Rejection of observations

Hole JA, Zelt BC (1995) 3-D finite-difference reflection travel times. Geophys J Int 121 427-434 Jeffi-eys H (1932) An alternative to the rejection of observation. Mon Not R Astr Soc Geophys Suppl 2 78-87 Jeffreys H, Bullen KE (1940) Seismological tables. British Association of the Advancement of Science, Gray-Milne Trust, London... 

Solute separation is measured in terms of observed rejection, R, defined as... 

The rejection of outliers is a deeply rooted habit techniques range from the haughty I know the truth attitude, to looks different from what we are used to, somebody must have made a mistake , to attempts at objective proof of having observed an aberration. The first attitude is not only imscientific, but downright fraudulent if unacceptable values are discarded and forgot-... 

As has been mentioned above, integrated signal intensities for molybdenum have always been less than 1 g. atom of Mo(V) per mole of xanthine oxidase. However, there are indications from recently performed integrations (90) that observed intensities of the Inhibited signal, in which Mo(V) is known to be stabilized (81), can be accounted for quantitatively when due allowance is made for the other species present in the samples. If this is confirmed it should make possible final rejection of earlier suggestions (87) that the enzyme contains two interacting molybdenum atoms in a single active centre. It should also help to eliminate possibilities (cf. 78) that only one of the two molybdenum atoms of the molecule is ever detected by EPR spectroscopy. 

We must also observe that the rejection of Ca2+ and of other elements, like oxygen, to aid survival produced an energy store. Although, unlike oxygen, this store could not be used to drive metabolism, it is energised gradients, here of calcium, which are central to information transfer from the environment and then of fast action, independent of DNA. 

B.2.6 Recommendations for criteria of rejecting an observation 3B.2.7 Sampling statistics... 

Blaedel et al. (1951), Wilson (1952) and Laitinen (1960) have put forward more broadly accepted and recommended criteria of rejecting an observation. 

Figure 26 presents their results for the rejection of 0.01 M MgCJl2 400 psi on a dynamic membrane as a function of where U is the linear velocity down the tube, v is the permeation rate, and N is the Reynolds number. It will be noted that the greatest effect of the turbulence promoter was observed at the lowest velocities, where the rejection increased from 25 to 72 percent. At the highest tangential velocities, the improvement was much less, from 90 to 93 percent. In addition, Thomas and Watson observed an increase in permeation rate varying from 10 to 50 percent. Thus, with turbulence promoters, the same rejection and flux, as in an unpromoted system, may be obtained at a considerable reduction. 

---