From the Vermont longitudinal study:

Is it just me or does her math not add up? If you have 168 subjects, and 44 employed, 56 unemployed, 14 volunteers, 8 housewives, 44 EWR, 4 not assessed, you get 170? Aside from this, does this mean of the 168 diagnosed with schizophrenia who were work eligible (116, 168 minus 8 housewives minus 44 elderly, widowed or retired), a full 37% were employed? This would seem to conflate with the 10% general employment rate for schizophrenics? I'm aware of the law of small numbers as described in Thinking Fast and Slow leading to more lopsided results, would this be an example of that? The study's author just published a book through Oxford University press, is this a scam or is it a worthwhile read? Therapyisgood (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford University Press is about as respectable a publisher as one could hope to find – it's unlikely that they would publish a 'scam'.

The apparently error-containing paper you have quoted and linked appeared in a journal in 1987; I think it unlikely that one minor mistake in a research paper co-authored 37 years ago by 5 people (only one of whom is the author of the new work) has much bearing on the quality of a book published only last year.

Few if any works, even scholarly ones, are entirely without errors whether by the author or the typesetters; this is especially true of matter published in journals with their frequent and pressurised deadlines, as opposed to books which have a more protracted editorial process. I am a former editor (who once turned down a job offer from OUP because of travel logistics!), and rarely see any book or periodical without at least one typo. (A pro or ex-pro editor notices such things when reading even when not looking for them.)

I don't know the source of this error, if it is one, but I doubt it casts significant doubt on this researcher's competence. Have you checked subsequent issues of the journal to see if it published a corrective note? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.64.108 (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest explanation is that a clerical error was made in the last sentence, which should have read, "Solid information was unavailable on two (1%) of the subjects for this rating."  ​‑‑Lambiam 13:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered the possibility that one of the housewives -- or the employed, or unemployed -- volunteers? Some people might fall into more than one category. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can "Chemical castration" be reversal like "Vasectomy reversal"?

I didn't find any information about that. HarryOrange (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, usually. The second paragraph of the Wikipedia article covers this, and references are widely available online. Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is "gas carbon", as referred to in "plates of gas carbon" and "a cylindrical piece of gas carbon", in "The Microphone, Magnophone, Phonoscope, and Phoneidoscope"? (It's not an easy term to Google, due to false positive results.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a type of soot used to make early carbon microphones. Charcoal seems to have been used later. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I now see that we used to have a stub at [1], but User:Materialscientist redirected it last year, to Carbon, apparently without there being anything on the subject at the target. Perhaps it should be resurrected? Or the content included somewhere? It was clearly a significant material at some time ([2], [3], [4]). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some book sources: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. There is a text on Wikisource, Popular Science Monthly/Volume 7/July 1875/Notes, where it is called "gas-retort carbon".  ​‑‑Lambiam 10:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have also seen it called "retort carbon". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That name is also used by the third source in the list above, as well as the amusing variant "retort-scurf ".  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored Gas carbon, and expanded it. There is also an ongoing discussion of whether to mention it in Carbon microphone, on the latter's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It's soot. But the point is that it's a solid carbon deposited by a vapour phase process (see chemical vapor deposition, although this isn't epitaxial). That gives it a particular mechanical structure. In this case one with a surface that produces grains which, when loosely packed, gives a surface contact and resistive connection that's extremely variable, and varies by mechanical contact pressure. So for the carbon microphone, one where there's a correlation between the physical movement (caused by the microphone diaphragm) and the electrical resistance of the microphone, thus the output signal. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]