Talk:ERF for Frambozadrine in rats: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(a discussion on method selection started)
 
No edit summary
Line 11: Line 11:
|Argumentation =
|Argumentation =
{{defend|#1: |Method A is the best.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 14:26, 24 October 2007 (EEST)}}<br>
{{defend|#1: |Method A is the best.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 14:26, 24 October 2007 (EEST)}}<br>
{{attack_invalid|#2: |Method B is the best.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 14:26, 24 October 2007 (EEST)}}
{{attack|#2: |Method B is the best.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 14:26, 24 October 2007 (EEST)}}
:{{defend|#5: |B recovers the observed uncertainty the best when inversion works out.|by Roger Cooke, added by --[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 14:26, 24 October 2007 (EEST)}}
:{{defend|#5: |B recovers the observed uncertainty the best when inversion works out.|by Roger Cooke, added by --[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 14:26, 24 October 2007 (EEST)}}
:{{attack|#6: |Probabilistic inversion is a demanding method and does not converge more often than others.|by Roger Cooke, added by --[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 14:26, 24 October 2007 (EEST)}}
:{{attack_invalid|#6: |Probabilistic inversion is a demanding method and does not converge more often than others.|by Roger Cooke, added by --[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 14:26, 24 October 2007 (EEST)}}
::{{attack|#(7): |Jouni didn't say it quite right, PI always converges, but it converges to a SOLUTION only if the problem is feasible. When the PI problem is not feasible, it converges to a 'minimally painful' answer. In this case the PI was feasible for the threshold model.|--[[User:Roger|Roger]] 16:25, 24 October 2007 (EEST)}}
{{attack|#3: |Method C is the best.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 14:26, 24 October 2007 (EEST)}}<br>
{{attack|#3: |Method C is the best.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 14:26, 24 October 2007 (EEST)}}<br>
{{attack|#4: |Method D is the best.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 14:26, 24 October 2007 (EEST)}}
{{attack|#4: |Method D is the best.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 14:26, 24 October 2007 (EEST)}}
}}
}}

Revision as of 13:25, 24 October 2007

Which method is the best for dose-response estimation?

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement:

Closing statement: Resolution not yet found.

(A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

←--#1:: . Method A is the best. --Jouni 14:26, 24 October 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
⇤--#2:: . Method B is the best. --Jouni 14:26, 24 October 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--#5:: . B recovers the observed uncertainty the best when inversion works out. by Roger Cooke, added by --Jouni 14:26, 24 October 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
⇤--#6:: . Probabilistic inversion is a demanding method and does not converge more often than others. by Roger Cooke, added by --Jouni 14:26, 24 October 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
⇤--#(7):: . Jouni didn't say it quite right, PI always converges, but it converges to a SOLUTION only if the problem is feasible. When the PI problem is not feasible, it converges to a 'minimally painful' answer. In this case the PI was feasible for the threshold model. --Roger 16:25, 24 October 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#3:: . Method C is the best. --Jouni 14:26, 24 October 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#4:: . Method D is the best. --Jouni 14:26, 24 October 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=Talk:ERF_for_Frambozadrine_in_rats&oldid=2847"