I’ve generally moved to the view that geomeans are better in cases where the different estimates don’t capture a real difference but rather a difference in methodology (while using the arithmetic makes sense when we are capturing a real difference, e.g. if an intervention affects a bunch of people differently).
In any case, this report is definitely superseded/out-of-date; Stan’s upcoming final report on abrupt sunlight reduction scenarios is far more representative of CEARCH’s current thinking on the issue. (Thanks for your inputs on ASRS, by the way, Vasco!)
I’ve generally moved to the view that geomeans are better in cases where the different estimates don’t capture a real difference but rather a difference in methodology (while using the arithmetic makes sense when we are capturing a real difference, e.g. if an intervention affects a bunch of people differently).
This makes sense to me.
In any case, this report is definitely superseded/out-of-date; Stan’s upcoming final report on abrupt sunlight reduction scenarios is far more representative of CEARCH’s current thinking on the issue.
Cool; I am looking forward to it! I assume you will also do an intermediate report on arsenal limitation at some point.
I’ve generally moved to the view that geomeans are better in cases where the different estimates don’t capture a real difference but rather a difference in methodology (while using the arithmetic makes sense when we are capturing a real difference, e.g. if an intervention affects a bunch of people differently).
In any case, this report is definitely superseded/out-of-date; Stan’s upcoming final report on abrupt sunlight reduction scenarios is far more representative of CEARCH’s current thinking on the issue. (Thanks for your inputs on ASRS, by the way, Vasco!)
This makes sense to me.
Cool; I am looking forward to it! I assume you will also do an intermediate report on arsenal limitation at some point.