Timeline for How can I know if a log-likelihood score is high enough?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:49 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 14, 2019 at 4:37 | comment | added | Wangana | Hi, I'm doing a log-likelihood for a collocation of two words in a single corpus. Is the formula you propose here appropriate for such a situation as well? The number of observations of the collocation is 41, the corpus size is 400293, should I normalize per 100,000 words or 1000 words? | |
| Jan 6, 2019 at 10:10 | vote | accept | Camilla | ||
| Jan 4, 2019 at 18:05 | comment | added | robert | Compare the LL to you got to the numbers mentioned after 'critical value' in the yellow part of the post above. You'll find that your LL is higher than even the highest one mentioned here. Your result is significant with p<0.0001. | |
| Jan 4, 2019 at 14:02 | comment | added | Camilla | I have one more question, so i tried to do what you said with the frequencies for the term "frech fries", the LL resulted is 2691.59, the %diff is 200.97. I don't know how to read these data.. I mean what do I do with the LL, do I only have to read the %diff or do I have to do some other calculation? I'm sorry I feel dumb but I seriously do not understand how this works lol. Thank you so much for your help | |
| Jan 3, 2019 at 13:12 | history | edited | robert | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 66 characters in body
|
| Jan 3, 2019 at 13:11 | comment | added | robert | When calculating log likelihood for a comparison of the frequency of a linguistic item (e.g. a word) in the two corpora, you should use the raw frequency of the linguistic item and the exact size of the corpora. Do NOT use the normalised figures in the formula. The log likelihood test is the appropriate test for your question. Let me know if there is anything else you'd like to know and use the upvote/accept buttons if you're query has been resolved ;) | |
| Jan 3, 2019 at 8:56 | comment | added | Camilla | Obvioulsy all the words that I am studying are low-frequency (courgette- zucchini, french fries, etc..) so maybe it is not possible to apply the log-likelihood test to them. Since I am writing a thesis about lexical differences between American English and British English I am just trying to understand if it is true that one of the language varieties is beginning to borrow and use some of the food related terms that once belonged to the other language variety, but I'm not sure about how to read the frequency data to state that for ex. the term frenchfries is becoming part of the British lexis | |
| Jan 3, 2019 at 8:53 | comment | added | Camilla | I tried to normalize the raw frquency by 1 million but since the corpora that I am using are really big (one of 34 billion words and one of 155 billions) the normalized frequency that I get as a result is an extremely small number and i cannot use them to calculate tha log-likelihood since it is better not to insert numbers that have commas in the calculator that you told me to use (it is the same one that I have been using). This is why I am using that other formula I wrote down in my question. | |
| Jan 3, 2019 at 2:32 | history | edited | robert | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Jan 2, 2019 at 16:14 | history | answered | robert | CC BY-SA 4.0 |