between these “variability characteristi¢s" (computed for two test
Maite
Series as well as for different geographical areas) are subjected to .
a standard statistical test.
Table 6.1 shows the results of that
test in terms of probability. The probabilities shown reflect the
likelihood that the "variability characteristics" of gummed groups
were computed from a single homogeneous population, i.e., a small
| probability infers that the groups were NOT draw from a homogeneous .
population and are, therefore, different, while a probability in
the vicinity of 0.5 infers that tne apparent differences could have
occurred by chance.
TABLE 6.1
‘Probability that "Variability Characteristic" for Compared
Groups Was Computed from a Single Homogeneous Population
Duplicates Compared
,
IVY - thited States vs.
Probability’
:
‘remainder of world
|
UPSIDT-KIOTHOLE - East
ee
0.30
a
‘of Mississippi River vs.
0.55.
west. of Mississippi River .
IVY + United States vs.
UPSH)T-KNOTHULE, United States
IVY - all date vs.
0.10
.
|
UPSHOT-KNOTDLE, United States
a
0.01
.and Canada
Table 6.1 indicates that the tendency of adjacent. gummed
papers to be different from one another depends upon the test
‘series rather than the area in which they were exposed.
This con-
clusion is interesting because it suggests possible causes.
For
example, the relative. levels or radioactivity in the area comparisons of IVY data was quite different from the relative levels of
activity involved in the UFSHDT-KICTHOLE data yet the "variability
characteristic" remained unchanged from area to area. This suggests
- that the level of activity has a minor effect on this statistic.
On the other hand, one obvious difference between collections of
“Probabilities are resultof "t-test" for significance of difference
in means (5, Table 12, p. 138).
- bh -
.
a
.
. .
Ce