AAWE, Economics Dept, New York University, 19 W 4th St, 6Fl., New York NY 10012aawe@wine-economics.org

The Judgment of Princeton

At its Annual Conference in Princeton, the American Association of Wine Economists organized a wine tasting called “The Judgment of Princeton.” It was modeled after the 1976 “Judgment of Paris.” In 1976, British wine merchant Steve Spurrier organized two blind tastings with 9 French wine judges who were associated with the wine industry in various ways (wine journalists, critics, sommeliers, merchants or winemakers).  In the first flight, the judges rated 10 white wines, 6 from Napa and 4 from Burgundy. In the second flight, the judges rated 10 reds, 6 from Napa and 4 from Bordeaux, France. In both tastings a wine from Napa, a then relatively unknown wine region, was declared the winner. George Taber of TIME magazine, the only attending journalist, reported the results to the world causing a big surprise in France, and helping to put Napa wines on the global wine map.

At the Princeton tasting, led by George Taber, 9 wine judges from France, Belgium and the U.S. tasted French against New Jersey wines. The French wines selected were from the same producers as in 1976 including names such as Chateau Mouton-Rothschild and Haut Brion, priced up to $650/bottle. New Jersey wines for the competition were submitted to an informal panel of judges, who then selected the wines for the competition. These judges were not eligible to taste wines at the final competition The results were similarly surprising. Although, the winner in each category was a French wine (Clos de Mouches for the whites and Mouton-Rothschild for the reds) NJ wines are at eye level. Three of the top four whites were from New Jersey. The best NJ red was ranked place 3. An amazing result given that the prices for NJ average at only 5% of the top French wines.

A statistical evaluation of the tasting, conducted by Princeton Professor Richard Quandt, further shows that the rank order of the wines was mostly insignificant. That is, if the wine judges repeated the tasting, the results would most likely be different. From a statistically viewpoint, most wines were undistinguishable. Only the best white and the lowest ranked red were significantly different from the others wines.

In Paris, after the identity of the wines was revealed, Odette Kahn, editor of La Revue Du Vin De France, demanded her score card back. Apparently, she was not happy with having rated American wines number one and two.

At the Princeton blind tasting, both French judges preferred NJ red wines over their counterparts from Bordeaux. After disclosing the wines’ identity the French judges were surprised but did not complain.

Report




  WINETASTER ON 06/08/12 WITH  9 JUDGES AND 10 WINES BASED ON GRADES, IDENT=N   

                 Copyright (c) 1995-2012 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65             

                                                                                





                                   FLIGHT 1:

                              Number of Judges =  9

                              Number of Wines  = 10


  Identification of the Wine:                   The judges' overall ranking:


  Wine A is Heritage Chardonnay 2010                      .......  3rd place

  Wine B is Unionville Pheasant Hill Single Vineyard 2010 ........  2nd place

  Wine C is Puligny Montrachet Domaine Leflaive 2009      ........  5th place

  Wine D is Clos des Mouches Drouhin 2009                 ........  1st place

  Wine E is Silver Decoy "Black  Feather" 201             ........  4th place

  Wine F is Bellview Chardonnay 2010                      tied for  6th place

  Wine G is Ventimiglia Chardonnay 2010                   ........  9th place

  Wine H is Meursault-Charmes Jean Latour-Labille2008     ........ 10th place

  Wine I is Amalthea Chardonnay 2008                      ........  8th place

  Wine J is Bâtard Montrachet Marc-Antonin Blain 2009     tied for  6th place


                        The Judges' Grades


  Judge     Wine ->    A    B    C    D    E    F    G    H    I    J           

                                                                                

