Skip to content

A couple numbers wrong in the https://www.tmwr.org/performance.html#performance-metrics-and-inference. #327

@RaymondBalise

Description

@RaymondBalise

The numbers in the paragraph before the note in Section 9.1 in the online rendered version of TMWR (https://www.tmwr.org/performance.html#performance-metrics-and-inference) do not match the printed book (the second to last paragraph on page 113) or the code that is produced by the repo (line 110 of https://github.com/tidymodels/TMwR/blob/main/09-judging-model-effectiveness.Rmd).

The physical book says and when I spot checked the repo produces:

we can estimate the accuracy of this model to be about 💥73.3%💥. Accuracy is often a poor measure of model performance; we use it here because it is commonly understood. If the model has 💥73.3%💥 fidelity to the data, should we trust conclusions it produces? We might think so until we realize that the baseline rate of nonimpaired patients in the data is 72.7%. This means that, despite our statistical analysis, the two-factor model appears to be only 💥0.6%💥 better ...

The book website currently shows:

we can estimate the accuracy of this model to be about 💥72.7%💥. Accuracy is often a poor measure of model performance; we use it here because it is commonly understood. If the model has 💥72.7%💥 fidelity to the data, should we trust conclusions it produces? We might think so until we realize that the baseline rate of nonimpaired patients in the data is 72.7%. This means that, despite our statistical analysis, the two-factor model appears to be only 💥0%💥 better ...

I didn't pull the repo to test but I think you just need to rerender the current files to fix the online version of the book.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions