of a necropsy and toxicologic finding on a patient that developed hepatic failure due to an ingestion of joint supplement overdose.

Some suggestions might be for a list of key papers discussing the results of these reanalyses and lists of issues found (so that others don't waste their time).

Not exact matches

Sarah and Matt also discuss a new white paper on the effects of redshirting in kindergarten (delaying a kid's start by a year), which suggest that being old for one's grade may result in higher test scores, increased college attendance, and reduced likelihood of incarceration for juvenile crime.

In the phytic acid paper and video course I discuss the results of many types of bread - making techniques and their effectiveness in breaking down phytic acid.

A new paper in the American Journal of Forensic Medical Pathology discusses the tragic case of a term newborn who died of Pseudomonas pneumonia and sepsis as a result of waterbirth.

The results are 15 small carnivore and 5 wild cat papers which discuss the distribution, conservation and research priorities for each of the 20 Bornean small carnivores and cats.

For instance, when we share resources, we first agree upon proper handling procedures and schedule times for resource access; when we share personnel, we decide at the outset how much time they will dedicate to each project; and when we start new projects, we discuss and agree upon the appropriate author sequence for any resulting papers.

Likewise, a scientist?s time is full of many useful gaps during experiments which are perfect for pub lunches (for discussing results, of course), Web - surfing (for scientific papers, naturally), and endless cups of coffee (for fuel).

He declined to discuss the details of the joint analysis because the paper was not yet available, but he noted that «what is clear from these plots is that the levels of dust were underestimated in the BICEP2 results presented in March, in agreement with what was said in our paper» (see «Gravitational wave discovery faces scrutiny»).

«I help with adjustment to the new lab and research area, define strategy of research, comment on experimental plans, discuss major results and problems, compose and / or edit meeting presentations and research papers, career advise, and help in searching for the postdoc's next employment,» says another.

I would have taken my evidence, got on a plane, and discussed the results with researchers at Fermilab, asking them to repeat the experiment before perhaps publishing two papers simultaneously in the same journal edition.

While there was a lot of interesting science in this paper (the new methodology, the range of results etc.) which fully justified its appearance in Nature, we were quite critical of their basic conclusion — that climate sensitivities significantly higher than the standard range (1.5 — 4.5 ºC) were plausible — because there is significant other data, predominantly from paleo - climate, that pretty much rule those high numbers out (as we discussed again recently).

Published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in July, the paper discusses the challenges faced by both the measurement and modeling communities, ways to overcome them, and the resulting benefits.

All authors discussed the results and commented on the paper.

In this paper, we discuss the proposed hypotheses and develop predictions for policing in chimpanzees, where conflicts often arise among females over access to food [28] or among males over access to females [29] and may result in severe dyadic or even polyadic agonistic interactions [10].

Teachers scored the papers together and then discussed the results.

But the NAEP results discussed here are taken strictly from the pencil and paper tests that were also administered to a nationally representative sample of students in 2017.

(Our working paper, Abdulkadiroglu et al. 2009, reports results including HCA and discusses the difference between Horace Mann and Commonwealth charter schools.)

This paper discusses the history of SLOs in NYS, in - district considerations for developing SLOs, regression model methodology, and an evaluation of the model comparing actual 2014 student results to predicted 2014 student results.

A Tool that provides a framework for evaluating the quality of an SLO and serves as a companion to the SLO Rubric: SLO Review Tool Considerations for Analyzing Educators» Contributions to Student Learning in Non-tested Subjects and Grades with a focus on Student Learning Objectives This paper discusses the many challenges of measuring student academic growth for teacher evaluations in non-tested subjects and grades, while offering potential solutions for incorporating student performance results in these evaluations.

Last year, GCI drew attention to the approximately $ 70 million to $ 80 million annual loss in tax revenue resulting from dramatic reductions in DOR staff as discussed in the policy paper Enhanced Revenue Enforcement Creates Fairness, Raises Millions in Revenue, authored by former Arizona DoR Director Elliott Hibbs for the Grand Canyon Institute.

Critical essays are not research paper when you should conduct a research and discuss results.

Other papers examining the returns over different periods and in different markets written after Oppenheimer's paper have found similar results (one of the papers is by Montier and I will be discussing it in some detail in the near future).

Summary: As the maker of ORIJEN and ACANA dog and cat foods, Champion developed this paper to: discuss the source of heavy metals in pet foods; publish the maximum tolerable limits (MTLs) for dogs and cats; and discuss the results in comparison to animal health to help bring clarity and restore confidence.

Many serious criticisms are simplistic, such as important results that were not cited and discussed in the paper.

A recent summary paper in BAMS (Hourdin et al., 2016) discussed current practices and gave results from a survey of the modeling groups.

While there was a lot of interesting science in this paper (the new methodology, the range of results etc.) which fully justified its appearance in Nature, we were quite critical of their basic conclusion — that climate sensitivities significantly higher than the standard range (1.5 — 4.5 ºC) were plausible — because there is significant other data, predominantly from paleo - climate, that pretty much rule those high numbers out (as we discussed again recently).

In summary, I would emphasise that the scientists and the actual papers discussed here and in the BBC documentary were not «alarmist», however there is a clear danger that when these results get translated into media reports (and headlines) that scientifically unsupportable claims can be made.

I can't claim to be a whiz at statistics but I remember telling some skeptics on another forum, Accuweather / climate change I believe, that the major point and problem with this paper were that the results still showed a «hockey stick» indicating current warming was pretty anomalous and that the authors were not climatologists, nor did they seem to consult any to discuss why certain methods were used over the ones they decided to use.

This paper also discusses in some detail the paleoclimate results regarding the LGM that you site.

Reading on new ideas we must remember what was discussed in another recent thread: Very many scientific papers are wrong, publishing also such papers is necessary for the progress of science, but we must remember that only well enough confirmed results are really part of best scientific understanding.

The following is a review paper that discusses the mechanism and observational data that supports the mechanism by which solar magnetic cycle changes results planetary climate change.

The results paper contains a few paragraphs discussing this early record in relation to the volcano record.

The paper discussed here tries to get some results of that nature directly making some simple assumptions.

The results of these papers were included into the revised text and discussed in a broader context of the other findings.

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 comments.)

Maybe they planned to never discuss the paper in AR4, redefining peer review, and maybe they just made up the «fact» that they thought the result lacked significance?

That's reported clearly in the paper, but forgotten sometimes when the results are discussed.

5) The loud outcry that resulted, when the paper was published and the results discussed including the totally appropriate comparison with the present is just a typical attack by the «skeptics».

In response to your question I would refer you to my comment above Dave Wendt (14:39:39): where I discuss the Rigor and Wallace paper of 2004 which demonstrated that the decline in sea ice age and thickness began with a shift in state in Beaufort Gyre and the TransPolar Drift in 1989 which resulted in multiyear ice declining from over 80 % of the Arctic to 30 % in about one year and that the persistence of that pattern has been responsible for the continuing decline.

We have recently discussed several papers which have found substantial global dimming as a result of increased human aerosol emissions from 1950 to 1980 and 2000 to 2010.

As I discuss in the paper, these results suggest an exciting path forward for rekindling public trust in climate scientists.

While there are many issues which can be related to the choice of data set one uses which would be worth discussing, one simply can not claim things about a papers» results are true when they are only true if you use a different data set than the authors of the paper used.

You reference several blog posts by J. Duarte - who seems to feel that the Cook et al authors were dishonest idiots (the paper passed peer review of methods and results by reviewers the editors respected for domain knowledge), that the raters were blinded by ideological bias (totally ignoring the author ratings giving confirming identical results), complaining about raters discussing criteria (when it's essential for everyone to agree on the same critera, clarifying ambiguities - and that radom presentation prevented collusion on any particular item), and in general making truly absurd and unsupported accusations.

Did anyone contact him during the production of this paper to discuss the potential results with him.