  Jean-M Cardebat    10.0 13.0 14.0 15.0  8.0 13.0 15.0 11.0  9.0 12.0          

  Tyler Colman       16.0 14.0 14.0 16.0 12.0 11.0 11.0 14.0 11.0 14.0          

  John Foy           16.0 17.0 16.0 15.0 14.5 14.5 16.0 17.0 15.0 17.5          

  Olivier Gergaud    14.0 19.0 12.0 10.0 19.0 18.0 17.0 16.0 18.0 14.0          

  Robert Hodgson     17.0 11.0 13.0 14.0 14.0 10.0  9.0  9.0 10.0 10.0          

  Linda Murphy       15.5 15.0 17.0 18.0 16.0 17.0 15.0 14.0 16.0 17.0          

  Daniele Meulder    10.0 15.0 12.0 12.0 15.0 14.0 15.0 12.0 15.0 12.0          

  Jamal Rayyis       16.0 15.0 14.5 17.5 16.5 14.0 12.0 15.0 13.0 12.0          

  Francis Schott     17.0 16.0 12.0 18.0 15.0 16.0 15.0 14.0 17.0 15.0          


                        The Judges' Rankings


  Judge     Wine ->    A    B    C    D    E    F    G    H    I    J           

                                                                                

  Jean-M Cardebat     8.0  4.5  3.0  1.5 10.0  4.5  1.5  7.0  9.0  6.0          

  Tyler Colman        1.5  4.5  4.5  1.5  7.0  9.0  9.0  4.5  9.0  4.5          

  John Foy            5.0  2.5  5.0  7.5  9.5  9.5  5.0  2.5  7.5  1.0          

  Olivier Gergaud     7.5  1.5  9.0 10.0  1.5  3.5  5.0  6.0  3.5  7.5          

  Robert Hodgson      1.0  5.0  4.0  2.5  2.5  7.0  9.5  9.5  7.0  7.0          

  Linda Murphy        7.0  8.5  3.0  1.0  5.5  3.0  8.5 10.0  5.5  3.0          

  Daniele Meulder    10.0  2.5  7.5  7.5  2.5  5.0  2.5  7.5  2.5  7.5          

  Jamal Rayyis        3.0  4.5  6.0  1.0  2.0  7.0  9.5  4.5  8.0  9.5          

  Francis Schott      2.5  4.5 10.0  1.0  7.0  4.5  7.0  9.0  2.5  7.0          


    Group Ranking ->   3    2    5    1    4    6    9   10    8    6

    Votes Against -> 45.5 38.0 52.0 33.5 47.5 53.0 57.5 60.5 54.5 53.0


     ( 9 is the best possible,  90 is the worst)



 Here is a measure of the correlation in the preferences of the judges which

 ranges between 1.0 (perfect correlation) and 0.0 (no correlation):


     W = 0.1017



 The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation

 is rather large, 0.5476. Most analysts would say that unless this

 probability is less than 0.1, the judges' preferences are not strongly

 related.

 We now analyze how each taster's preferences are correlated with the group

 preference. A correlation of 1.0 means that the taster's preferences are a

 perfect predictor of the group's preferences. A 0.0 means no correlation,

 while a -1.0 means that the taster has the reverse ranking of the group.

 This is measured by the correlation R.


       Correlation Between the Ranks of

 Each Person With the Average Ranking of Others


  Name of Person      Correlation R                                             

                                                                                

  Robert Hodgson        0.7299                                                  

  Jamal Rayyis          0.5321                                                  

  Tyler Colman          0.2750                                                  

  Francis Schott        0.2037                                                  

  Linda Murphy          0.0502                                                  

  Jean-M Cardebat      -0.1774                                                  

  Olivier Gergaud      -0.3303                                                  

  Daniele Meulders     -0.3729                                                  

  John Foy             -0.4318                                                  


We now compute for each wine the mean (average) grade it received from the judges

and the standard deviation of those grades. (The mean of, say, 3 grades is 

the sum of the grades divided by 3. The standard deviation is a measure of

the "dispersion" of the grades around the mean. The numbers 5, 6, and 7 and the

numbers 3, 6, and 9 both have the same mean of 6, but the second set has a

higher dispersion, i.e., strandard deviation.


