Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSimilar(60)
The study is retrospective; incomplete data sets were difficult to reconcile.
The two data sets were compared and the questionable entries reconciled.
The coded data sets were then merged and reviewed by a third coder (the validator) to reconcile nearly identical quotations, codes carrying different labels yet referring to the same phenomenon, and codes needing further discussion to reach consensus.
A main focus of this thesis (Chapter 1) has been to reconcile field-based upper-crustal structural reconstructions with metamorphic and igneous processes occurring deeper in the crust in settings where these data sets are in conflict with one another.
Disagreements between the two reviewers during data extraction were reconciled by a third reviewer (JX).
Double data entry was performed using Epi Data and data entry errors were reconciled.
Scalar and vector data were reconciled using only a limited number of calibration parameters.
Medication use and comorbidities data were reconciled between self-reported and that retrieved from chart review.
The files differed in < 5% of data points and differences were reconciled in each case.
Disagreements regarding interpretation of data extracted from articles were reconciled through discussion with the authors.
Preliminary trees were reconciled by setting the bootstrap value greater than 50%, yielding a more credible consensus tree.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com