Sentence examples for significantly lower probability from inspiring English sources

They say their research shows there is a "significantly lower probability of someone from a non-white ethnic background, or from a lower social-class background, or who attended a non-selective or a non-fee-paying secondary school, receiving an offer".

Without management buy-in, the evaluation will have a significantly lower probability of success.

Compared with a voluntary survey without important consequences, high-stakes testing situations lead to higher motivation and a significantly lower probability of guessing and skipping test tasks.

This is not the case for the tobit estimates in Table 11a, b. Results The results in Table 10 (column 1) show that the most pessimistic households have a significantly lower probability of buying a house than the rest.

Figure 24 depicts the fragility curves of the analysis model structures, where it can be observed that the structures designed with friction dampers have significantly lower probability of reaching the collapse state than the strength-designed structure.

Furthermore, individuals who reported having children had significantly lower probability of participating in drinking, but if they drink, they tend to drink less in comparison to respondents without children.

Higher business assistance living wages are associated with significantly lower probabilities that families receive welfare, live in public housing, or receive energy assistance.

The results show that households holding pessimistic expectations have significantly lower probabilities of buying a house and of buying a car.

This experience, combined with banks' awareness of significantly lower probabilities of being bailed out under Europe's new bank resolution rules, has left banks understandably hesitant to move back into risk assets.

According to alternative topology test analyses, the topology derived from the concatenated matrix was favored and all other competing phylogenetic hypotheses were rejected by significantly lower probabilities (Appendix S6).

The pair-wise comparisons between block 1 and 3 confirmed this result with significantly lower probabilities of positive response for morph 2 and same type distractors in the final block (target t = 0.25 p = 0.80; morph 1 t = −1.52. p = 0.14; morph 2 t = −2.90. p<0.01; morph 3 t = −1.00 p = 0.32; same type t = −3.94 p<0.001; other type t = 0.04 p = 0.97).