              Summary Grade Statistics for Wines                                

                                                                                

            A     B     C     D     E     F     G     H     I     J             

                                                                                

  Mean    14.61 15.00 13.83 15.06 14.44 14.17 13.89 13.56 13.78 13.72           

  StdDev   2.60  2.16  1.70  2.59  2.90  2.47  2.47  2.36  3.01  2.35           


We now compute the mean and the standard deviation for  each judge, from which

you can see which judge is harsh and which is lenient,  which thinks that the

wines are very different and which thinks they are pretty much the same.


             Summary Grade Statistics for Judges                                

                                                                                

  Name             Mean    Std.Dev.                                             

                                                                                

  Jean-M Cardebat  12.00    2.32                                                

  Tyler Colman     13.30    1.85                                                

  John Foy         15.85    1.03                                                

  Olivier Gergaud  15.70    2.93                                                

  Robert Hodgson   11.70    2.53                                                

  Linda Murphy     16.05    1.15                                                

  Daniele Meulders 13.20    1.72                                                

  Jamal Rayyis     14.55    1.75                                                

  Francis Schott   15.50    1.63                                                


The wines were preferred by the judges in the following order. When the

preferences of the judges are strong enough to permit meaningful differentiation

among the wines, they are separated by -------------------- and are judged to be

significantly different.


  1.   ........  1st place    Wine D is Clos des Mouches 2009             

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  2.   ........  2nd place    Wine B is Unionville Single Vineyard 2010   

  3.   ........  3rd place    Wine A is Heritage Chard 2010               

  4.   ........  4th place    Wine E is Silver Decoy "Black  Feather" 201

  5.   ........  5th place    Wine C is Puligny Montrachet 2009           

  6.   tied for  6th place    Wine F is Bellview Chard 2010               

  7.   tied for  6th place    Wine J is Batard Montrachet 2009            

  8.   ........  8th place    Wine I is Amalthea Chard 2008               

  9.   ........  9th place    Wine G is Ventimiglia Chard 2010            

 10.   ........ 10th place    Wine H is Meursault-Charmes 2008            


   We now undertake a more detailed examination of the pair-wise rank correla-

tions that exist between pairs of judges. First, we present a table in which you

can find the correlation for any pair of judges, by finding one of the names in the

left hand margin and the other name on top of a column. A second table arranges

these correlations in descending order and marks which is significantly positive

significantly negative, or not significant. This may allow you to find clusters

of judges whose rankings were particularly similar or particularly dissimilar.

                                                                                

                           Pairwise Rank Correlations                           

                                                                                

Correlations must exceed in absolute value  0.65 for significance at the 0.05   

level and must exceed  0.56 for significance at the 0.1 level                   

                                                                                

                                                                                

                  Jean-M Cardebat  Tyler Colman     John Foy                    

                                                                                

Jean-M Cardebat   1.000            0.115            0.140                       

Tyler Colman      0.115            1.000            0.393                       

John Foy          0.140            0.393            1.000                       

Olivier Gergaud  -0.455           -0.638           -0.250                       

Robert Hodgson   -0.174            0.602           -0.319                       

Linda Murphy      0.261            0.146           -0.394                       

Daniele Meulders -0.081           -0.763           -0.314                       

Jamal Rayyis     -0.153            0.617           -0.312                       

Francis Schott   -0.031            0.194           -0.363                       

                                                                                

                  Olivier Gergaud  Robert Hodgson   Linda Murphy                

                                                                                

Jean-M Cardebat  -0.455           -0.174            0.261                       

Tyler Colman     -0.638            0.602            0.146                       

John Foy         -0.250           -0.319           -0.394                       

Olivier Gergaud   1.000           -0.209           -0.464                       

Robert Hodgson   -0.209            1.000            0.396                       

Linda Murphy     -0.464            0.396            1.000                       

Daniele Meulders  0.816           -0.329           -0.263                       

Jamal Rayyis     -0.098            0.733            0.075                       

Francis Schott   -0.006            0.409            0.258                       

                                                                                

                  Daniele Meulders Jamal Rayyis     Francis Schott              

                                                                                

Jean-M Cardebat  -0.081           -0.153           -0.031                       

Tyler Colman     -0.763            0.617            0.194                       

John Foy         -0.314           -0.312           -0.363                       

Olivier Gergaud   0.816           -0.098           -0.006                       

Robert Hodgson   -0.329            0.733            0.409                       

Linda Murphy     -0.263            0.075            0.258                       

Daniele Meulders  1.000           -0.260            0.000                       

Jamal Rayyis     -0.260            1.000            0.314                       

Francis Schott    0.000            0.314            1.000                       

                                                                                

                     Pairwise correlations in descending order                  

                                                                                

    0.816   Olivier Gergaud  and Daniele Meulders   Significantly positive      

    0.733   Robert Hodgson   and Jamal Rayyis       Significantly positive      

    0.617   Tyler Colman     and Jamal Rayyis       Significantly positive      

    0.602   Tyler Colman     and Robert Hodgson     Significantly positive      

    0.409   Robert Hodgson   and Francis Schott     Not significant             

    0.396   Robert Hodgson   and Linda Murphy       Not significant             

    0.393   Tyler Colman     and John Foy           Not significant             

    0.314   Jamal Rayyis     and Francis Schott     Not significant             

    0.261   Jean-M Cardebat  and Linda Murphy       Not significant             

    0.258   Linda Murphy     and Francis Schott     Not significant             

    0.194   Tyler Colman     and Francis Schott     Not significant             

    0.146   Tyler Colman     and Linda Murphy       Not significant             

    0.140   Jean-M Cardebat  and John Foy           Not significant             

    0.115   Jean-M Cardebat  and Tyler Colman       Not significant             

    0.075   Linda Murphy     and Jamal Rayyis       Not significant             

    0.000   Daniele Meulders and Francis Schott     Not significant             

   -0.006   Olivier Gergaud  and Francis Schott     Not significant             

   -0.031   Jean-M Cardebat  and Francis Schott     Not significant             

   -0.081   Jean-M Cardebat  and Daniele Meulders   Not significant             

   -0.098   Olivier Gergaud  and Jamal Rayyis       Not significant             

   -0.153   Jean-M Cardebat  and Jamal Rayyis       Not significant             

   -0.174   Jean-M Cardebat  and Robert Hodgson     Not significant             

   -0.209   Olivier Gergaud  and Robert Hodgson     Not significant             

   -0.250   John Foy         and Olivier Gergaud    Not significant             

   -0.260   Daniele Meulders and Jamal Rayyis       Not significant             

   -0.263   Linda Murphy     and Daniele Meulders   Not significant             

   -0.312   John Foy         and Jamal Rayyis       Not significant             

   -0.314   John Foy         and Daniele Meulders   Not significant             

   -0.319   John Foy         and Robert Hodgson     Not significant             

   -0.329   Robert Hodgson   and Daniele Meulders   Not significant             

   -0.363   John Foy         and Francis Schott     Not significant             

   -0.394   John Foy         and Linda Murphy       Not significant             

   -0.455   Jean-M Cardebat  and Olivier Gergaud    Not significant             

   -0.464   Olivier Gergaud  and Linda Murphy       Not significant             

   -0.638   Tyler Colman     and Olivier Gergaud    Significantly negative      

   -0.763   Tyler Colman     and Daniele Meulders   Significantly negative      





                                                               






  WINETASTER ON 06/08/12 WITH  9 JUDGES AND 10 WINES BASED ON GRADES, IDENT=N   

                 Copyright (c) 1995-2012 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65             

                                                                                



                                   FLIGHT 2:

                              Number of Judges =  9

                              Number of Wines  = 10


  Identification of the Wine:                   The judges' overall ranking:


  Wine A is Ch. Montrose 2004                             ........  4th place

  Wine B is Ch. Mouton Rothschild 2004                    ........  1st place

  Wine C is Silver Decoy Cab. Franc 2008                  ........  8th place

  Wine D is Heritage Estate  BDX 2010                     ........  3rd place

  Wine E is Bellview Lumiere 2010                         ........  7th place

  Wine F is Tomasello Oak Reserve 2007                    ........  5th place

  Wine G is Ch. Leoville Las Cases 2004                   ........  6th place

  Wine H is Amalthea Europa VI 2008                       ........  9th place

  Wine I is Four JG's Cab Franc 2008                      ........ 10th place

  Wine J is Ch. Haut Brion 2004                           ........  2nd place


                        The Judges' Grades


  Judge     Wine ->    A    B    C    D    E    F    G    H    I    J           

                                                                                

