Timeline for Removal of abnormalities in a month-data
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 12, 2017 at 9:28 | history | edited | amoeba |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 6, 2014 at 16:39 | history | edited | Léo Léopold Hertz 준영 |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 6, 2014 at 16:23 | comment | added | whuber♦ | According to Figure 2, they are total births per month. Earlier the article states, "We looked at the number of births ... We analysed monthly birth data... ." But this is all beside the point: the article concerns a post hoc test of an anomaly that happened to be noticed. As with any such anomaly, such tests are meaningless. After all, I can look at any sufficiently long time series, model it, pick out the largest residual, and find any number of "explanations" in contemporaneous newpapers. By construction this residual will appear "significant." The whole exercise is pointless. | |
| Jan 6, 2014 at 16:09 | comment | added | Léo Léopold Hertz 준영 | @whuber Are these counts daily rates which they used to form monthly rates in the study? | |
| Jan 6, 2014 at 15:41 | comment | added | whuber♦ | (1) I do not think any data were removed. Although the text is vague, a natural interpretation is that birth counts were converted to rates per 30 days. (2) Although I cannot address the "need to" question, it is abundantly clear that such manipulations--in particular, basing the analysis on months--removes the statistical support from almost all the conclusions and claims the authors make. One could equally well conclude that births are caused by the mere anticipation of a sporting event or even--being more sceptical--that the analysis is worthless because it has no effective control. | |
| Jan 6, 2014 at 15:34 | history | asked | Léo Léopold Hertz 준영 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |