Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics

WikiProject Statistics
Main page	Talk page	Members	Templates	Resources

Edited Vuong's closeness test, removed Expert-subject|statistics|date=November 2008

Hi project,

I've just edited Vuong's closeness test and removed the

tag from November 2008!!!

The expert request was for a sentence criticising the use of the test for Zero-Inflated Poisson on the grounds that these models are nested. However, the test can be used for non-nested or nested models, so the criticism is moot.

Happy to hear from anyone on the project if they have problems with this. Newystats (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Inter-rater reliability expert wanted to help review a WikiJournal of Medicine (WikiJMed) article submission

The article in question is an unpublished pre-print undergoing peer review organised by the WikiJournal of Medicine.

All of the article's content has been accepted by journal editors and peer reviewers except for a question remaining about inter-rater reliability. I suspect that this will not be a difficult question for someone well-versed in this area of statistics.

Note that while this is a medical article written by plastic surgeons, you do not need to be a physician to help us! Physicians and other biomedical scientists have already reviewed the medical-specific content. We need input regarding the statistical analyses only. (I'm a psychologist who reviews medical articles for non-medical aspects only, e.g., grammar, syntax, organization, etc.)

If one or more of you would be so kind as to look at the article and offer your input, we would be most grateful!

The article is: WikiJournal Preprints/Comparison between the Lund-Browder Chart and the BurnCase 3D® for Consistency in Estimating Total Body Surface Area Burned.

You might wish to start with the questions I posted about inter-rater reliability along with the authors' response. Of particular interest are Tables 3 and 5 in the Results section of the article, which report coefficients of variation.

Our question, which we hope you might answer, is: Have the authors performed and reported the appropriate statistical analyses needed to support their article's findings and conclusions?

Since this is an open peer-review process for an article to be published in our no-cost, open access journal, we prefer if you write your comments, recommendations, or questions directly on the Talk (discussion) page for the article. However, that is not required. Therefore, if you prefer, feel free to send your comments, recommendations, or quesstions for the article authors via email to action editor Thomas Shafee and via email to me (Mark Worthen).

If you have any questions or feedback about this request, comment here and (please) ping me (Mark Worthen) and Thomas Shafee. Also feel free to email Thomas and email me.

Thank you!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 10:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

p-value

I just now edited the first line of the article on p-values. I saw an ambiguity, a mistake, and an inconsistency between example and definition. I have not yet checked if my changes keep the wording in line with the reference [1], whatever that is. (It looks like a reliable source, but maybe it is wrong, and then I have to find a better reliable source! Or, dear reader and fellow wikipedian, you do) Richard Gill (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Please see discussion

Template_talk:Infobox_country#Metro_area_parameter. Interstellarity (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

A possible Science/STEM User Group

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking for advise from editors on Probability Statistics

In March of 2002 I made, what was then thought to be at the time, an unknown mathematical discovery in Lotto Probability Draw Pattern Mathematics. Now some 17 years later, I have been recently trying to get the discovery more validated than it was some 17 years ago by those who were originally involved. I became an editor in 2009, unrelated to the discovery but have been fairly inactive the last couple of years and I need to get back to it I know.

During the process I recently learned on the web, that their saying my independent discovery had already been known about years prior to 2002. But those I spoke with, didn't know where or what this type of mathematical discovery is called other than by the name 'decades analysis.' I've been unable to find anything like it on the web to see where this might have both originally came from and I don't understand why we don't have it discussed on our topic article page for Lottery Mathematics

I am going to leave a link here for just how |Lotto Probability Draw Pattern Mathematics looks in a Probability Report, with the hope someone can help me both find more information about this type of mathematics and or reference links to pages or papers explaining the subject matter in general. I'd appreciate any help anyone can give me at all. Tinkermen (talk)