Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    • At 0 min - [Heartbeat] 185 bpm
    • At 2 min - [Heartbeat] 224 bpm
    • At 4 min - [Heartbeat] 230 bpm
    • At 6 min - [Heartbeat] 120 bpm
    • At 8 min - [Heartbeat] 238 bpm
    • At 10 min - [Heartbeat] 234 bpm
    1. The heartbeat for water flea at 6 minutes is an anomalous reading, as it it usually low. is this an example of a systematic error or a random error, explain you answer.
    - I wrote systematic error due to a human error. But that was incorrect.

    The answer was random error, because all other readings lies close to the expected values andfollow a trend. :confused:

    So how do I differentiate between systematic and random errors??
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    Bump!! Bump!! Bump!!
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Is this for an empa


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Supermanxxxxxx)
    Is this for an empa


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    nope
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorable98)
    • At 0 min - [Heartbeat] 185 bpm
    • At 2 min - [Heartbeat] 224 bpm
    • At 4 min - [Heartbeat] 230 bpm
    • At 6 min - [Heartbeat] 120 bpm
    • At 8 min - [Heartbeat] 238 bpm
    • At 10 min - [Heartbeat] 234 bpm
    1. The heartbeat for water flea at 6 minutes is an anomalous reading, as it it usually low. is this an example of a systematic error or a random error, explain you answer.
    - I wrote systematic error due to a human error. But that was incorrect.

    The answer was random error, because all other readings lies close to the expected values andfollow a trend. :confused:

    So how do I differentiate between systematic and random errors??
    Im doing Masters Econometrics and we often deal with sort of thing. Spurious relationships can often be idenitfiedby controlling for other factors, including those that have been theoretically identified as possible confounding factors. For example, consider a researcher trying to determine whether a new drug kills bacteria; when the researcher applies the drug to a bacterial culture, the bacteria die. But to help in ruling out the presence of a confounding variable, another culture is subjected to conditions that are as nearly identical as possible to those facing the first-mentioned culture, but the second culture is not subjected to the drug. If there is an unseen confounding factor in those conditions, this control culture will die as well, so that no conclusion of efficacy of the drug can be drawn from the results of the first culture. On the other hand, if the control culture does not die, then the researcher cannot reject the hypothesis that the drug is efficacious.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Random error: affected by things you cannot resolve most of the time or possibly reduce the effect of or something done differently in a single measurement. Will affect your results randomly, e.g. reading a ruler and the effect of parallax.
    Systematic error: mistake in procedure or use of equipment for all readings, results in all results changing by the same amount.

    This is a random error because it wasn't all results being changed by the same amount, it was a single one due to a mistake in that single one.
    • Community Assistant
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Very Important Poster
    In systematic errors, all your values would be consistently off due to the same error. Just one is anomalous and the others follow a trend so it's random.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Vikingninja)
    Random error: affected by things you cannot resolve most of the time or possibly reduce the effect of or something done differently in a single measurement. Will affect your results randomly, e.g. reading a ruler and the effect of parallax.
    Systematic error: mistake in procedure or use of equipment for all readings, results in all results changing by the same amount.

    This is a random error because it wasn't all results being changed by the same amount, it was a single one due to a mistake in that single one.
    I see, so if all the results changed by the same amount would be systematic?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Kvothe the arcane)
    In systematic errors, all your values would be consistently off due to the same error. Just one is anomalous and the others follow a trend so it's random.
    I see, cheers!!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Judas69)
    Im doing Masters Econometrics and we often deal with sort of thing. Spurious relationships can often be idenitfiedby controlling for other factors, including those that have been theoretically identified as possible confounding factors. For example, consider a researcher trying to determine whether a new drug kills bacteria; when the researcher applies the drug to a bacterial culture, the bacteria die. But to help in ruling out the presence of a confounding variable, another culture is subjected to conditions that are as nearly identical as possible to those facing the first-mentioned culture, but the second culture is not subjected to the drug. If there is an unseen confounding factor in those conditions, this control culture will die as well, so that no conclusion of efficacy of the drug can be drawn from the results of the first culture. On the other hand, if the control culture does not die, then the researcher cannot reject the hypothesis that the drug is efficacious.
    That was quite tough to understand but thanks!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorable98)
    I see, so if all the results changed by the same amount would be systematic?
    Yeah so like if I were to measure as the independent variable a changing length and I measured from the wrong point then I would have the incorrect length which would mean that my results would change by the same amount.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Vikingninja)
    Yeah so like if I were to measure as the independent variable a changing length and I measured from the wrong point then I would have the incorrect length which would mean that my results would change by the same amount.
    I see, Thaanks
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: April 19, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.