English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Sometimes the number of treatments to be compared is so large that a complete blocks experiment is impractical. This happens, for example, in some agronomic variety trials. A balanced incomplete block (BIB) design can be used in such a situation. In sensory evaluation trials loss of sensitivity can occur when the subjects are not be able to compare more than a few products with any certainty. Again BIB designs are useful. Consider a balanced incomplete block design with the data being ranks within blocks. A traditional test for treatment differences for such a scenario is the Durbin (1951) test, based on the statistic D, given by

Conover’s F Test as an Alternative to Durbin’s Test