#predictor

[duggardata]

Really, Really Exciting Predictor Update!

The Mother's Age is Now Factored In.

Recently, I received this Ask—

... and I typed up a whole response, explaining how difficult it would be to factor in Maternal Age, it's hard to quantify its impact on child spacing, etc., etc.

But, this Ask really got me thinking... The Master Spreadsheet that "runs" the Predictor actually has a lot, a lot of data, at this point. In the past, I've balked at the idea of incorporating Maternal Age, as I didn't think we had a large enough sample size. Our sample size is way bigger now.

So, I decided to try. After thinking it over, I decided to calculate the [Non–Firstborn, Non–Post Loss] Child Spacing Average for women within several Age "Bands"—Under 25, 25 to 29.99, 30 to 34.99, 35 to 39.99, and 40 and Over. (Age at Birth is the age used.) Then for each Age Band except Under 25, I created a ratio for that Age Band vs. All Prior Bands. The result is basically a Maternal Age Multiplier, which quantifies Maternal Age's impact on Child Spacing. Here are the numbers— (Note—You'll see "N" listed below; that's the sample size as of July 26, 2022. Data is drawn from All Predictor Families / Couples, and a large number of similarly "fundie" families, primarily In–Laws or In–Laws of In–Laws of Predictor Families. Families like the Vuolos, who aren't quiverfull, aren't included in the data.)

Under 25 N=49. Average Child Spacing (ACS) for this Age Band is 594.35 Days.

Age 25–29.99 N=115. ACS for this Age Band is 673.20. ACS for Younger Age Bands—in this case, there is just one prior Age Band (Under 25)—is 594.35. Ratio is 1.1327.

Age 30–34.99 N=105. ACS for this Age Band is 735.47. ACS for the 2 Younger Age Bands is 649.64. Ratio is 1.1321.

Age 35–39.99 N=76. ACS for this Age Band is 807.86. ACS for the 3 Younger Age Bands is 683.14. Ratio is 1.1826.

Age 40+ N=44. ACS for this Age Band is 936.14. ACS for the 4 Younger Age Bands is 710.61. Ratio is 1.3174.

This shows that, as suspected, ACS increases with Maternal Age... Now, can we say that age causes the increase? Absolutely not. It's just a correlation. But, it's a very interesting correlation, for sure!

From now on, the Predictor will incorporate Maternal Age using the Age Bands above. Here's how it will work: Procreative Pace (PP) is calculated the same way as before. (Average of All Non–Firstborn, Non–Post Loss Child Spacings.) That PP is then multiplied by Age Ratio / Multiplier that matches with the mother's forecasted age at the baby's birth. As an example, take Zach + Whitney Bates. Their PP, based on their data to date, is 717 Days. Whitney is Age 28.84, and expected to give birth again just before her 30th Birthday. So, we'd predict her next child's (Bates–Perkins #5's) Child Spacing by multiplying their PP by 1.1327, the Age 25–29.99 Multiplier. For her next birth after that (Bates–Perkins #6), she's expected to be in the next Age Band (30–34.99)—so, that Child Spacing is calculated by multiplying their PP by 1.1321, the Age 30–34.99 Multiplier. This is repeated for subsequent pregnancy, until the Fertility Cut–Off. All Zach + Whitney's Age–Adjusted PPs (AAPPs), based on data as of today, are as follows—

Age 25–29.99 717 Days (Their Baseline) * 1.1327 = 818 Days

Age 30–34.99 717 Days * 1.1321 = 818 Days

Age 35–39.99 717 Days * 1.1826 = 848 Days

Age 40+ 717 Days * 1.3174 = 945 Days

What's really cool about this is that, as more babies are born or more families are added to the Master Spreadsheets, the Age Band Ratios recalculate automatically. And, each couple's Age–Adjusted PPs will also recalculate automatically. So, it's very dynamically driven by the data.

Hopefully this makes sense to everyone, and y'all like it... Feel free to send in Asks of DMs with any questions or comments.

