Talk:Explained variation
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
?
[edit]effects of region on assistanve of student service, sum of squares is 9.90, df is 3 mean square is 3.30 f is 2.91 and p is .03, analyze the data 209.247.21.109 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Attention needed
[edit]I think this material at least needs reordering so as to start with the regression-related stuff. It seems incorrect to say at the start of the definition "Explained variation is a relatively recent concept" when it has been used in regression for a long time - it may be that this phrase was meant to refer to the specific "information theory" bit that follows, in which case some rephrasing is needed. Melcombe (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Removal of sourced material
[edit]See this: [1] Please explain. Here is the source: [2] Miradre (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. The content in the article does not match the source. aprock (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- It does. I quote: "The nature of most social scientific work, however, generates data poorly described by the first specification."Miradre (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- The content you inserted does not match that quote. Incorrect != "poorly described by". Additionally, that source does not deal with the issue of social sciences, but is a rebuttal to a specific work of research. It's relevance to this article is only tangential. There is little reason to include it here. aprock (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is certainly a criticism of the explained variance concept and as such is relevant. I will simplfy the criticism and reinsert it.Miradre (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- The source is a criticism of a paper not a method. Inclusion here is undue. aprock (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- The paper there are two situations regarding explained variance: 1. Unconditional regression. However, this does no apply for most social scientific work. 2. Conditional regression. This is not particularly good and the standard error of estimate should be used instead. So yes, the paper is a critique of using explained variance under many situations, particularly in social sciences. That it is a reply to another paper is not relevant. It a valid POV regarding explained variance.Miradre (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- You haven't addressed the issue of WP:UNDUE in any way. Until you do, there is little to discuss. aprock (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- It violates UNDUE regarding the argument for explained variance to not include sourced criticisms. Here is the full paper: {http://www.rochester.edu/College/PSC/clarke/405/Achen90.pdf]. To quote from the conclusion: ""Explained variance" explains nothing."Miradre (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- You haven't addressed the issue of WP:UNDUE in any way. Until you do, there is little to discuss. aprock (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- The paper there are two situations regarding explained variance: 1. Unconditional regression. However, this does no apply for most social scientific work. 2. Conditional regression. This is not particularly good and the standard error of estimate should be used instead. So yes, the paper is a critique of using explained variance under many situations, particularly in social sciences. That it is a reply to another paper is not relevant. It a valid POV regarding explained variance.Miradre (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- The source is a criticism of a paper not a method. Inclusion here is undue. aprock (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is certainly a criticism of the explained variance concept and as such is relevant. I will simplfy the criticism and reinsert it.Miradre (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- The content you inserted does not match that quote. Incorrect != "poorly described by". Additionally, that source does not deal with the issue of social sciences, but is a rebuttal to a specific work of research. It's relevance to this article is only tangential. There is little reason to include it here. aprock (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- It does. I quote: "The nature of most social scientific work, however, generates data poorly described by the first specification."Miradre (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Explained variation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080413144223/http://darwin.cwru.edu/~witte/statistics/explained_variance.htm to http://darwin.cwru.edu/~witte/statistics/explained_variance.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
External links broken
[edit]The websites "Variance, explained and unexplained" and "Explained variance" do not longer exist. I7xm (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)