  Jean-M Cardebat    15.0 11.0 12.0 16.0 14.0 11.0 14.5 13.0 10.0 14.5          

  Tyler Colman       14.0 11.0 16.0 12.0 14.0 13.0 14.0 12.0 13.0 11.0          

  John Foy           17.5 19.0 18.0 18.0 15.0 16.0 18.0 18.0 17.0 17.5          

  Olivier Gergaud    10.0 17.0  9.0 14.0 19.0 12.0 15.0 10.0 11.0 18.0          

  Robert Hodgson     13.0 17.0 13.0 16.0 12.0 15.0 10.0 12.0  8.0 11.0          

  Linda Murphy       13.0 14.0 17.0 16.0 15.0 17.0 14.0 15.5 13.0 18.0          

  Daniele Meulder    14.0 16.0 11.0 16.0 14.0 15.0 13.0 11.0 10.0 15.0          

  Jamal Rayyis       15.0 19.5 14.0 12.0 13.0 16.0 14.5 15.0 16.0 16.0          

  Francis Schott     19.0 18.0  8.0 15.0 15.0 12.0 15.0 16.0  7.0 17.0          


                        The Judges' Rankings


  Judge     Wine ->    A    B    C    D    E    F    G    H    I    J           

                                                                                

  Jean-M Cardebat     2.0  8.5  7.0  1.0  5.0  8.5  3.5  6.0 10.0  3.5          

  Tyler Colman        3.0  9.5  1.0  7.5  3.0  5.5  3.0  7.5  5.5  9.5          

  John Foy            6.5  1.0  3.5  3.5 10.0  9.0  3.5  3.5  8.0  6.5          

  Olivier Gergaud     8.5  3.0 10.0  5.0  1.0  6.0  4.0  8.5  7.0  2.0          

  Robert Hodgson      4.5  1.0  4.5  2.0  6.5  3.0  9.0  6.5 10.0  8.0          

  Linda Murphy        9.5  7.5  2.5  4.0  6.0  2.5  7.5  5.0  9.5  1.0          

  Daniele Meulder     5.5  1.5  8.5  1.5  5.5  3.5  7.0  8.5 10.0  3.5          

  Jamal Rayyis        5.5  1.0  8.0 10.0  9.0  3.0  7.0  5.5  3.0  3.0          

  Francis Schott      1.0  2.0  9.0  6.0  6.0  8.0  6.0  4.0 10.0  3.0          


    Group Ranking ->   4    1    8    3    7    5    6    9   10    2

    Votes Against -> 46.0 35.0 54.0 40.5 52.0 49.0 50.5 55.0 73.0 40.0


     ( 9 is the best possible,  90 is the worst)



 Here is a measure of the correlation in the preferences of the judges which

 ranges between 1.0 (perfect correlation) and 0.0 (no correlation):


     W = 0.1543



 The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation

 is rather large, 0.2039. Most analysts would say that unless this

 probability is less than 0.1, the judges' preferences are not strongly

 related.

 We now analyze how each taster's preferences are correlated with the group

 preference. A correlation of 1.0 means that the taster's preferences are a

 perfect predictor of the group's preferences. A 0.0 means no correlation,

 while a -1.0 means that the taster has the reverse ranking of the group.

 This is measured by the correlation R.


