Latest revision |
Your text |
Line 11: |
Line 11: |
| : Oops, misread it! I read "insignificant" as "significant". [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 21:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC) | | : Oops, misread it! I read "insignificant" as "significant". [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 21:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC) |
| | | |
− | The teapot mention may just be a joke, not a reference. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.114}} | + | The teapot mention may just be a joke, not a reference. |
| | | |
− | did someone check if it really was a Rsquared of 0,06?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.67|141.101.104.67]] 20:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC) | + | == did someone check if it really was a Rsquared of 0,06? == |
| | | |
− | :Asuming the top left of the image as 0/0 and measuring in pixels I get f(x)=-0,135x + 124,8 with R²=0,0197, calcuated with LibreOffice. The line in the image has f(x)=-0,094x+125. If I change a single point by one or two the R² value varies from 0,0195 to 0,0199. If I substract 10% of the x value from the y value R² increases to 0,0574. So I think R²=0,06 is a little bit inaccurate, but not completely wrong. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.83.228|162.158.83.228]] 19:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
| + | [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.67|141.101.104.67]] 20:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC) |
− | | |
− | ::I think R^2 = 6% is very inaccurate if the true R^2 = 2%. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.56|108.162.219.56]] 00:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
| |
− | | |
− | Does anybody know of any real-world examples of a similarly low R^2 given in genuine research? It would be worth mentioning their existence if we can find one. [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 18:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
| |
− | : In published research? I don't recall any. In submissions for review? At least twice. And of course one case where this comic could and should be used as an educational drawing - student reports, master's theses, etc. I've seen "conclusions" drawn from weaker data in those, far too many times for my mental health...--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.119|162.158.86.119]] 09:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
| |
− | | |
− | Rex is also Latin for king, which may be related in the context of constellations. {{unsigned ip|172.68.11.81}}
| |
− | | |
− | This is irrelevant to the humor of the comic, but I fixed the paragraph on confidence intervals because it contained at least three misinterpretations (I have a MSc in statistics). The phrasing can be improved if needed. Don't worry though, [http://www.andrewgelman.com/2017/12/28/stupid-ass-statisticians-dont-know-goddam-confidence-interval even experienced statisticians get it wrong sometimes...] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.234.40|162.158.234.40]] 09:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
| |