meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 2 years, 11 months |
| seen | Oct 8 '12 at 18:43 | |
| stats | profile views | 49 |
|
May 8 |
awarded | Notable Question |
|
Sep 30 |
comment |
Using confidence interval from full sample to test statistics from a small sub-sample? In other words, what I am expecting to find is that the subgroup is not predictable and does not have the same distribution compared to the group at large, precisely because the subgroup is not random in a certain theoretically interesting way. |
|
Sep 30 |
comment |
Using confidence interval from full sample to test statistics from a small sub-sample? @MichaelChernick: Thank you for your comments. Let's say we don't know that Chicago is more democratic, and that's what we want to know. You find that 2/5 people in the state are democrats. You get a confidence interval, and then find that in Chicago the proportion is higher than that confidence interval, would it be valid to say that Chicago is in fact more democratic than the state at large? Keeping in mind that this is all from the same poll. I'm not trying to predict anything as such, but merely trying to tell if the subgroup is in fact significantly different from the group overall. |
|
Sep 28 |
asked | Using confidence interval from full sample to test statistics from a small sub-sample? |
|
Sep 27 |
awarded | Popular Question |
|
Jul 30 |
accepted | Standard measure of clumpiness? |
|
Jul 29 |
asked | Standard measure of clumpiness? |
|
Jul 24 |
awarded | Popular Question |
|
Jul 19 |
awarded | Yearling |
|
May 1 |
awarded | Good Question |
|
Apr 10 |
accepted | Explaining to laypeople why bootstrapping works |
|
Apr 9 |
comment |
Explaining to laypeople why bootstrapping works @cardinal Thanks, I updated the original post. Hopefully it is more clear. :) |
|
Apr 9 |
awarded | Nice Question |
|
Apr 9 |
comment |
Explaining to laypeople why bootstrapping works I see, so if I understand you, then this technique assumes that the sample is an adequate model of the population, and therefore that resampling over that sample on a large enough scale will reveal something about the population, but only to the extent that the original sample is a good one. Now that I put it that way it seems almost obvious... |
|
Apr 8 |
accepted | Pitfalls of linear mixed models |
|
Apr 8 |
comment |
Explaining to laypeople why bootstrapping works Thanks! This much I understand. I am particularly wondering how it is that resampling from a sample of the population helps to understand the underlying population. If we are resampling from a sample, how is it that we are learning something about the population rather than only about the sample? There seems to be a leap there which is somewhat counter-intuitive. |
|
Apr 8 |
revised |
Explaining to laypeople why bootstrapping works added 144 characters in body |
|
Apr 8 |
asked | Explaining to laypeople why bootstrapping works |
|
Feb 28 |
awarded | Popular Question |
|
Aug 20 |
asked | Plotting density in two different ways gives wildly different looking curves |