       Correlation Between the Ranks of

 Each Person With the Average Ranking of Others


  Name of Person      Correlation R                                             

                                                                                

  Daniele Meulders      0.7963                                                  

  Francis Schott        0.3877                                                  

  Robert Hodgson        0.3272                                                  

  Jean-M Cardebat       0.2778                                                  

  John Foy              0.1443                                                  

  Olivier Gergaud       0.0823                                                  

  Linda Murphy         -0.1074                                                  

  Jamal Rayyis         -0.1296                                                  

  Tyler Colman         -0.6927                                                  


We now compute for each wine the mean (average) grade it received from the judges

and the standard deviation of those grades. (The mean of, say, 3 grades is 

the sum of the grades divided by 3. The standard deviation is a measure of

the "dispersion" of the grades around the mean. The numbers 5, 6, and 7 and the

numbers 3, 6, and 9 both have the same mean of 6, but the second set has a

higher dispersion, i.e., strandard deviation.


              Summary Grade Statistics for Wines                                

                                                                                

            A     B     C     D     E     F     G     H     I     J             

                                                                                

  Mean    14.50 15.83 13.11 15.00 14.56 14.11 14.22 13.61 11.67 15.33           

  StdDev   2.47  3.00  3.28  1.89  1.83  2.02  1.97  2.49  3.20  2.59           


We now compute the mean and the standard deviation for  each judge, from which

you can see which judge is harsh and which is lenient,  which thinks that the

wines are very different and which thinks they are pretty much the same.


             Summary Grade Statistics for Judges                                

                                                                                

  Name             Mean    Std.Dev.                                             

                                                                                

  Jean-M Cardebat  13.10    1.91                                                

  Tyler Colman     13.00    1.48                                                

  John Foy         17.40    1.09                                                

  Olivier Gergaud  13.50    3.44                                                

  Robert Hodgson   12.70    2.61                                                

  Linda Murphy     15.25    1.66                                                

  Daniele Meulders 13.50    2.06                                                

  Jamal Rayyis     15.10    1.93                                                

  Francis Schott   14.20    3.82                                                


The wines were preferred by the judges in the following order. When the

preferences of the judges are strong enough to permit meaningful differentiation

among the wines, they are separated by -------------------- and are judged to be

significantly different.


  1.   ........  1st place    Wine B is Ch. Mouton Rothschild 2004        

  2.   ........  2nd place    Wine J is Ch. Haut Brion 2004               

  3.   ........  3rd place    Wine D is Heritage Estate  BDX 2010         

  4.   ........  4th place    Wine A is Ch.Montrose 2004                  

  5.   ........  5th place    Wine F is Tomasello Oak Reserve 2007        

  6.   ........  6th place    Wine G is Leoville Las Cases 2004           

  7.   ........  7th place    Wine E is Bellview Lumiere 2010             

  8.   ........  8th place    Wine C is Silver Decoy Cab. Frfanc 2008     

  9.   ........  9th place    Wine H is Amalthea Europa 2008              

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

 10.   ........ 10th place    Wine I is Four JG's Cab Franc 2008          


   We now undertake a more detailed examination of the pair-wise rank correla-

tions that exist between pairs of judges. First, we present a table in which you

can find the correlation for any pair of judges, by finding one of the names in the

left hand margin and the other name on top of a column. A second table arranges

these correlations in descending order and marks which is significantly positive

significantly negative, or not significant. This may allow you to find clusters

of judges whose rankings were particularly similar or particularly dissimilar.

                                                                                

                           Pairwise Rank Correlations                           

                                                                                

Correlations must exceed in absolute value  0.65 for significance at the 0.05   

level and must exceed  0.56 for significance at the 0.1 level                   

                                                                                

                                                                                

                  Jean-M Cardebat  Tyler Colman     John Foy                    

                                                                                

Jean-M Cardebat   1.000            0.053            0.120                       

Tyler Colman      0.053            1.000           -0.279                       

John Foy          0.120           -0.279            1.000                       

Olivier Gergaud   0.159           -0.394           -0.189                       

Robert Hodgson    0.061           -0.215            0.363                       

Linda Murphy      0.095           -0.209           -0.022                       

Daniele Meulders  0.336           -0.542            0.168                       

Jamal Rayyis     -0.601           -0.538            0.019                       

Francis Schott    0.481           -0.414            0.318                       

                                                                                

