2012
DOI: 10.1093/lpr/mgs004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Probability, anti-resilience, and the weight of expectation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The proposed process focuses on a system of Markov chains, i.e., processes from Τ = ℕ 0 in a countable (or simply finite) space S , which have the Markov property [ 24 26 ] …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The proposed process focuses on a system of Markov chains, i.e., processes from Τ = ℕ 0 in a countable (or simply finite) space S , which have the Markov property [ 24 26 ] …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the entropies 􏽢 H IFS (A) and 􏽢 H IFS (A) correspond to the minimum and maximum probabilities [13,15,21], so the proposed ITWec calculates the number of maximum probable intervals within which an event is likely to occur based on an intuitive representation of fuzzy sets allowing the evaluation of data flow elements both as a member and for their noninclusion in a fuzzy set [54], which gives particular realism to the way of implementing the proposed method.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…e monitored statistical properties are considered to show no or very small deviation in the times when no change is observed. Considering the above conditions, even small changes can be detected with a high probability [14,15]. e chance of detection may be even greater if these changes are persistent for some time.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Human rights indicators are therefore critical to the health of society and the national development agenda and can be classified into three categories namely; i) structural indicators that reflect the ratification or adoption of legal instruments and existence of basic institutional mechanisms deemed necessary for facilitating realisation of the concerned human right; ii) process indicators that relate the state policy instruments with milestones which accumulate into outcomes that can be more directly related to realisation of a right, hence capture accountability as well as the notion of progressive realisation; and iii) outcome indicators that capture attainments, individual and collective, and reflect the status of realisation of the human rights in a given context [ 1 - 4 ]. Statistics on the other hand renders a scientific approach to the development, assessment and monitoring of human rights indicators [ 5 , 6 ]. Hitherto, accuracy in developing statistically reliable human rights indicators has not been given the attention it deserves, probably not because of the process complexity, but maybe because of the fact that it is an assumed psychometric area of statistical application.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%