I'll do an ESOQ Update, factoring in Maternal Age, soon!

Thank you to the Anon who got me thinking about this!

[sonsofks]

¡La predicción del éxito! EA SPORTS™ asegura que la Selección de los EE. UU. se proclamará campeona en la Copa Mundial Femenina de la FIFA™ 2023.

¡Estados Unidos se alza como campeón! EA SPORTS™ revela su emocionante predicción para la Copa Mundial Femenina de la FIFA Australia/Nueva Zelanda 2023™, con una victoria aplastante sobre Alemania en la gran final. Esta predicción se basa en una divertida simulación de 64 apasionantes partidos en el Modo Torneo de la Copa Mundial Femenina de la FIFA™ 2023 de EA SPORTS™, que estará disponible como…

[pandabear804-blog]

Hey, Steve just sent me the link to the live webinar that starts in 6 minutes!

You go to see it,

here is the link: =>> Click here http://zcodesystem.com/webinarlogan804.php

P.S. Spoiler: it's about the FREE Training Webinar: An insider system that made $23,481 in last 6 weeks!

https://sites.google.com/view/sportspredic/home

[lozerdraws]

I drew horror movie characters

[magwriterus]

[bitchpork4]

Race Time Predictor

[i-quanta]

XAT Score Calculator: A Comprehensive Guide

Navigating the XAT (Xavier Aptitude Test) score and understanding how it impacts your MBA aspirations is crucial. This article provides a detailed overview of the XAT score calculator and how to use it effectively.

Understanding the XAT Score Calculator

The XAT score calculator is an online tool designed for candidates to predict their XAT score. It factors in the number of attempted questions and the accuracy of responses to estimate a score out of 100. This tool is especially beneficial for assessing your standing against the XAT cutoff score, analyzing performance, and setting realistic preparation goals​​.

Steps to Calculate Your XAT Score

Calculating your XAT score involves a few straightforward steps:

For Each Correct Answer: Each correct response in the multiple-choice questions across sections like Verbal & Logical Ability, Decision Making, Quantitative Ability & Data Interpretation earns a +1 mark.

Penalty for Incorrect Attempts: An incorrect attempt deducts -0.25 marks. Additionally, if more than 8 questions remain unattempted, each of them incurs a penalty of -0.10 marks.

General Knowledge Section: Note that this section does not have negative markings and should not be included in the final score calculation​​.

Understanding and Calculating XAT Percentile

The XAT percentile is a critical metric indicating your performance relative to other test-takers. For instance, a 70 percentile score implies you scored higher than 70% of the candidates. The percentile is calculated using the formula:

XAT Percentile = (1 - All India Rank / Total Candidates in the Exam) * 100%

As an example, if 80,000 students took the XAT exam and you ranked 3,000, your percentile would be calculated as follows:

[1 - (3000/80000)] * 100 = 96.25 Percentile​​​​.

How to Use the XAT Percentile Predictor

Several online platforms offer XAT percentile predictors. Here's a general process to use these predictors:

Registration: Sign up for the predictor tool by providing details like your name, email, and contact number.

Input XAT Performance: After registration, submit details about your XAT performance, including the number of attempted questions and expected accuracy.

Check Your Score and Percentile: The tool will then provide an estimated score and percentile based on the data you inputted​​.

Conclusion

The XAT score calculator and percentile predictor are valuable resources for candidates to assess their chances of securing admission to top management colleges, By understanding and effectively using these tools.

[cwvtqsldtbs]

Two naughty teens shares a dick Chubby babe with big natural tits gets hairless cunt gangbanged Christmas Eve Creampie Gangbang Ts angel blows like hell before riding perfect male cock Guy takes his hard cock in two lesbian teens Gen Padova and Holly Day on the sofa Pawg GF Gets Cream Pied Big Tit Latina Lady in ImmoralLive Coroa gostosa na siririca Chichona me la chupaba en la calle Hot mom shows off tits and pussy

[betterlifeinoverall-rethabilep]

Calmness Routines

That Dream Was Real, It Was All Tell-Tale, Didn’t Seem Like A Nightmare In A Daylight, If I Was A Predictor I’d Have Knowledge Of It, Pragmatic With Precept, I’d Preclude My Everything, That Ever-last Pristine! Like, Shares and Follow Please don’t forget to comment

[duggardata]

Estimated Size of Quiver (ESoQ) Update

Now that the Predictor factors in Maternal Age, it's about time for a ESoQ Update. This Post gives the Non–Age Adjusted ESoQ (Non–AAESoQ) and the Age Adjusted ESoQ (AAESoQ), so it's easy to see the new variable's impact.

Without further ado, in alphabetical order...

The Bateses

Zach + Whitney Non–Age Adjusted ESoQ (Non–AAESoQ) is 10. Age Adjusted ESoQ (AAESoQ) is 9 (1 Less).

Michaela + Brandon Regardless of Age Adjustment, ESoQ is 0 (Due to Fertility Struggle).

Erin + Chad Regardless of Age Adjustment, ESoQ is 5 (Due to Erin's Ovarian Surgery).

Lawson + Tiffany Non–AAESoQ is 12. AAESoQ is 11 (1 Less).

Nathan + Esther Non–AAESoQ is 12. AAESoQ is 11 (1 Less).

Alyssa + John Non–AAESoQ is 16. AAESoQ is 14 (2 Less).

Tori + Bobby Non–AAESoQ is 19. AAESoQ is 17 (2 Less).

Trace + Lydia Non–AAESoQ is 11. AAESoQ is 10 (1 Less).

Carlin + Evan Non–AAESoQ is 12. AAESoQ is 10 (2 Less).

Josie + Kelton Non–AAESoQ is 16. AAESoQ is 14 (2 Less).

Katie + Travis Non–AAESoQ is 15. AAESoQ is 13 (2 Less).

Jackson + Emerson Non–AAESoQ is 14. AAESoQ is 13 (1 Less).

Younger Males Non–AAESoQ is 13 Each. AAESoQ is 12 Each (1 Less Each).

Younger Females Non–AAESoQ is 17 Each. AAESoQ is 15 Each (2 Less Each).

Based on Non–AAESoQs, Total Predicted Grands is 245. Adjusted for Maternal Age, it's 220 Grands (25 Less), or 11.6 Per Couple, on average.

The Bontragers

...are no longer an active Predictor Family. Getting data for them has been harder and harder, and they've recently made it clear that many of the couples won't be sharing family updates.

The Caldwells

Kendra + Joe Non–AAESoQ is 15. AAESoQ is 14 (1 Less).

Lauren Non–AAESoQ is 8. AAESoQ is 7 (1 Less).

Younger Males Non–AAESoQ is 10 Each. AAESoQ is 9 Each (1 Less Each).

Younger Females Non–AAESoQ is 10 Each. AAESoQ is 9 (1 Less Each).

Based on Non–AAESoQs, Total Predicted Grands is 93. Adjusted for Maternal Age, it's 84 Grands (9 Less), a rate of 9.3 Per Couple.

The Duggars

Josh + Anna Regardless of Age Adjustment, ESoQ is 7 (Due to Josh's Incarceration).

Jana Non–AAESoQ is 6. AAESoQ is 5 (1 Less).

John + Abbie Non–AAESoQ is 5. AAESoQ is 5 (No Change).

Jill + Derick Regardless of Age Adjustment, ESoQ is 3 (Due to Family Planning / Birth Control). If No Family Planning... Non–AAESoQ is 9. AAESoQ is 8 (1 Less).

Jessa + Ben Non–AAESoQ is 12. AAESoQ is 10 (2 Less).

Jinger + Jeremy Non–AAESoQ is 9. AAESoQ is 8 (1 Less).

Joe + Kendra Non–AAESoQ is 15. AAESoQ is 14 (1 Less).

Josiah + Lauren Non–AAESoQ is 8. AAESoQ is 7 (1 Less).

Joy + Austin Non–AAESoQ is 12. AAESoQ is 10 (2 Less).

Jed + Katey Non–AAESoQ is 10. AAESoQ is 9 (1 Less).

Jer + Hannah Based on Duggar Family Data, Non–AAESoQ is 14 and AAESoQ is 12 (2 Less).

Jason Non–AAESoQ is 11. AAESoQ is 10 (1 Less).

James Non–AAESoQ is 12. AAESoQ is 11 (1 Less).

Justin + Claire Non–AAESoQ is 8. AAESoQ is 7 (1 Less).

Younger Males Non–AAESoQ is 12 Each. AAESoQ is 11 Each (1 Less Each).

Younger Females Non–AAESoQ is 14 Each. AAESoQ is 13 Each (1 Less Each).

Based on Non–AAESoQs, Total Predicted Grands is 200. Adjusted for Maternal Age, it's 180 Grands (20 Less), a rate of 9.5 Per Couple.

The [Quiverfull] Kellers

Esther + John Shrader Non–AAESoQ is 14. AAESoQ is 14 (No Change).

Priscilla + David Waller Non–AAESoQ is 10. AAESoQ is 10 (No Change).

Anna + Josh Duggar Regardless of Age Adjustment, ESoQ is 7 (Due to Josh's Incarceration).

Nathan + Nurie (Rodrigues) Non–AAESoQ is 17. AAESoQ is 15 (2 Less).

David + Hannah (Reber) Non–AAESoQ is 12. AAESoQ is 11 (1 Less).

Based on Non–AAESoQs, Total Predicted Grands [from the Quiverfull Kellers] is 60. Adjusted for Maternal Age, it's 57 Grands (3 Less)—or, a rate of 11.4 Per Couple.

The Maxwells

Nathan + Melanie Regardless of Age Adjustment, ESoQ is 7 (Fertility Cut–Off Already Reached).

Chris + Anna Marie Regardless of Age Adjustment, ESoQ is 6 (Due to Anna Marie's Cancer).

Sarah + Kory Regardless of Age Adjustment, ESoQ is 0 (Fertility Cut–Off is January 24th).

Joseph + Elissa Non–AAESoQ is 7. AAESoQ is 7 (No Change).

John + Chelsy Non–AAESoQ is 10. AAESoQ is 9 (1 Less).

Anna Elizabeth Non–AAESoQ is 6. AAESoQ is 5 (1 Less).

Jesse + Anna Patrice Non–AAESoQ is 7. AAESoQ is 6 (1 Less).

Mary Carol Non–AAESoQ is 7. AAESoQ is 7 (No Change).

Note—Like the Bontragers, several of the Maxwell Couples are very low–profile; however, they remain a Predictor Family, for now.

Based on Non–AAESoQs, Total Predicted Grands is 50. Adjusted for Maternal Age, it's 47 Grands (3 Less). Taking the average, that's 5.9 Per Couple (The Lowest Rate Among Predictor Families).

The Rodriguii

Nurie + Nathan Non–AAESoQ is 17. AAESoQ is 15 (2 Less).

Timothy David Non–AAESoQ is 14. AAESoQ is 12 (2 Less).

Kaylee + Jonathan Non–AAESoQ is 13. AAESoQ is 12 (1 Less).

Younger Males Non–AAESoQ is 14 Each. AAESoQ is 12 Each (2 Less Each).

Younger Females Non–AAESoQ is 13 Each. AAESoQ is 12 Each (1 Less Each).

Based on Non–AAESoQs, Total Predicted Grands is 177. Adjusted for Maternal Age, it's 158 Grands (19 Less)—an impressively high rate of 12.2 Per Couple (The Highest of The Predictor Families).

The Wissmanns

Rachel + Alan Busenitz Non–AAESoQ is 8. AAESoQ is 7 (1 Less).

Ruth + Ryan Bourlier Non–AAESoQ is 11. AAESoQ is 10 (1 Less).

