I disagree. Very clear and open. This is peer-review not trading.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How is that a criticism,
@jaspergregory? If you want to have an opinion on it, do your homework: http://beast.community/hierarchical_models … https://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/28200071 … (Took me 1 minute to find these.) -
So, you think after finding those links you can tell whether a paper is misusing those methods? I am sure that I cannot.
-
Not at all! It'd take hundreds of hours of work (at best). But "hard to understand as an outsider" isn't a legit objection in itself, because it applies to any field.
-
Any field with sophisticated statistical methods is going to take a lot of work
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Here's a simple statistical model for you: 100% of the time 'abstract statistical methods' result in overfitting. [Unfortunately, 3D multi-variate neural regression 'proves' that simple methods result in underfitting.]
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.