[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Statistical Analysis was:Re: Who is to blame?

To: Pete Smith N4ZR <n4zr@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Statistical Analysis was:Re: Who is to blame?
From: Charlie Gallo <Charlie@TheGallos.com>
Reply-to: Charlie Gallo <Charlie@TheGallos.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:09:04 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

On 8/19/2009 Pete Smith N4ZR wrote:

> This is exactly what was done in the VE5ZX/CT1BOH analysis.  The trouble
> with it is that even with the really striking outliers, it's not direct
> evidence of any particular behavior that is contrary to the rules.  
> That's why you need the possibility of inspection.

Agreed on all points here, even if the analysis was actually a fairly simple 
analysis.  In addition, there are techniques where you take a subset of the 
data (say 20-25% - if you have enough data to be significant), you develop your 
model on that, and then you run the model against the full data set

It's interesting what you can do with a small sample of even say 100 logs.  It 
would make a real interesting grad school project for someone taking statistics 
(Hint to anyone from CQ Magazine reading - Stony Brook has a good stat program, 
with students looking for Masters projects all the time)

73 de KG2V

For the Children - RKBA!

Clones are people two.

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>