Josiah + Abi (Rehm) Non–AAESoQ is 6. AAESoQ is 6 (No Change).

Bethany + Daniel Beasley Non–AAESoQ is 11. AAESoQ is 10 (1 Less).

Andrew + Kori (Knuth) Non–AAESoQ is 5. AAESoQ is 5 (No Change).

Elizabeth Joy Non–AAESoQ is 6. AAESoQ is 5 (1 Less).

Matt + Michelle (Kingery) Non–AAESoQ is 7. AAESoQ is 6 (1 Less).

Stephen Gerald Non–AAESoQ is 4. AAESoQ is 3 (1 Less).

Hannah + Jer Duggar Based on Wissmann Family Data, Non–AAESoQ is 11 and AAESoQ is 9 (2 Less).

Nathanael + Katrina (Sahlstrom) Non–AAESoQ is 10. AAESoQ is 10 (No Change).

Susanna, Alaythia, Charissa Non–AAESoQ is 11 Each. AAESoQ is 9 Each (2 Less Each).

Based on Non–AAESoQs, Total Predicted Grands is 112. Adjusted for Maternal Age, it's 98 Grands (14 Less), a rate of 7.5 Per Couple.

Miscellaneous

Meagan (Forsyth) + Bobby Ballinger Non–AAESoQ is 9. AAESoQ is 9 (No Change).

Karissa + Mandrae Collins Non–AAESoQ is 11. AAESoQ is 11 (No Change).

Sierra Jo + Mark Dominguez Non–AAESoQ is 11. AAESoQ is 11 (No Change).

Courtney + Christoper Rogers Non–AAESoQ is 14. AAESoQ is 14 (No Change).

Kristen + Justin Young Non–AAESoQ is 10. AAESoQ is 9 (1 Less).

Note that, even where there's "No Change" in the AAESoQ, there's a change in the dates each Pregnancy or Birth is anticipated, caused by the Age Adjustment. The reason the ESoQ didn't change is that, even with the Age Adjustment, the couple still had time to have the same number of children. Maybe their Final Child was due to arrive pretty far from the actual Fertility Cut–Off, but now it's due close to the Cut–Off, etc.

[arinewman7]

The Predictor

Giorgio de Chirico

[l3m-ntwo]

Watch qForever throw qBad in jail and it just becomes the same song and dance of qForever trying to make qBad go to normal vs qBad's mind deteriorating more and more as he gets trapped in the building of the government ( cucurucho ) that made him like that in the first place

(joke)

[baejax-the-great]

The problem with reddit is that you can go on the migraine board with your PhD in biology having read the literature regarding food triggers and tell people that the chocolate thing is a myth, and get downvoted by twenty people who claim "well I get a migraine every time I eat a piece of 90% dark chocolate (though not 75% or 95%, JUST 90%!!!) on the full moon, so scientists don't know everything because triggers are all so personal!!!!" and then get called an asshole because apparently believing that chocolate triggers migraines is like key to their identity or something

[gynandromorph]

apparently the gem bird puzzle is randomized on every stardew save file... i'm dead

[kangals]

Oh!! I forgot to mention re the neutering collies discussion. One thing worth noting is that early neutering tends to cause the dog to lean toward more leg and less bulk apparently. Given how much leg Kep is already showing that could be interesting!

yes some of those pediatric-neutered dogs get some WILD proportions! Keps father was a fairly stocky 75lbs, and the breeder said that Kep had “good bone” and would be similar sized, so I’m interested to see how much he fills out as he grows. right now he’s in the Oops All Legs stage and is actually quite a bit lighter than I would have expected (he’s 25lbs currently and charts suggest he should be at least 30 if he is going to be a 70lb+ adult) so I’m wondering if he’s going to end up smaller than predicted, or if he’s just a late bloomer. not that it’s a huge deal if he ends up 60lb instead of 75lb of course, I’m just curious to see if the breeders instincts end up being right. poor Stellina stopped growing at like 6 months lmao her whole litter ended up tiny. I forgot how fun it is to watch puppies develop!