|
Supplementary material to “Statistical Significance Does Not Equal Geological Significance: Reply to Comments on 'Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics (in Geology)'”
22 February 2011
Pieter Vermeesch, School of Earth Sciences, Birkbeck College, University of London, London, UK
Citation:
Vermeesch, P. (2011), Statistical significance does not equal geological significance: Reply to comments on “Lies, damned lies, and statistics (in geology),” Eos Trans. AGU, 92(8), 66, doi:10.1029/2011EO080013. [Full Article (pdf)]
Power calculation of a multinomial distribution
References
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Postscript: In response to the Comment on my Reply given in Sornette and Pisarenko 's Online Supplement, I would like to remark that the p-values in Table 1 were not "extracted from the earthquake dataset", but were calculated analytically as described in the main supplement. Therefore, the strong correlation between sample size and p-value is real, and is definitely not a consequence of violated assumptions, as claimed by Sornette and Pisarenko