The phrase "a conventional level of" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing standards, norms, or typical amounts in various contexts, such as social behavior, performance metrics, or quality assessments.
Example: "The study found that participants exhibited a conventional level of engagement during the workshop."
Alternatives: "a standard level of" or "a typical level of".
In our analysis, we show that for exploratory studies with an average 20% power, together with average one in four pre-study odds that the effect being sought is actually true, the likelihood that any claimed effect (based on passing a conventional level of statistical significance) actually is true is only 50%.
A conventional level of significance (p < 0.05) was used for the statistical analysis.
While, after multiple comparison correction, it was not possible to reject all of the null hypotheses at a conventional level of statistical significance, all six of them are very unlikely to represent false positives (probability that all the six findings are false positives is 0.00009).
In contrast, slow-thinking experiments achieved an overall effect size of only 0.03, failing even to achieve a conventional level of statistical significance (p =.16).
Heating mode, recent painting, and type/floor of house also affected indoor concentrations, but owing to small numbers did not reach a conventional level of significance.
Comparable to the multiple comparison problem in other types of analyses, a conventional level of statistical significance of 5% would lead to the detection of SRB outliers as false positives in about five years over a period of 100 years, or in about three years over the 65 year period between 1946 and 2011 observed in our study (.05*65 = 3.25) [ 34].
This is consistent with Tsongkhapa's view that any intellectual act is itself utterly devoid of any essential reality, yet functions on a conventional level through the natural workings of dependent origination (Sk. dharmatā).
Such reasoning derives its efficacity on a conventional level through the natural workings of dependent origination.
The sample size required depends on a significance level set at conventional level of 5% and power set at conventional level of 90%.
Only if it is assumed that the PCB indicator is very imprecise (error coefficient of variation of about 46% or more) can the observed mercury effect be dismissed as a chance finding (at the conventional level of 5%).
The majority of all individual probes (> 99.8%) for each sample met the commonly accepted quality control detection p-value of 0.01, indicating high quality data were obtained from both sample groups, but the analysis of blood spot DNA generally showed slightly higher mean detection p-values than buffy coat DNA, with fewer probes having a detection p-value below the conventional level of 0.01.
