Extraordinary claims: the 0.000029% solution

Dorigo, T.

doi:10.1051/epjconf/20149502003

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, the first post-countermovement force value less than 10 N and the next force value greater than 10 N were identified; second, points 30 ms after and before these points, respectively, were identified to determine the center ‘flight phase’ array; third, mean and SD ‘flight phase’ force was calculated, and mean ‘flight phase’ force plus 5 SD was used to identify take-off [14]. We chose the 5 SD threshold because it provides the most robust approach, with the chance of it not identifying a ‘real’ change in force being 1 in 3.5 million [15]. The propulsion phase was automatically identified for the Push Band method using its proprietary software.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Validity of the Push Band 2.0 during Vertical Jump Performance

Lake

Augustus

Austin

et al. 2018

Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Push Band has the potential to provide a cheap and practical method of measuring velocity and power during countermovement vertical jumping (CMJ). However, very little is known about whether it conforms to laboratory-based gold standards. The aim of this study was to assess the agreement between peak and mean velocity and power obtained from the belt-worn Push Band, and derived from three-dimensional motion capture, and vertical force from an in-ground force platform. Twenty-two volunteers performed 3 CMJ on a force platform, while a belt-worn Push Band and a motion capture system (a marker affixed to the Push Band) simultaneously recorded data that enabled peak and mean velocity and power to be calculated and then compared using ordinary least products regression. While the Push Band is reliable, it tends to overestimate peak (9–17%) and mean (24–27%) velocity, and when compared to force plate-derived peak and mean power, it tends to underestimate (40–45%) and demonstrates fixed and proportional bias. This suggests that while the Push Band may provide a useful method for measuring peak and mean velocity during the CMJ, researchers and practitioners should be mindful of its tendency to systematically overestimate and that its measures of peak and mean power should not be used.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Validity of the Push Band 2.0 during Vertical Jump Performance

Lake

Augustus

Austin

et al. 2018

Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. eventually led to an ad hoc '5-sigma' discovery criterion [3][4][5][6], i.e. a 'discovery' is only taken seriously if the estimated probability for observing the result without new physics is less than the chance of a single sample from a Normal distribution being more than five standard deviations (5σ ) from the mean.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not Normal: the uncertainties of scientific measurements

Bailey¹

2017

R. Soc. open sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judging the significance and reproducibility of quantitative research requires a good understanding of relevant uncertainties, but it is often unclear how well these have been evaluated and what they imply. Reported scientific uncertainties were studied by analysing 41 000 measurements of 3200 quantities from medicine, nuclear and particle physics, and interlaboratory comparisons ranging from chemistry to toxicology. Outliers are common, with 5σ disagreements up to five orders of magnitude more frequent than naively expected. Uncertainty-normalized differences between multiple measurements of the same quantity are consistent with heavy-tailed Student’s t-distributions that are often almost Cauchy, far from a Gaussian Normal bell curve. Medical research uncertainties are generally as well evaluated as those in physics, but physics uncertainty improves more rapidly, making feasible simple significance criteria such as the 5σ discovery convention in particle physics. Contributions to measurement uncertainty from mistakes and unknown problems are not completely unpredictable. Such errors appear to have power-law distributions consistent with how designed complex systems fail, and how unknown systematic errors are constrained by researchers. This better understanding may help improve analysis and meta-analysis of data, and help scientists and the public have more realistic expectations of what scientific results imply.

show abstract

“…The method devised in [268] enables a non-CPU-intensive evaluation of the "global significance" of an observed effect, accounting for the multiplicity of ways by which the signal may appear in the search. One should however note that only the local significance of a signal search may be well-defined, given the arbitrariness intrinsic in the definition of the range of variability allowed to the nuisance parameter describing the composite alternative hypothesis [269].…”

Section: Hypothesis Testing Confidence Intervals and Signal Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%