Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Supported by

A silly question about symbolics

Hello all,

I am currently writing a paper that contains a rather large correlations table, writing the BF for all of them would simply be too much...
Where normally classic hypothesis testing would indicate which correlations are significant with an asterisk (*), I have encountered a problem: I wish to indicate which correlations have strong evidence in their favor (say BF>10) but also which correlations have strong evidence against them (say BF<0.1).

I have searched around, but could not find that this has been done before. Does anyone one know of a paper I can take inspiration from?

I though of * for BF>10 and † for BF<0.1, but I feel as this would be confusing, since † is usually used when results "approach significance" (0.1>p>0.05).

Any ideas?



  • Maybe an upside-down cross?

  • edited August 2016

    Maybe an upside-down cross?

    Like St Peter, who felt he was unworthy to be crucified in the same way Jesus was, and thus wanted to be put upside down. (Surprisingly courteous of his crucifiers to respect that wish, by the way.) Nicely symbolic, I suppose, given the worship of positive results.

    But maybe go for something a little less contentious. What about *1 and *0?

  • Or an upside down pentagram? Really scare the frequentists...

Sign In or Register to comment.