With selection of authors drawn
with equal likelihood of either gender then a random guessing machine making 1,045 guesses would expect to get an average of 522 correct answers and if it repeated the experiment many times we would expect 95 % of the results to lie between 490 and 554 correct answers.
The Massachusetts twin might respond either way,
with equal likelihood; but no matter which choice she makes, her twin brother an ocean away will respond with the opposite choice.
Not exact matches
Just some real data from wikipedia: «The
likelihood of a woman having an abortion is called the abortion index,
with the value of 1.0 as signed to a probability
equal to a population's average.
As you point out, the IPCC does not explicitly state that the SRES scenarios all are of
equal likelihood, but, given what they do tell us (as you indicated) 1) we should not rely on the frequency distribution to develop probability of occurrence, and 2) «No judgment is offered in this report as to the preference for any of the scenarios and they are not assigned probabilities of occurrence,» it seem to me that the best we can do is to make the simple assumption that they are equally likely (
with departures from
equal probability randomly distributed).
When (If) we are interested in S, it's natural to plot the
likelihood versus S, but then we should not equate
equal areas
with equal probabilities as that would imply a prior uniform in S.
In both meta - analysis of structural and functional brain alterations in adolescents
with AB versus controls, no studies providing results based on a priori region - of - interest analysis only were included (since they violate the assumption, under the null hypothesis, that the
likelihood of locating activated foci is
equal at every voxel).