Re: Basic rookie question about standard error
- From: Allen McIntosh <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:37:13 -0400
...really? What happened there?By the way, if you remove the zeros, you would be making one of the same mistakes that doomed Space Shuttle Challenger.
Before the launch, someone was analyzing the data on # ring failures vs. temperature. They decided that the launches with no failures contained no information, and dropped them from the analysis. The resulting plot doesn't show much of a temperature effect. What they missed was that there were almost no zeros at low temperatures. Analysis with the zeros in tells a very different story.
The canonical statistical reference for this is a JASA paper by Dalal, Fowlkes and Hoadley. Feeding the three authors names to Google will get you lots of references.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Basic rookie question about standard error
- From: John_Kane
- Re: Basic rookie question about standard error
- References:
- Basic rookie question about standard error
- From: coleman . bill
- Re: Basic rookie question about standard error
- From: Paige Miller
- Re: Basic rookie question about standard error
- From: Richard Ulrich
- Re: Basic rookie question about standard error
- From: Data Matter
- Re: Basic rookie question about standard error
- From: BillCo
- Basic rookie question about standard error
- Prev by Date: Re: Basic rookie question about standard error
- Next by Date: Re: Basic rookie question about standard error
- Previous by thread: Re: Basic rookie question about standard error
- Next by thread: Re: Basic rookie question about standard error
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|