Sentences with phrase «smaller standard errors»

Not exact matches

This timeliness and detail comes at a cost, however, as the small sample sizes of the LFS causes the estimates to have substantial standard errors (which can lead to some peculiar results at the provincial and CMA levels).

That is, we found some evidence that small studies (i.e., those with higher standard errors, located to the right of the figure), compared with larger studies, reported larger mean differences in systolic blood pressure between infant feeding groups.

For the LTQ - Orbitrap Velos data, the distribution of mass deviation (from the theoretical masses) was first determined as having a standard deviation (σ) of 2.05 part per million (ppm), and a mass error of smaller than 3σ was used in combination with Xcorr and ΔCn to determine the filtering criteria that resulted in < 1 % false positive peptide identifications.

While an element of the unexplained variability will likely have arisen though measurement error, it is more likely that the variation occurred primarily through variation between performances within individuals, as snatch, clean and jerk, and total 1RM varies by around 2.3 — 2.7 % in elite Olympic weightlifters (McGuigan & Kane, 2004), although test - re-test reliability of the 1RM power clean is nearly perfect in adolescent male athletes, with ICC = 0.98, a standard error of measurement (SEM) of 2.9 kg and a smallest worthwhile change (SWC) of 8.0 kg (Faigenbaum et al. 2012).

Because the Rubner and Atwater factors used to calculate metabolizable energy are not exact, the standard macronutrient values are not perfect, and small errors can occur.

Different types of rennet [yes, they're also produced in multiple ways, and carry traces of chemicals etc] can be aggravating, so choosing a rennet is really a matter of trial and error, but a friend who always got super sick when eating parmesan [standard for all pastas, creamed potatoes etc] has gone for organic parmesan and introducing it 1 - 2 grated bits at a time, and very slowly, is now up to a small chunk.

As it turns out, the standard errors are larger, not smaller, when estimating statistical models that include all students but do not control for baseline test scores.

If it is broken down into groups that are too small (e.g., individual classes) the standard error of measurement tends to become so great that although the data remains «valid» it is no longer «reliable.»

Because some amount of error is expected with any measurement, statisticians developed the term Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) to account for small amounts of error in every reerror is expected with any measurement, statisticians developed the term Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) to account for small amounts of error in every reError of Measurement (SEM) to account for small amounts of error in every reerror in every result.

The error rate in IPCC AR4 WG1 is small by any standard for any scientific document.

If done correctly, the «leave - one - out» procedure will give the coefficient forecast standard error (2.1 * sqrt (1/13) = 0.58 dC at the mean of the TEX86 values), rather than the relevant total forecast standard error, but they have somehow come up with something even smaller than that.

Compared to a similar 363 - month period, working backwards from October 1944, the modern warming was only +0.06 °C higher, which is smaller than the error bars of a standard thermometer measurement.

P (Obs calendar - age = y) does not change much when y changes by a small amount, small enough that the carbon - 14 age changes by much less than the standard deviation of the measurement error.

This integral is over the same region for any hypothesized calendar age, and therefore can be ignored when the amount of rounding is small compared to the standard deviation of the error.

Now, whether the standard error of the reading is 0.3 or 0.4, it will likely be a smaller contribution to the total mean standard error than the differences between tmins and tmaxes and even tmaxs across a time period.

Finally, I add an error standard deviation of 0.05 W / m ² for uncertainty in volcanic forcing in 1871 — 1880 and a further 0.05 W / m ² for uncertainty therein in 2002 — 2011, small though volcanic forcing was in both decades.

Although SEM is traditionally utilized with large samples, bootstrap analyses allow model testing with small samples by utilizing the actual data to estimate standard error (Shrout & Bolger, 2002).

Not a measuring error, just a literal case of «they don't make them the same as they used to» small fridge being replaced with a standard new fridge.