This article stated "Burnell and Lazaro are predicted not-safe at the 95% confidence range." This statement illustrates the principle of confidence intervals. The person who calculated this was correct with his/her predictions, because Burnell was eliminated.
They used something called "not-safe probability," as the explanatory variable to determine whether or not a contestant will make the top 3. I recognized the term explanatory variable.
I also recognized the term "outcome" as it pertains to probability. Also, I guess "not-safe probability" is essentially q probability.
This article states that "All predictions are beyond the margin of error at 87% confidence". With my understanding from AP stats I can conclude that the 87% confidence level is measure of how confident we are for each contestants prediction based on the given marin of error.
Seeing as how I'm doing this two weeks later than we are supposed to the article stated that both Burnell and Lazaro were 95% not safe. This leaves a 5% MOE, but seeing as we already know the results, we know that being 95% confident is good enough in this certain situation
Lazaro and Burnell were 95% not safe (ended up getting voted off if you didn't know). This confidence interval left their to be a 5% chance that Lazaro and Burnell would stay on the show which is very low.
This article talks about how all the predictions are at a margin of error of 87% confidence. Because of AP Stats, I understand that we are 87% confident of each contestant's prediction.
In this article, the predictions are discussed through a margin of error at 87% confidence. Throughout the year I have gained enough knowledge to conclude that the 87% confidence level is a measure of how confident we are for each contestant's prediction based on the margin of error we are given.
This article talks about several topics we have covered in statistics class, including models, confidence levels, margins of error, and "not safe probabilities" (explanatory variable). Through this stats class I have discovered that the 87% confidence level is given with a MOE of +/- 3%. I have learned to look at statistics closely and take everything with a grain of salt.
"A linear fit has coefficient of determination R2 of only about 0.1, so these variables are fairly weakly correlated." This statement is referring to the scatter plot that compared the Adjusted Dialidol vs WNTS scores. I recognized that the data was pretty scattered, so I understood that the small r2 of the linear regression line meant that the data had a really weak correlation. Before, I might not have understood what this meant, but now I know that this means the statistics being provided by this website are not completely reliable and there is no strong, positive correlation between the Dialidol scores and the WNTS scores.
All of these articles do a great job stating that these are just projections. This year you have drilled in our heads that statistics are never 100% correct and you have to test your conditions all the time. Well this website justifies all of their projections with statistics but clearly say that you shouldn't make bets off of these stats. Although they say that they thought the statistics predicting Angie going home were off for some reason, they were completely correct in their prediction.
This site states a “not-safe percentage” which is determined using a linear regression line. They also provided a percent accuracy of 87% with a margin of error of +/- 3%. This was found using the R value of the Linear regression line and the margin of error was found with a confidence interval.
This article stated "Burnell and Lazaro are predicted not-safe at the 95% confidence range." This statement illustrates the principle of confidence intervals. The person who calculated this was correct with his/her predictions, because Burnell was eliminated.
ReplyDeleteThey used something called "not-safe probability," as the explanatory variable to determine whether or not a contestant will make the top 3. I recognized the term explanatory variable.
ReplyDeleteI also recognized the term "outcome" as it pertains to probability.
Also, I guess "not-safe probability" is essentially q probability.
This article states that "All predictions are beyond the margin of error at 87% confidence". With my understanding from AP stats I can conclude that the 87% confidence level is measure of how confident we are for each contestants prediction based on the given marin of error.
ReplyDeleteSeeing as how I'm doing this two weeks later than we are supposed to the article stated that both Burnell and Lazaro were 95% not safe. This leaves a 5% MOE, but seeing as we already know the results, we know that being 95% confident is good enough in this certain situation
ReplyDeleteLazaro and Burnell were 95% not safe (ended up getting voted off if you didn't know). This confidence interval left their to be a 5% chance that Lazaro and Burnell would stay on the show which is very low.
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about how all the predictions are at a margin of error of 87% confidence. Because of AP Stats, I understand that we are 87% confident of each contestant's prediction.
ReplyDeleteIn this article, the predictions are discussed through a margin of error at 87% confidence. Throughout the year I have gained enough knowledge to conclude that the 87% confidence level is a measure of how confident we are for each contestant's prediction based on the margin of error we are given.
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about several topics we have covered in statistics class, including models, confidence levels, margins of error, and "not safe probabilities" (explanatory variable). Through this stats class I have discovered that the 87% confidence level is given with a MOE of +/- 3%. I have learned to look at statistics closely and take everything with a grain of salt.
ReplyDelete"A linear fit has coefficient of determination R2 of only about 0.1, so these variables are fairly weakly correlated." This statement is referring to the scatter plot that compared the Adjusted Dialidol vs WNTS scores. I recognized that the data was pretty scattered, so I understood that the small r2 of the linear regression line meant that the data had a really weak correlation. Before, I might not have understood what this meant, but now I know that this means the statistics being provided by this website are not completely reliable and there is no strong, positive correlation between the Dialidol scores and the WNTS scores.
ReplyDeleteAll of these articles do a great job stating that these are just projections. This year you have drilled in our heads that statistics are never 100% correct and you have to test your conditions all the time. Well this website justifies all of their projections with statistics but clearly say that you shouldn't make bets off of these stats. Although they say that they thought the statistics predicting Angie going home were off for some reason, they were completely correct in their prediction.
ReplyDeleteThis site states a “not-safe percentage” which is determined using a linear regression line. They also provided a percent accuracy of 87% with a margin of error of +/- 3%. This was found using the R value of the Linear regression line and the margin of error was found with a confidence interval.
ReplyDelete