You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 2, 2023. It is now read-only.
I think it's probably worth getting some broader input on this. A higher threshold makes sense for the top / bottom 10% metrics, but maybe not the others?
This change would mostly affect the reach and reach_month metrics (and the new biweekly metric and maybe the year metric). I don't really know the extent of the effects so did a quick data summary below.
There are 907 reach - partition pairs in the observation dataset. 192 have <= 10 temps (and therefore currently would have no metrics calculated) Increasing the cutoff to 20 would leave 256 reaches without metrics.
There are 7685 month - reach - partition pairings. 40% (3624) of them have <= 10 temps. Increasing the cutoff to 20 would leave 52% (4025) without metrics.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Code location in evaluate.py
Originally posted by @janetrbarclay in #211 (comment)
I think it's probably worth getting some broader input on this. A higher threshold makes sense for the top / bottom 10% metrics, but maybe not the others?
This change would mostly affect the reach and reach_month metrics (and the new biweekly metric and maybe the year metric). I don't really know the extent of the effects so did a quick data summary below.
There are 907 reach - partition pairs in the observation dataset. 192 have <= 10 temps (and therefore currently would have no metrics calculated) Increasing the cutoff to 20 would leave 256 reaches without metrics.
There are 7685 month - reach - partition pairings. 40% (3624) of them have <= 10 temps. Increasing the cutoff to 20 would leave 52% (4025) without metrics.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: