Autophagy significantly increases RGCs loss. by Hongmei Qian (538647)

Subjects:

Autophagy significantly increases RGCs loss. by Hongmei Qian (538647)

Subjects:

Variation of the most appropriate p value significance threshold with different ratios of the standard deviations and sample sizes. by Farrokh Habibzadeh (12256529)

Subjects:

Summary of significance levels for comparison of surgical segment ROM between different test groups. by Jia Zhu (135506)

Subjects:

Analysis of the Nugent score before (T=0) and after (T=1) the use of the vaginal gel. Number of participants and respective percentages of Nugent scores before and after the intervention. A statistically significant decrease in Nugent scores was observed after the intervention (p value =0.0047). by Adriana Bittencourt Campaner (21175462)

“…Number of participants and respective percentages of Nugent scores before and after the intervention. A statistically significant decrease in Nugent scores was observed after the intervention (p value =0.0047).…”

Descriptive statistics of alcohol consumption in G7 countries (in litres/capita). by Luis Alberiko Gil-Alana (14659817)

Subjects:

Data for the G7 countries in 2022. by Luis Alberiko Gil-Alana (14659817)

Subjects:

Estimates of the differencing parameter, d, in Eq (1). by Luis Alberiko Gil-Alana (14659817)

Subjects:

Estimates of the differencing parameter, d, in Eq (1). by Luis Alberiko Gil-Alana (14659817)

Subjects:

Time series plots: Alcohol consumption. by Luis Alberiko Gil-Alana (14659817)

Subjects:

Estimated coefficients based on the selected model in Table 4. by Luis Alberiko Gil-Alana (14659817)

Subjects:

Estimated coefficients based on the selected model in Table 3. by Luis Alberiko Gil-Alana (14659817)

Subjects:

The variables that significantly predicted litter clump weight in shelter cats. by Allison Andrukonis (11846404)

Preference for the EIA – conjoint results. by Mehdi Mourali (10170245)

“…When are individuals more likely to support equal treatment algorithms (ETAs), characterized by higher predictive accuracy, and when do they prefer equal impact algorithms (EIAs) that reduce performance gaps between groups? A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”

Marginal means – Pooled across scenarios. by Mehdi Mourali (10170245)

“…When are individuals more likely to support equal treatment algorithms (ETAs), characterized by higher predictive accuracy, and when do they prefer equal impact algorithms (EIAs) that reduce performance gaps between groups? A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”

Sample attribute table. by Mehdi Mourali (10170245)

“…When are individuals more likely to support equal treatment algorithms (ETAs), characterized by higher predictive accuracy, and when do they prefer equal impact algorithms (EIAs) that reduce performance gaps between groups? A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”

Subgroup analysis – Political affiliation. by Mehdi Mourali (10170245)

“…When are individuals more likely to support equal treatment algorithms (ETAs), characterized by higher predictive accuracy, and when do they prefer equal impact algorithms (EIAs) that reduce performance gaps between groups? A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”

Sample scenario description. by Mehdi Mourali (10170245)

“…When are individuals more likely to support equal treatment algorithms (ETAs), characterized by higher predictive accuracy, and when do they prefer equal impact algorithms (EIAs) that reduce performance gaps between groups? A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”

AMCEs – Pooled across scenarios. by Mehdi Mourali (10170245)

“…When are individuals more likely to support equal treatment algorithms (ETAs), characterized by higher predictive accuracy, and when do they prefer equal impact algorithms (EIAs) that reduce performance gaps between groups? A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”

Methodological flowchart. by Mehdi Mourali (10170245)

“…When are individuals more likely to support equal treatment algorithms (ETAs), characterized by higher predictive accuracy, and when do they prefer equal impact algorithms (EIAs) that reduce performance gaps between groups? A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”