"definite" passt auch, vielleicht.

Da 1/3 noch nicht einmal der Zufallsverteilung entspricht, würde ich hier von "no (clear) correlation" sprechen.

Ich würde nur "no correlation" sagen, wenn nichts gesehen wurde, aber ßarah hat gesagt nur "nicht gesehen".

"no observable correlation" geht.

I might be tempted to spell it out in a case like this: "There was no unambiguous correlation between A and B."

"Definite correlation" is surely correct. "Definitive" doesn't fit here, IMO.

"Significant" is perhaps going too far.

anke für eure Antworten- ich bin nun schon an zwei Stunden an diesem Absatz am herumwerkeln

significant ist ein ziemlich gefährliches Wort- man sollte es in wissenschaftlichen Texten nur dann verwenden, wenn man wirklich die statistische Signifikanz meint...

ich nehme nun definite correlation- ich denke mal, dass es passt.

#7: significant ist ein ziemlich gefährliches Wort- man sollte es in wissenschaftlichen Texten nur dann verwenden, wenn man wirklich die statistische Signifikanz meint

The essential meaning of the English word "significant" is something that has meaning/is important. That's why I wouldn't use it to translate #0.

"definitiv" ist im deutschen Satz falsch. Das heißt nicht "eindeutig", sondern "endgültig", "abschließend", "ein für alle mal" und wird kaum je als Beifügung verwendet.

You can't use "significant", this suggests a statistical level of 95% or higher.

I also would not use the term correlation, unless you actually calculated one.

How about "There is no distinct effect"

#10: How about "There is no distinct effect"

The OP is looking for a translation of "Zusammenhang" as far as I can tell.

#10: "significant" ... suggests a statistical level of 95% or higher.

Says who?

#10: "significant" ... suggests a statistical level of 95% or higher.

Says who?

Says me. And statistics.

The word "significant" when used in a statistical context usually refers to the results. To have a significant result you generally need it to be at the 95% level if it is a two-tailed test.

ßarah is talking about an effect which has been seen once very clearly, and twice not. It is not clear if this means it has not been seen clearly or that there was no effect.

You can have very, very small effects which, due to a huge sample size (which we do not have here) or due to amazing accuracy are still significant, although not visible with the naked eye.

#12: Says me. And statistics.

Oh -- in that case, you won't have any trouble providing at least one reputable link to back up your statements, then.

ANY textbook of statistics will tell you this.

Look up Significance Testing (which is part of undergraduate statistics for many, many courses) and you will find what I am talking about.

significant ist ein ziemlich gefährliches Wort - man sollte es in wissenschaftlichen Texten nur dann verwenden, wenn man wirklich die statistische Signifikanz meint...

Glaub's halt, Kinky Afro

KinkyAfro, in the particular context of statistics and significant figures you will just need to believe the others, I'm afraid ....

#7: wenn man wirklich die statistische Signifikanz meint

In that case, it may be necessary in some cases to write that something "is/is not statistically significant".

Well, since the result is "no significant" correlation, you could use 'significant', even under Bryce's understanding of significant. Of course, Bryce is incorrect in marking 'significant' at 95%, but he is correct that there is generally some variation below which the changes are not significant. But, since this was a negative result, no harm no foul.

In any case, I support "no definitive correlation" or "no conclusive correlation". Definite works as well.

#18: Bryce is incorrect in marking 'significant' at 95%, but he is correct that there is generally some variation below which the changes are not significant.

My beef is with the (arbitrary?) "95%".

#18: I support "no definitive correlation"

Isn't the German "definitiv" a false friend here?

In normal English, "significant" means important, while in Statistics "significant" means probably true (not due to chance). A research finding may be true without being important. When statisticians say a result is "highly significant" they mean it is very probably true. They do not (necessarily) mean it is highly important.

[...]

Significance levels show you how likely a result is due to chance. The most common level, used to mean something is good enough to be believed, is .95. This means that the finding has a 95% chance of being true. However, this value is also used in a misleading way. No statistical package will show you "95%" or ".95" to indicate this level. Instead it will show you ".05," meaning that the finding has a five percent (.05) chance of not being true, which is the converse of a 95% chance of being true.

http://www.surveysystem.com/signif.htm

95 % may be arbitrary, but it is an accepted definition in statistics.

If this is a scientific text, the word "correlation" should only be used if, and only if, the author actually ran a correlation.

Of course I am aware that significant does not really require a 95% confidence interval, but it is usually used like that. You can of course have much lower or higher significance levels, depending on your needs.

Quite often in the social sciences "significant" is used for the 5% (or 95%, depending how you see it) level, "highly significant" means (often, not always, and some even frown upon this use) "at the 1% (or 99%) level".

But of course you are correct and it is not a fixed limit.

If it is true that the social sciences use 95% as a surrogate for determining in a given case what the actual 'significant' variation is, is further proof that the 'social sciences' are more social than science.

Bad math leads to bad results leads to bad papers leads to bad policy.

Ja. "Significant" und "correlation" sind zwei statistische Fachbegriffe, die aber auch eine Alltagsbedeutung haben. Das gilt im Deutschen und im Englischen. Da es aber hier nicht um eine statistisch begründete Feststellung handelt, sondern eher um eine Trivialität, die keiner statistischen Erörterung bedarf, könnte man "keinen eindeutigen Zusammenhang" auch direkt in Alltagsenglisch übersetzen. Mein Vorschlag:

"no clear relationship".

Von "definitiv(e)" kann sowieso keine Rede sein. Auch nicht vom Gegenteil.

I agree with everyone, including ßarah, who is reluctant to use terms like 'significant' and 'correlation' that could wrongly suggest a specific statistical meaning. AndreasS's summary seems right on to me, and his suggestion sounds good too. I wonder if you might expand that to 'no clear causal relationship/connection.'

That might emphasize the negative, however, which you might not want to do if it was your paper and you believed there was a connection but you just haven't been able to demonstrate it yet. In that case, you might say something more like 'Although our tests did not show a definite/clear/direct causal relationship between A and B, other evidence still points to that as a likely possibility.'