2 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2020
    1. . However, the data did not support a meresimilarity effect: Our results were robust to controlling for partic-ipants’ own moral judgments, such that participants who made adeontological judgment (the majority) strongly preferred a deon-tological agent, whereas participants who made a consequentialistjudgment (the minority) showed no preference between the two

      But this is a lack of a result in the context of a critical underlying assumption. Yes, the results were 'robust', but could we really be statistically confident that this was not driving the outcome? How tight are the error bounds?

  2. Aug 2015
    1. This may be caused by a reduction in data points, or that thedifferences in risk characteristics of the various DRGs within most MDCscoincide with a metropolitan-rural divide

      This is glorious!