Talk:2440: Epistemic Uncertainty - Revision history

172.70.178.199: On the Origins of George

2022-04-12T15:35:42Z

On the Origins of George

141.101.105.126: looking at the epistemic uncertainty options

2021-03-27T10:27:57Z

looking at the epistemic uncertainty options

162.158.166.75: /* Data depiction goof */ new section

2021-03-25T13:08:30Z

‎Data depiction goof: new section

141.101.99.207: maybe an explanation of Eve the Adulterator as ETA makes sense?

2021-03-25T07:37:36Z

maybe an explanation of Eve the Adulterator as ETA makes sense?

Rtanenbaum at 18:28, 24 March 2021

2021-03-24T18:28:35Z

172.68.26.134 at 17:18, 24 March 2021

2021-03-24T17:18:32Z

141.101.99.207 at 13:51, 24 March 2021

2021-03-24T13:51:28Z

Hkmaly at 03:16, 24 March 2021

2021-03-24T03:16:46Z

Requiscant: yes, I know it’s misspelled (misspelt?)

2021-03-24T01:28:41Z

yes, I know it’s misspelled (misspelt?)

Requiscant: I mean, really

2021-03-24T01:27:08Z

I mean, really

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:35, 12 April 2022
Line 35:		Line 35:

	Not sure if this is worth noting in the article. Real drug efficacy data would not be depicted with a horizontal scatter plot graph as in the first graph - neither for a single randomised controlled trial, nor for a meta-analysis. A single randomised controlled trial gives a percent efficacy which can be depicted as a diamond with error bars - as shown under the number 74% - but the raw data would not look like a scatter plot: for each patient the drug is either "effective according to X criteria" or "not effective" so there's no point graphing it, and there are additional notes on side effects. (For drugs treating conditions which go into remission and may recur rather than being cured, such as cancer, other more complex graphs are used - but in those cases there is no one measure of "effectiveness".) A meta-analysis is commonly shown as a forest plot - a set of several horizontal bar graphs each with its own diamond and error bars. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.75\|162.158.166.75]] 13:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)		Not sure if this is worth noting in the article. Real drug efficacy data would not be depicted with a horizontal scatter plot graph as in the first graph - neither for a single randomised controlled trial, nor for a meta-analysis. A single randomised controlled trial gives a percent efficacy which can be depicted as a diamond with error bars - as shown under the number 74% - but the raw data would not look like a scatter plot: for each patient the drug is either "effective according to X criteria" or "not effective" so there's no point graphing it, and there are additional notes on side effects. (For drugs treating conditions which go into remission and may recur rather than being cured, such as cancer, other more complex graphs are used - but in those cases there is no one measure of "effectiveness".) A meta-analysis is commonly shown as a forest plot - a set of several horizontal bar graphs each with its own diamond and error bars. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.75\|162.158.166.75]] 13:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Regarding the George Name ==
		+
		+	To me the name seemed an obvious reference to "Spiders Georg", a meme started in 2013 and still used to refer to statistics and errors caused by outliers. Thoughts? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.199\|172.70.178.199]] 15:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 I'm waiting for the Evangeline the Adulterator fan art. (Oh my, that just made me think... is there such a thing as XKCD fan art??) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.134|172.68.26.134]] 17:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 : Yes, check out www.deviantart.com/tag/xkcd - [https://www.deviantart.com/tag/xkcd] [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 18:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 == Data depiction goof ==
 Not sure if this is worth noting in the article.  Real drug efficacy data would not be depicted with a horizontal scatter plot graph as in the first graph - neither for a single randomised controlled trial, nor for a meta-analysis.  A single randomised controlled trial gives a percent efficacy which can be depicted as a diamond with error bars - as shown under the number 74% - but the raw data would not look like a scatter plot: for each patient the drug is either "effective according to X criteria" or "not effective" so there's no point graphing it, and there are additional notes on side effects.  (For drugs treating conditions which go into remission and may recur rather than being cured, such as cancer, other more complex graphs are used - but in those cases there is no one measure of "effectiveness".) A meta-analysis is commonly shown as a forest plot - a set of several horizontal bar graphs each with its own diamond and error bars. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.75|162.158.166.75]] 13:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:08, 25 March 2021
Line 29:		Line 29:
	I'm waiting for the Evangeline the Adulterator fan art. (Oh my, that just made me think... is there such a thing as XKCD fan art??) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.134\|172.68.26.134]] 17:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)		I'm waiting for the Evangeline the Adulterator fan art. (Oh my, that just made me think... is there such a thing as XKCD fan art??) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.134\|172.68.26.134]] 17:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
	: Yes, check out www.deviantart.com/tag/xkcd - [https://www.deviantart.com/tag/xkcd] [[User:Rtanenbaum\|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum\|talk]]) 18:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)		: Yes, check out www.deviantart.com/tag/xkcd - [https://www.deviantart.com/tag/xkcd] [[User:Rtanenbaum\|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum\|talk]]) 18:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Data depiction goof ==
		+
		+	Not sure if this is worth noting in the article. Real drug efficacy data would not be depicted with a horizontal scatter plot graph as in the first graph - neither for a single randomised controlled trial, nor for a meta-analysis. A single randomised controlled trial gives a percent efficacy which can be depicted as a diamond with error bars - as shown under the number 74% - but the raw data would not look like a scatter plot: for each patient the drug is either "effective according to X criteria" or "not effective" so there's no point graphing it, and there are additional notes on side effects. (For drugs treating conditions which go into remission and may recur rather than being cured, such as cancer, other more complex graphs are used - but in those cases there is no one measure of "effectiveness".) A meta-analysis is commonly shown as a forest plot - a set of several horizontal bar graphs each with its own diamond and error bars. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.75\|162.158.166.75]] 13:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 :The analogy is that those are not names of real specific persons or random names, but deliberate placeholder names. And it definitely looks that way, although those are not standard so they also are random names that Randall made up. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 03:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 :Well, 'appropriated', as George and Evangeline are both names out there in the wild. Or 'mashed together' if you mean you're including their "the ..." qualifier. ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.207|141.101.99.207]] 13:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 I'm waiting for the Evangeline the Adulterator fan art. (Oh my, that just made me think... is there such a thing as XKCD fan art??) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.134|172.68.26.134]] 17:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 : Yes, check out www.deviantart.com/tag/xkcd - [https://www.deviantart.com/tag/xkcd] [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 18:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:28, 24 March 2021
Line 27:		Line 27:

	I'm waiting for the Evangeline the Adulterator fan art. (Oh my, that just made me think... is there such a thing as XKCD fan art??) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.134\|172.68.26.134]] 17:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)		I'm waiting for the Evangeline the Adulterator fan art. (Oh my, that just made me think... is there such a thing as XKCD fan art??) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.134\|172.68.26.134]] 17:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
		+	: Yes, check out www.deviantart.com/tag/xkcd - [https://www.deviantart.com/tag/xkcd] [[User:Rtanenbaum\|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum\|talk]]) 18:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:18, 24 March 2021
Line 25:		Line 25:
	:The analogy is that those are not names of real specific persons or random names, but deliberate placeholder names. And it definitely looks that way, although those are not standard so they also are random names that Randall made up. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 03:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)		:The analogy is that those are not names of real specific persons or random names, but deliberate placeholder names. And it definitely looks that way, although those are not standard so they also are random names that Randall made up. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 03:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
	:Well, 'appropriated', as George and Evangeline are both names out there in the wild. Or 'mashed together' if you mean you're including their "the ..." qualifier. ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.207\|141.101.99.207]] 13:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)		:Well, 'appropriated', as George and Evangeline are both names out there in the wild. Or 'mashed together' if you mean you're including their "the ..." qualifier. ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.207\|141.101.99.207]] 13:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	I'm waiting for the Evangeline the Adulterator fan art. (Oh my, that just made me think... is there such a thing as XKCD fan art??) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.134\|172.68.26.134]] 17:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:51, 24 March 2021
Line 24:		Line 24:
	Why does the article say that George and Evangeline are analogous to the cryptography Alice and Bob? There’s little there to suggest it and it even if it’s so it hardly makes the joke funnier. More likely they’re just random names that Randall made up. [[User:Requiscant\|Requiscant]] ([[User talk:Requiscant\|talk]])		Why does the article say that George and Evangeline are analogous to the cryptography Alice and Bob? There’s little there to suggest it and it even if it’s so it hardly makes the joke funnier. More likely they’re just random names that Randall made up. [[User:Requiscant\|Requiscant]] ([[User talk:Requiscant\|talk]])
	:The analogy is that those are not names of real specific persons or random names, but deliberate placeholder names. And it definitely looks that way, although those are not standard so they also are random names that Randall made up. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 03:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)		:The analogy is that those are not names of real specific persons or random names, but deliberate placeholder names. And it definitely looks that way, although those are not standard so they also are random names that Randall made up. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 03:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
		+	:Well, 'appropriated', as George and Evangeline are both names out there in the wild. Or 'mashed together' if you mean you're including their "the ..." qualifier. ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.207\|141.101.99.207]] 13:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:16, 24 March 2021
Line 23:		Line 23:

