Is one used more often in practice or are they basically interchangeable?
In a different, but related question on trimming that I just stumbled across, one answer had the following helpful insight into why one might use either winsorizing or trimming: I'm curious if there is a more definitive approach, but the above logic sounds reasonable. As in my comment above, "removing them from the data set" is too strong here.
Trimming or Winsorizing just means what it does, ignoring or replacing as may be, for a certain calculation. You are not obliged to remove the tail values from the dataset, as if you were throwing out rotten fruit. For example, faced with possible outliers, you might do an analysis of the data as they come and an analysis based on trimming and see what difference it makes.
It's a good question, but you don't answer it. You just say that truncating or Winsorizing can help visualization. Mark Lakata Mark Lakata 4. I mistyped my original post.
Sometimes the typing fingers and brain are not in sync. I meant to say to correctly calculate a true truncated mean , you need to sort all of the data elements. I believe this is still true. I've updated by answer. You can Winsorize as much or as little as seems appropriate. The expropriation of property is not a "seizure". Taking of a photograph by police has been considered a search or seizure. Where the state compels the production of documents, even in a regulatory context, will amount to a seizure.
Consent Seizure Valid consent in this context is determined based on indicia such as: Only an accused person with a reasonable expectation of privacy over a thing seized or a place searched may enforce their rights under s. Where the accused abandons an item that is subject of a search and seizure, such as during a pursuit, there will be no expectation of privacy where in the "totality of circumstances" the accused intended to abandon the item irrevocably.
Denial of Ownership or Identity Where the accused denies ownership, knowledge or control of the item at issue of the search, the accused may not enforce a Charter right. A lawful search must be a authorized by law; b the law itself must be reasonable; and c the manner in which the search was carried out must be reasonable. The third element constrains the actions undertaken by the officer during the search. For example, whether they are required to stop after a certain amount of time or after recovering a certain amount of evidence.
There is effectively a presumption of unreasonableness for all searches and seizures that are warrantless in criminal or quasi-criminal matters. The purpose of the search is a relevant to the analysis of the search. The most frequent form of search is a search for evidence of a commission of an offence, criminal or otherwise. Secondarily, there will be searches for the purpose of officer safety.
Each type of search will have different scope of powers of search. Authorization to intrude on zone of privacy can arise out of the common law or statute. Depending on the circumstances certain zones will requires judicial authorization by way of a warrant.
See Constitutional Challenges to Legislation. Section 8 of the Charter governs searches by government and its agents. The scope and degree of privacy is always with respect to a particular party. A person is an agent of the police where there is a relationship between the parties for a specific purpose and that the purpose would not have been undertaken but for the involvement of the police. The absence of evidence of an agreement or instructions to the searching party will weigh against the finding of agency.
An employee of a private company will become an agent of the state when they are directed to perform a task by the police. A police informer wearing a wire is an agent of the state. An important question to ask is whether the conduct resulting in the discovery of evidence would have taken place in "the form and manner in which it did, but for the intervention of the state and its agents".
Employees of government agencies, such as social workers, who discover or investigate possible offences are agents of the state. An Internet Service Provider forwarding information on the discovery of child pornography is acting as an agent of the state. A sheriff's officers executing an eviction order that was valid on its face were state actors for the purpose of s.
Landlords A landlord entering into an apartment in response to a compliant and then reports the findings to police is not acting as an agent. Schools It is usually the case that principals have statutory duties under the provincial education acts to "maintain a safe school environment".
Hospital Staff A member of the hospital staff in execution of their duties are not agents of the state.