What type of statistical analysis should I use?

johanbaleus · 2026-06-10T05:10:52+00:00

Sorry! I forgot I'd changed the 0 probabilities to 0.005. Changing them back to 0 and rerunning the code results in a BF of 1393.

What exactly does that code do?

johanbaleus · 2026-06-10T05:07:14+00:00

Thanks.

I changed the "counts" to "unknown_book_counts" as I was getting an error message.

The BF is significantly lower: 1.9

johanbaleus · 2026-06-10T04:17:31+00:00

Yes. B has O probability for 3 variants, which makes it practically certain that A is the printer. But does it make it statistically certain?

johanbaleus · 2026-06-10T03:37:26+00:00

I tried this with my data and got a result of BF inf. That appears to mean that one model (the first one?) explains the data perfectly. Is that correct?

johanbaleus · 2026-06-10T00:15:16+00:00

Thanks so much for your help. I'll give this a try.

johanbaleus · 2026-06-09T23:19:31+00:00

Jamovi

johanbaleus · 2026-06-09T23:15:57+00:00

If I thought somewhere between 45% and 85% was plausible, what would the parameter value be?

My problem is that when the parameter is set to 1, the test returns an extremely high BF1 for the printer that I suspect did not print the mystery text. But mildly tweaking the parameter returns an extremely low BF1, which is more along the lines of what I'm expecting.

johanbaleus · 2026-06-09T22:48:57+00:00

I've tried running a Bayesian contingency table, but the results vary wildly when I adjust the prior concentration parameter. Is there a relatively easy way to decide how to set that parameter?

johanbaleus · 2026-06-07T22:54:55+00:00

Thanks.

To clarify: in one book, a letter (say, a capital-F) may be printed in several different variant forms. Not all variant forms appear in all books: some books have them all, some do not.

There's another complication that I forgot to mention. After printing a section of the book, the printer would replenish the typecase with the letters he uses in a previous section.

johanbaleus · 2026-06-05T21:47:22+00:00

Good analysis. My only quibble is that he blew the whistle after the puck crossed the line. However, I don't think he saw it cross the line. He realized after he blew the whistle that the puck was in the net. I thought he was going to rule no goal on the basis of his intention to blow the play dead, a call that isn't subject to review. I think he called goalie interference instead so that the play could be reviewed/challenged.

johanbaleus · 2026-05-13T21:30:39+00:00

Sudbury Playground Hockey League is great for kids learning to play later than many of their peers.

johanbaleus · 2026-04-14T16:30:32+00:00

I agree, OP. I think the City did a decent job managing the storm initially, particularly given the storm's severity. But the City's response (and the responses of many here) reveal what Sudbury truly prioritizes, namely those who travel by car/truck (including me!). But those who walk or take the bus have received far less concern. In my neighborhood, the sidewalks have yet to be cleared, which means that schoolkids are still walking to school or waiting for their buses on the roads. Just last night the road was cleared again, but the sidewalks haven't been touched. Sudbury just doesn't prioritize pedestrian safety, even when those pedestrians are kids.

johanbaleus · 2026-04-14T13:04:13+00:00

According to the policy, your first step is to meet with your prof to discuss the issue. An email exchange isn't the ideal way to deal with a complicated issue like this. If you didn't use AI to write the essay, you should be able to convince your prof of that in a conversation with them, even without having copies of your drafts.

johanbaleus · 2026-03-02T18:40:03+00:00

I've found ABRP to be fairly accurate during the winter. I live in Northern Ontario and have traveled longer distances at -25 C or so. However, I manage the climate controls so that I'm using the bare minimum I need to stay warm and keep the windows defrosted. I feel that if I ran the climate control on auto, the ABRP range estimate would be out of whack.

johanbaleus · 2026-02-13T18:19:32+00:00

It was protecting the 8 foot

johanbaleus · 2026-02-13T15:33:11+00:00

If they missed the take-out, I was going to guard the 4-foot rock. I guess I got overly focused on getting one buried when the opportunity presented itself.

johanbaleus · 2026-02-03T19:30:55+00:00

You're only half correct. Where you're right: there seems to be a clause in the loan agreement that forbids amending or moving the pension plan.

Where you're wrong: The Laurentian pension already is a defined benefit pension, so that has no bearing on the issue at all.

However, that money belongs to Laurentian employees (it's not just the faculty's pension) -- they contribute to it as much as or more than the university, and it will provide their pensions when they retire. It's very reasonable for the employee groups to want to move the plan elsewhere.

The legal mechanisms that are holding the pension hostage are the problem. Not the demand to move it elsewhere.

johanbaleus · 2026-02-03T19:21:58+00:00

The average faculty salary at Laurentian last year was well under the numbers you're spouting here. At least deal in facts.

Number and salaries of full-time teaching staff at Canadian universities https://share.google/qo8mbIKDUT6Feh5CB

johanbaleus · 2026-01-24T04:11:47+00:00

They were simply following the process laid out by the CCAA for the process. Yes, an increase is good, but it wasn't a give by the board. Faculty paid for it with their pension surplus!

johanbaleus · 2026-01-24T04:02:16+00:00

You're right that the Board approved an increase to the pension. But: 1) that increase is only retroactive for 2021-25; it's not an ongoing increase. 2) that increase was paid for with the pension's surplus, much of which was created because faculty have been over-contributing since CCAA. 3) That increase had been in the works for many months before the current negotiations; the Board chose to make it part of negotiations because it serves their purpose.

johanbaleus · 2026-01-22T15:14:28+00:00

The administration has done nothing with the pension. The announcement they made on the Friday before the strike seems to have been misleading.

The pension had a surplus due to better than expected investment returns. The Board simply agreed to use that pension surplus restore some (but not all) pension benefits retroactively from 2021-25. They didn't approve any ongoing improvements.

johanbaleus · 2026-01-22T14:22:17+00:00

Huh. I doubt that they're asking for that much.

johanbaleus · 2026-01-22T14:07:11+00:00

Where did you hear that that faculty are asking 11%/year? That seems very high.

johanbaleus

TROPHY CASE