	Why does the article say that George and Evangeline are analogous to the cryptography Alice and Bob? There’s little there to suggest it and it even if it’s so it hardly makes the joke funnier. More likely they’re just random names that Randall made up. [[User:Requiscant\|Requiscant]] ([[User talk:Requiscant\|talk]])		Why does the article say that George and Evangeline are analogous to the cryptography Alice and Bob? There’s little there to suggest it and it even if it’s so it hardly makes the joke funnier. More likely they’re just random names that Randall made up. [[User:Requiscant\|Requiscant]] ([[User talk:Requiscant\|talk]])
		+	:The analogy is that those are not names of real specific persons or random names, but deliberate placeholder names. And it definitely looks that way, although those are not standard so they also are random names that Randall made up. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 03:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:28, 24 March 2021
Line 22:		Line 22:
	: [[User:Honorknight\|Honorknight]] ([[User talk:Honorknight\|talk]])		: [[User:Honorknight\|Honorknight]] ([[User talk:Honorknight\|talk]])

−	Why does the article say that George and Evangeline are analogous to the cryptography Alice and Bob? There’s little there to suggest it and it even if it’s so it hardly makes the joke funnier. More likely they’re just random names that Randall made up.	+	Why does the article say that George and Evangeline are analogous to the cryptography Alice and Bob? There’s little there to suggest it and it even if it’s so it hardly makes the joke funnier. More likely they’re just random names that Randall made up. [[User:Requiscant\|Requiscant]] ([[User talk:Requiscant\|talk]])

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:27, 24 March 2021
Line 21:		Line 21:
	:“The letter goes on to explain that while the company announced its vaccine was 79 percent effective on Monday, the panel had been meeting with the company through February and March and had seen data showing the vaccine may be 69 to 74 percent effective, and had ‘strongly recommended’ that information should be included in the news release.”		:“The letter goes on to explain that while the company announced its vaccine was 79 percent effective on Monday, the panel had been meeting with the company through February and March and had seen data showing the vaccine may be 69 to 74 percent effective, and had ‘strongly recommended’ that information should be included in the news release.”
	: [[User:Honorknight\|Honorknight]] ([[User talk:Honorknight\|talk]])		: [[User:Honorknight\|Honorknight]] ([[User talk:Honorknight\|talk]])
		+
		+	Why does the article say that George and Evangeline are analogous to the cryptography Alice and Bob? There’s little there to suggest it and it even if it’s so it hardly makes the joke funnier. More likely they’re just random names that Randall made up.