Sentences with phrase «possible measurement errors»

Limitations of the study include possible measurement errors because the data was self - reported, although the authors noted that because the study cumulatively measured diet over time, it reduced such errors.

The conclusion is tentative because of possible measurement errors.

Despite this possible measurement error, we detected a statistically significant association between soluble fiber and CRP concentrations.

Not exact matches

It is also possible, the report said, that inspectors changed data to adjust errors by measurement equipment.

And in the numerous cases in which exact measurements are not possible one must at least measure the degree of probable error, something that determinists tend to forget.

According to him, the error lies in assuming that one is dealing with the same set of possible spin - measurement results for the particles coming out one side of the apparatus described no matter what orientation one considers for the spin - measuring device (s) on the other side of the apparatus.

Successful baking means eliminating as much potential for error as possible, and that means making sure your measurements are exact.

This approach will make it possible to reduce errors in exposure measurement, and to identify the potential periods of greatest influence of phenols on the growth of children during childhood.

New measurement points to possible error in ESA survey that could also affect the agency's new Gaia mission

The measurements brought back by Delambre and Méchain not only made science into a global enterprise and made possible our global economy, but also revolutionized our understanding of error.

Whether you are gullible enough to accept the figures as accurate depends on how much credibility you put in the multitude of observational measurements taken by different methods over many decades by diverse groups of researchers that form a strong consilience of mutually supporting evidence for the validity of the estimates and the possible errors.

Hence, it possible for a large number of measurements at different locations to result in a meaningful reduction in the level of error of a quantity, provided that the value of the quantity does not vary much across the sample space.

However, the consistency of the error for each year indicated by the parallel nature of the annual balance trendlines for the varying point networks suggests even greater accuracy was possible if the overall glacier balance distribution has been determined at some time using a denser measurement network (Figure 5).

It is possible, however, that the definitions of conflict outcomes or measurement errors could have influenced these results, the study authors noted.

Fortunately, in one - dimensional cases where uncertainty involves measurement and similar errors it is often possible to find a completely noninformative prior, with the result that exact probability matching can be achieved.

In considering possible sources of errors in the satellite, radiosonde, and surface - based temperature measurements, it should be noted at the outset that none of these measurement systems was specifically designed for long - term climate monitoring (NRC, 1999).

Since this phenomenon first became apparent in the early 1990s, the research community has been seeking to identify and quantify possible sources of errors in the surface and upper air temperature measurements, and it has been trying to understand the physical processes that may have caused surface and upper air temperatures to change relative to one another.

It is entirely possible that unforced climate modes, persistent forcing, and measurement errors all contributed to the recorded temperatures in the mid-century record, although anthropogenically forced variation appears to have dominated after 1950.

Thus I have discussed more the issue of what might be possible based on fragmentary data where individual measurements are subject to many sources of error than what is the quality of the present knowledge.

And if you take the difference between yesterday's and today's min on a station by station basis where the measure is done the same way, I think you get the best possible value, plus any error in the measurement can't get any larger because they don't accumulate, it can only get as large as the yesterday's and today's error added together.

For the Antarctic ice cores they explicitly say that all ice cores are within 5 ppmv of each other, despite all possible errors in the ice cores drilling, storage and measurements... Not bad compared to stomata data with their 63 ppmv range (in one core...).

It is also possible that the low proportion mediated could be due to measurement error given that the mediators were self - reported and were measured by single items rather than scales.