Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How was the 13/50 statistic calculated and by whom?
Executive Summary
The available materials do not contain the “13/50” statistic, nor do they identify who calculated it; therefore the question “How was the 13/50 statistic calculated and by whom?” cannot be answered from the provided documents. The sources supplied cover unrelated methodologies (cold-extrusion regression modelling, VIX option-based volatility calculation, chi-squared tests, and several educational/statistical publications) and none mention “13/50” or its derivation [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Below is a structured analysis of what those sources do show, the evidentiary gap, and concrete next steps to find the origin and calculation method for the 13/50 figure.
1. Why the question cannot be answered from the supplied documents — a blunt appraisal
All six analyses supplied by the user fail to reference the 13/50 statistic or any similarly labelled metric, so no direct provenance or computation method can be extracted from them. The engineering paper focuses on cold-extrusion modelling and regression methods [1]. The Cboe VIX methodology explains a volatility index built from options prices [2]. A statistical teaching text discusses chi-squared tests [3]. The other three analyses cover international education reporting, a statistics tutoring site, and a multi-layer academic network dataset [4] [5] [6]. None of these texts contain a 13/50 figure or its calculation.
2. What the provided sources actually document — summarizing the relevant content
The engineering article formulates force-and-pressure functions and develops regression-based predictive models for aluminum extrusion; its metrics and derived values are engineering parameters, not a 13/50 statistic [1]. The VIX methodology document lays out the formula for implied volatility derived from a set of option mid-prices and specific weighting procedures; its numeric outputs are volatility points, again not denominated as 13/50 [2]. The chi-squared guidance explains contingency-table testing and expected counts with no mention of a 13/50 ratio or threshold [3]. The remaining three analyses likewise do not introduce or define 13/50 [4] [5] [6].
3. What this gap means for claims about the 13/50 statistic
Because none of the supplied documents supply the 13/50 number, any assertion that those materials produced or explained 13/50 lacks evidentiary support. The absence in multiple disparate documents — engineering research, financial methodology, statistics pedagogy, and education/network studies — indicates the statistic is either from an omitted source or is a shorthand used in a different context not captured by these files [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Therefore, treating the 13/50 figure as verified by these documents would be factually incorrect.
4. How to verify provenance — exact, traceable steps to locate the origin
First, request the original context where “13/50” appeared: the paragraph, table, figure, or citation that used it. Second, consult the methodological or appendix sections of that source where statistical calculations are normally documented. Third, search primary repositories and databases for the phrase “13/50” alongside topical keywords (for example, the subject area it was used in). Finally, contact the authoring organization or author for a calculation note or raw data. These steps will produce an auditable chain from claim to method, which is essential when the supplied corpus lacks the number [1] [2].
5. What to look for in a valid calculation note — checklist to evaluate any discovered source
When you find a candidate source that cites 13/50, verify that it includes (a) a clear definition of numerator and denominator, (b) the data time window and sampling frame, (c) any weighting or exclusion rules, and (d) the name and affiliation of the analyst or organization that produced it. Also check for replication materials or code so the computation can be reproduced. Without these elements a statistic is not verifiable. The supplied methodological documents illustrate how rigorous methods are documented when authors include formulae and algorithmic steps [2] [1].
6. If the statistic must be interpreted before provenance is found — cautious interim principles
Do not attribute the 13/50 figure to any of the supplied sources without corroboration; instead, label it as “unverified” and traceable only to its original citation. If you must report the figure temporarily, include a clear caveat that the computation method and authorship remain unknown and provide the steps you will take to verify it. This approach mirrors standard scholarly practice when secondary materials mention numbers that cannot be immediately traced to primary data or methods [3] [6].
7. Recommended next actions I can perform for you right now
I can (a) review any additional documents or the exact text where “13/50” appears, (b) search within a broader supplied corpus for matching strings or bibliographic references, or (c) draft a short email or query template you can send to the author/organization requesting the calculation method and raw data. Provide the original context or allow me to scan additional files; I will then identify the calculation method and author if it exists in the new material.