You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

thakil comments on Log-odds (or logits) - Less Wrong Discussion

20 Post author: brilee 28 November 2011 01:11AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (18)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: thakil 28 November 2011 11:06:47AM 1 point [-]

I find it interesting that you lack familiarity with log-odds? What field are you in? Statisticians will usually be familar with them, as the logit is the canonical link function for the binomial function when using general linear modeling. Cut of (some) jargon, if I have a data set with binomial outcomes, and I wish to model my data as having normal errors, and the predictors as having linear effect on the outcome, I'd convert my data by using log odds. So, for instance, if I was looking at age as a predictor for diabetes (which is a yes no outcome)

Comment author: brilee 30 November 2011 04:09:21PM 0 points [-]

I have a very strong competition math background from high school, but my primary field is chemistry.