Sentences with phrase «using standard errors»

Using the standard error to build the confidence intervals, we can say that:

We used the standard error of the logarithm of the relative risk, or the number of events if the standard error was unavailable, as weights in the regression; if both were unavailable, we did an unweighted log - linear regression for the study.

The very high significance levels of model - observation discrepancies in LT and MT trends that were obtained in some studies (e.g., Douglass et al., 2008; McKitrick et al., 2010) thus arose to a substantial degree from using the standard error of the model ensemble mean as a measure of uncertainty, instead of the standard deviation or some other appropriate measure of ensemble spread.

The very high significance levels of model — observation discrepancies in LT and MT trends that were obtained in some studies (e.g., Douglass et al., 2008; McKitrick et al., 2010) thus arose to a substantial degree from using the standard error of the model ensemble mean as a measure of uncertainty, instead of the ensemble standard deviation or some other appropriate measure for uncertainty arising from internal climate variability... Nevertheless, almost all model ensemble members show a warming trend in both LT and MT larger than observational estimates (McKitrick et al., 2010; Po - Chedley and Fu, 2012; Santer et al., 2013).

[Response: For a single data point you should use the standard deviation, but for a model parameter you should use the standard error.]

Not exact matches

As the Lausanne Covenant asserts, the Bible is «without error in all that it affirms» Although detailed inerrantists like John Montgomery and Harold Lindsell resist referring to the writer's intentions as a criterion for Biblical judgment, sensing, rightly, that its adoption undermines their position, they nevertheless use such a standard on occasion (see Lindsell's discussion of differences in Biblical numbers [Num.

Calculation to determine the necessary number of resident participants used estimations of knowledge from previous studies of pediatric residents, which suggested a baseline knowledge about breastfeeding of 60 percentage points.8, 9,15 To detect an improvement in knowledge score of 20 percentage points with an estimated standard deviation of 20 points, a 2 - tailed α error of 0.05 and a power of 0.80, sample size was calculated at a minimum of 16 resident participants.

Ignoring the stratified sampling does not affect point estimates and may have resulted in slightly overestimated standard errors.14 Robust variance estimation was used to allow for the clustered nature of the data within units and trusts.

As for the errors in its database, «Thomson Reuters» editorial team continuously works with publishers, identifying ways to improve item - level matching, providing authors with simple processes to correct their records, contributing to cross-industry initiatives and encouraging use of standard identifiers.»

Dr. Frankel is currently directing or co-directing projects related to the ethical and policy implications of human germ - line interventions, the responsible use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research, improving patient safety and reducing errors in health care, the ethical dimensions of the Human Genome Diversity Project, the uses of anonymity on the Internet, and intellectual property and ethical standards for electronic publishing in science.

Standard errors for the D - statistic were determined using jackknife resampling method by dividing the genome into 1 Mb blocks.

To gain insight into what brain regions may be driving the relationship between social distance and overall neural similarity, we performed ordered logistic regression analyses analogous to those described above independently for each of the 80 ROIs, again using cluster - robust standard errors to account for dyadic dependencies in the data.

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.

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.

If your image meets the above standards and you are still having problems please let us know what browser you are using and what error message you are receiving after your attempt to upload the image.

This product includes: • 8 links to instructional videos or texts • 2 links to practice quizzes or activities • Definitions of key terms, such as binomial theorem • Visual examples of how to multiply binomials and polynomials • An accompanying Teaching Notes file The Teaching Notes file includes: • A review of key terminology • Links to video tutorials for students struggling with certain parts of the standard, such as errors in using r • Links to additional practice quizzes or activities

Students will use and find astronomical units, predict volume and surface are of spheres using standard form and find percentage errors.

The playlist includes: • Link to a practice activity • Links to three instructional videos or texts • Definitions of key terms, such as horizontal and Pythagorean theorem • Explanations and examples of how to solve complex problems using the Pythagorean theorem Accompanying Teaching Notes include: • Links to additional resources for extra practice • Links to video tutorials for students struggling with certain parts of the standard, such as making errors locating the third point somewhere other than the intersection between two rays For more teaching and learning resources on standard 8.

I use a statistical method known as robust linear regression with countries as strata and schools (or countries where appropriate) as the primary sampling unit to calculate appropriate standard errors for my findings and to adjust for this potential bias.

Your tech writers document the standard use cases, your training developers try to anticipate where errors and miscommunications are going to occur, but you need feedback from your customers before you can gauge the success or failure of your training.

Furthermore, they say, a test's standard error of measurement may be large enough to throw into question the use of the results.

Commonly used models have standard errors as high as 36 % for a single year of data, and they would require a decade of data to reduce the likelihood of mislabeling a teacher to 12 %.

Fallible estimates and standard errors notwithstanding, the «best estimate» of the true score (i.e., the true performance level for a given school) is the average, and thus averages are used to report school performance.

The analyses were replicated for each of the five imputed data sets and the final coefficients and standard errors were merged using Rubin's Rules.

Short term estimates of growth using curriculum - based measurement of oral reading fluency: Estimates of standard error of the slope to construct confidence intervals

If you use ANY non standard character, like a fraction, a copyright symbol, accented letters borrowed from French (words like cafe or naive can have them), they must be handcoded, or you'll get an error character.

ahh see, im on Bell that uses standard VVM, and when the service books look for the COD i get the pointer error.

In contrast, I've often quoted the Shiller P / E (which essentially uses a 10 - year average of inflation - adjusted earnings) as a simple but historically informative alternative, but I should emphasize that we strongly prefer our standard methodologies based on earnings, forward earnings, dividends and other fundamentals, all which have a fairly tight relationship with subsequent 7 - 10 year total returns (see Lessons from a Lost Decade, The Likely Range of Market Returns in the Coming Decade, Valuing the S&P 500 Using Forward Operating Earnings, and No Margin of Safety, No Room for Error).

The estimator can be used to try to overcome autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity of the residuals, which can impact the standard errors and thus the calculated t - statistics and p - values.

The factor regression tool supports the use of robust standard errors based on the Newey — West estimator.

Using LINEST, you can calculate the ratio of the square of the standard error of y at year 20 and the square of the standard error of y at year 10 by squaring the relevant sey terms or, more easily, taking the ratio of ssrid terms.

Just as an addition if a stats package like R is used (for the above data), it will find not only the coefficients for the quadratic fit but also the standard error for the coefficient values.

Using the Hadley CRU time series, I find the slope to be 0.00507173 with a standard error of 0.000266163, which gives it a t - statistic of 19.05490182.

As detailed already on the pages of RealClimate, this so - called «correction» was nothing more than a botched application of the MBH98 procedure, where the authors (MM) removed 80 % of the proxy data actually used by MBH98 during the 15th century period (failing in the process to produce a reconstruction that passes standard «verification» procedures — an error that is oddly similar to that noted by Benestad (2004) with regard to another recent McKitrick paper).

They then regress ALST on TEX86 as shown in Figure S4, for which the regression residuals have a standard error of 2.1 dC, and then use this line to «forecast» temperature from past values of TEX86 at various depths down the core (not tabulated anywhere, unfortunately).

As to the distinctions between standard errors of (a) trend coefficient, (b) a point on the trend line used to determine the trend line, and (c) a new point, these are all well known in statistics and appear in any text on regression analysis.

I have repeated the above tests using 14C error standard deviations of 10 years and 60 years instead of 30 years.

The errors for using the above Dvorak technique in comparison to aircraft measurements taken in the Northwest Pacific average 10 mb with a standard deviation of 9 mb (Martin and Gray 1993).

Within the space afforded by using two times the standard error you will be able to draw trend lines that are indistinguishable from previous recent decades, and they will be as «valid» as the «statistically flat» trend Dr. Whitehouse assures us is in this data.

In the appendix, they describe (without using this phrase) a nonparametric bootstrap to estimate standard errors, but the method used is inappropriate in the presence of serial correlation.

The advantage of using loess is the readily available theory with error bounds and other standard statistics along with the avoidance of possible model misspecification in the growth curve.

As youpoint out, the standard errors of these parameters will be extremely large and because this is the period used later for the calibration of the chronology to climate, the results over the entire chronology will suffer.

RE: 4th Error -RCB- Poses an objection to the non-scientific term catastrophic [NOTE: Scientific «consensus» is often being used & / or implied in standard climate - change discourse - Yet Consensus is a Political Term - NOT a Scientific Term]- HOWEVER - When Jim Hansen, the IPCC & Al Gore, et - al - go from predicting 450 — 500 ppm CO2 to 800 — 1000ppm by the end of the 21st century -LCB- said to the be highest atmospheric CO2 content in 20 — 30 Million YRS -RCB-; — & estimates for aver global temps by 21st century's end go from 2 * C to 6 * C to 10 * C; — & increased sea level estimates go from 10 - 20 cm to 50 - 60 cm to 1M — 2M -LCB- which would totally submerge the Maldives & partially so Bangladesh -RCB-; — predictions of the total melting of the Himalayan Ice caps by 2050, near total melting of Greenland's ice sheet & partial melting of Antarctica's ice sheet before the 21st century's end; — massive crop failures; — more intense & frequent hurricane -LCB- ala Katrina -RCB- for much longer seasonal durations, etc, etc, etc... — IMO That's Sounds pretty damned CATASTROPHIC to ME!

If you want to apply a different TOBS (morning), a TOBS (Afternoon), a TOBS (Noon), and a TOBS (late evening), I have no theoretical objection ---- Provided the mean standard error of the adjustment is applied and another error source is added to account for the probabilistic uncertainty that the wrong adjustment is used.

Note the implicit swindle in this graph — by forming a mean and standard deviation over model projections and then using the mean as a «most likely» projection and the variance as representative of the range of the error, one is treating the differences between the models as if they are uncorrelated random variates causing > deviation around a true mean!.

I then loaded that data into R and calculated the trend slope, standard error of that slope, the acf and finally the adjusted trend slope CIs using the Nychka procedure from Santer et al. (2008) with the AR1 factor.

But the standard error from that calculation — even if we use a white - noise model — is 0.13 deg.C / decade.

To better approximate the distributions of MAT derived from the different proxies, we used a bootstrap technique (Efron and Tibshirani, 1997), whereby distributions were resampled with sample replacement 100,000 times and individual estimates were weighted by the inverse of their standard error (1 / SE).

The standard measure of reconstructive skill, the «reduction of error» metric («RE») used by MBH98, was used to evaluate the fidelity of the resulting reconstruction using 19th century instrumental data that are independent of the calibration (RE < 0 exhibits no skill, while RE = -1 is the average value for a random estimate).

For example, the MSE calculated for the validation period provides a useful measure of the accuracy of the reconstruction; the square root of MSE can be used as an estimate of the reconstruction standard error.