                  Olivier Gergaud  Robert Hodgson   Linda Murphy                

                                                                                

Jean-M Cardebat   0.159            0.061            0.095                       

Tyler Colman     -0.394           -0.215           -0.209                       

John Foy         -0.189            0.363           -0.022                       

Olivier Gergaud   1.000           -0.055            0.095                       

Robert Hodgson   -0.055            1.000            0.203                       

Linda Murphy      0.095            0.203            1.000                       

Daniele Meulders  0.554            0.710            0.291                       

Jamal Rayyis      0.074           -0.006           -0.121                       

Francis Schott    0.246            0.290           -0.155                       

                                                                                

                  Daniele Meulders Jamal Rayyis     Francis Schott              

                                                                                

Jean-M Cardebat   0.336           -0.601            0.481                       

Tyler Colman     -0.542           -0.538           -0.414                       

John Foy          0.168            0.019            0.318                       

Olivier Gergaud   0.554            0.074            0.246                       

Robert Hodgson    0.710           -0.006            0.290                       

Linda Murphy      0.291           -0.121           -0.155                       

Daniele Meulders  1.000            0.106            0.484                       

Jamal Rayyis      0.106            1.000            0.224                       

Francis Schott    0.484            0.224            1.000                       

                                                                                

                     Pairwise correlations in descending order                  

                                                                                

    0.710   Robert Hodgson   and Daniele Meulders   Significantly positive      

    0.554   Olivier Gergaud  and Daniele Meulders   Not significant             

    0.484   Daniele Meulders and Francis Schott     Not significant             

    0.481   Jean-M Cardebat  and Francis Schott     Not significant             

    0.363   John Foy         and Robert Hodgson     Not significant             

    0.336   Jean-M Cardebat  and Daniele Meulders   Not significant             

    0.318   John Foy         and Francis Schott     Not significant             

    0.291   Linda Murphy     and Daniele Meulders   Not significant             

    0.290   Robert Hodgson   and Francis Schott     Not significant             

    0.246   Olivier Gergaud  and Francis Schott     Not significant             

    0.224   Jamal Rayyis     and Francis Schott     Not significant             

    0.203   Robert Hodgson   and Linda Murphy       Not significant             

    0.168   John Foy         and Daniele Meulders   Not significant             

    0.159   Jean-M Cardebat  and Olivier Gergaud    Not significant             

    0.120   Jean-M Cardebat  and John Foy           Not significant             

    0.106   Daniele Meulders and Jamal Rayyis       Not significant             

    0.095   Jean-M Cardebat  and Linda Murphy       Not significant             

    0.095   Olivier Gergaud  and Linda Murphy       Not significant             

    0.074   Olivier Gergaud  and Jamal Rayyis       Not significant             

    0.061   Jean-M Cardebat  and Robert Hodgson     Not significant             

    0.053   Jean-M Cardebat  and Tyler Colman       Not significant             

    0.019   John Foy         and Jamal Rayyis       Not significant             

   -0.006   Robert Hodgson   and Jamal Rayyis       Not significant             

   -0.022   John Foy         and Linda Murphy       Not significant             

   -0.055   Olivier Gergaud  and Robert Hodgson     Not significant             

   -0.121   Linda Murphy     and Jamal Rayyis       Not significant             

   -0.155   Linda Murphy     and Francis Schott     Not significant             

   -0.189   John Foy         and Olivier Gergaud    Not significant             

   -0.209   Tyler Colman     and Linda Murphy       Not significant             

   -0.215   Tyler Colman     and Robert Hodgson     Not significant             

   -0.279   Tyler Colman     and John Foy           Not significant             

   -0.394   Tyler Colman     and Olivier Gergaud    Not significant             

   -0.414   Tyler Colman     and Francis Schott     Not significant             

   -0.538   Tyler Colman     and Jamal Rayyis       Not significant             

   -0.542   Tyler Colman     and Daniele Meulders   Not significant             

   -0.601   Jean-M Cardebat  and Jamal Rayyis       Significantly negative      






 

Menu