-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 310
Description
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.