But I found that this is
a really robust result.
Not exact matches
Other dating experts agree: «I feel
really good about the dates,» says Sheffield geochronologist Edward Rhodes, calling the
resulting chronology «highly
robust.»
In a more conventional field, in which highly technical papers were published in professional journals rather than Nature or Science, the paper would be read by the few experts, who over the next few years would try to understand what it all means, whether it is
really new, what the weaknesses might be, do their own analyses to see how
robust the
results are, and ask if there are conflicting data sets.
Just one or two programmers in the background
really know the code while the climate scientists who give talks about how «
robust» their
results are and the «consensus» do zero or very little actual coding.
I would have thought that on this basis it was completely uncontroversial to accept the unit root model as superior (without denying that it is quite appropriate to have a squabble about if it
really does fit the data better, or how
robust this
result is — but this doesn't seem to be your point).
«But because of that, you're going to have some extra eyes
really scrutinizing that this is a
robust result.»