Difference between revisions of "Talk:2001: Clickbait-Corrected p-Value"
(Sensational difficulty) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
I was honestly expecting a comic about (or at least referencing) {{w|2001: A Space Odyssey}}. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 07:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC) | I was honestly expecting a comic about (or at least referencing) {{w|2001: A Space Odyssey}}. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 07:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | If reseachers were to use this adjusted formula, it would make sensational results much harder to demonstrate as significant, and uninteresting results much easier. Seems to me it’s a good adjustment for a lot of things. I wonder about p-values, though ... seems to me a value that is at all borderline just means you don’t have enough data yet for the actual size of the effect you’re measuring, but I don’t know much about statistics. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.130|172.68.54.130]] 02:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:08, 3 June 2018
I thought this comic was about correcting for any p-hacking that aimed to increase the media presence (and thus the clickbait) of the study. 172.68.94.10 17:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The explanation for null hypothesis is correct semantically, it would be accepted if there was no OR negative improvement, however, this is usually stated more succinctly as "will not improve performance" or (in keeping with the language of the comic) "does not boost performance", since that has the same meaning without the unnecessary verbosity. ---- 162.158.186.42 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
I can't believe I clicked on this 172.68.86.46 20:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I've removed a paragraph which claimed that this was an instance of Bayes theorem. Despite some similarity in structure, it is not. Winstonewert (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I was honestly expecting a comic about (or at least referencing) 2001: A Space Odyssey. Herobrine (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
If reseachers were to use this adjusted formula, it would make sensational results much harder to demonstrate as significant, and uninteresting results much easier. Seems to me it’s a good adjustment for a lot of things. I wonder about p-values, though ... seems to me a value that is at all borderline just means you don’t have enough data yet for the actual size of the effect you’re measuring, but I don’t know much about statistics. 172.68.54.130 02:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
