Table 3: Bayesian Multiple Comparison Results
|
Group A |
Group B |
Prθb(TEGroupA ≥ TEGroupB) |
|
G3 |
G4 |
0.383 |
|
G2 |
G4 |
0.915 |
|
G1 |
G4 |
0.980 |
|
G2 |
G3 |
0.002 |
|
G1 |
G3 |
0.547 |
|
G1 |
G2 |
0.069 |
|
rest of G4 |
F1 |
0.641 |
|
F31 |
rest of G1 |
0.403 |
|
G3 |
F1 |
0.933 |
|
G2 |
F1 |
0.990 |
|
G1 |
F1 |
0.994 |
|
F31 |
G4 |
0.996 |
|
F31 |
G3 |
0.917 |
|
F31 |
G2 |
0.834 |
34
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. The Values and Character Dispositions of 14-16 Year Olds in the Hodge Hill Constituency
3. On the Relation between Robust and Bayesian Decision Making
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. Bargaining Power and Equilibrium Consumption
7. The name is absent
8. Analyse des verbraucherorientierten Qualitätsurteils mittels assoziativer Verfahren am Beispiel von Schweinefleisch und Kartoffeln
9. Firm Creation, Firm Evolution and Clusters in Chile’s Dynamic Wine Sector: Evidence from the Colchagua and Casablanca Regions
10. Wettbewerbs- und Industriepolitik - EU-Integration als Dritter Weg?