Talk:Semivariance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Can you please tell my what the POV issue is? It will never be fixed if the tag is left unexplained; & if the issue is the controversy section, well, then its no longer POV....Bridesmill 16:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
I slapped a POV on, as 3 of the 4 source cited are not actually the articles they say they are, but ratehr unpublished criticisms. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that is patently WP:OR, and either needs to be quickly fixed or removed. In addition, the way these cites are mis-attributed is dishonest to the max; curious, considering the user in question is slamming geostats and semivariance on the grounds of it being inherently dishonest....Bridesmill 00:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Oops! I goofed!! Just copied the references to these textbooks linked to my retro-reviews but have made corrections. Don't read what I wrote. Or try to forget if you did! Please peek at Clark's Practical Geostatistics, which is posted on her website. I wouldn't even throw out an ugly baby with the bathwater. What I do want is reunite each distance-weighted average with its variance and get rid of an ugly science. Surely, you're not the only Wikipedian who wants to bring sound knowledge and scientific integrity to the world. JWM. --Iconoclast 16:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, wrong, or otherwise it is not your job here to get rid of anything or create anything; just to deal with what is known. WP:NOR and all that. If your work is published in a peer-reviewed work, then it's admissible. Until then, nobody cares how much you dislike the field or what you think is wrong with it. Again, you seem to be taken in by very passionate beliefs, not least influenced by various scandals and heinous abuses. Sometimes, though, it works - as in applications to criminology. So until your work is 'published', it has no place here. Sorry.Bridesmill 16:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Howdy Bridesmill, I decided to post some peer-reviewed work. "Abuse of statistics" was reviewed by IAMG's present President himself.In contrast, Stanford's Journel thrashed "Precision Estimates for Ore Reserves" because we applied "classical Fischerian [sic!] statistics" whereas Erzmetall praised and published it. Do you want to know what Journel wrote about our paper? Visit spatial dependence and click on Journel's letter! Do you agree or disagree with the junk science of interpolation without justification? Do you want to know what JMG's Editor wrote to me? Visit my website and look under Correspondence! Surely, you'll have more suggestions on how to become a good Wikipedian. JWM. --Iconoclast 22:41, 6 July 2006
[edit] deleted nonsense
I just deleted this statement:
-
- In mathematical statistics, sets of n measured values give df=n-1 degrees of freedom whereas
Quite aside from the fact that
-
- df=n-1
should have been typeset as
-
- df = n − 1
the statement itself is idiotic nonsense. Michael Hardy 21:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Variogram, semivariogram and others
I first cite: The semivariance is calculated in the same manner as the variance but only those observations that fall below the mean are included in the calculation. It is sometimes described as a measure of downside risk in an investments context. For skewed distributions, the semivariance can provide additional information that a variance does not. This cannot be correct. I have removed it. --Bachmai (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have described the context between variance and "semivariance" in Bachmaier and Backes (2008) cited in the article. This context is not yet written down in this article. (Martin Bachmaier) --Bachmai (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone wrote: The statement that only measured values below the mean are included in the semivariance makes no statistical sense (see Ref 4). Clark, in her Practical Geostatistics, which can be downloaded from her website, proposed that the factor 2 be moved for mathematical convenience and berates those who refer to variograms rather than semi-variograms. The first part is o.k. And I think it's me who removed what you criticized. But as I wrote in my paper cited in the article, to which one reviewer said that it blaims professionals, variance and variogram are the only terms that should be used. The problem is that the variance formula which has the factor 1/2 and is the basis of the variance at given separation distance (unfortunately called semivariance) is less known. See the German empirische Varianz, where this alternative is described. My paper confers all standpoints. It needs to be known that the semivariance is nothing else than a variance restricted to certain pairs with a distance of h (that has nothing to do with negative deviations or similar). --Bachmai (talk)
Clark can be right when she consequently calls the squared sum the variance of the differece of z values. However, the problem is that people only say that it is the semivariance without saying of what. It's me who has added it now. People say that gamma is the semivariance of yield values for example. However, gamma is the semivariance of yield value differences.--Bachmai (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Therefore:
- gamma = 0.5 sum... variance of z at given h = semivariance of z differences
- 2gamma = sum... (according to Clark) = twice the variance of z at given h = variance of z differences (which is usually not said)
--Bachmai (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Before I wrote here, gamma = sum... was defined. (gamma instead of 2gamma!!!) This is nowhere (perhaps in Clark, which is one of a few books which I have not looked at). These people normally say 2gamma = sum... --Bachmai (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The main problem is that "semivariogram" is endemic in the general scientific literature, and not just in one field of science. I can mention two additional books:
- Stein ML (1999) Interpolation of Spatial Data. Spinger.
- Schabenberger O., Gotway CA. (2005) Statistical Methods for Spatial Data Analysis, Chapman&Hall/CRC.
The statement "Bachmaier and Backes (2008), who discussed this confusion, have shown that..." should at least be toned down to something like "say they think that". See also variogram. Melcombe (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
