deletions | additions       diff --git a/section_Methods_label_methods_subsection__.tex b/section_Methods_label_methods_subsection__.tex  index 2a8045f..5820e89 100644  --- a/section_Methods_label_methods_subsection__.tex  +++ b/section_Methods_label_methods_subsection__.tex 
...
[Here or elsewhere?] Unlike the study carried out in Koch et al.~(2015), our simulation suite does not utilize experimental design to set the simulation parameter values. As discussed in \citet{Yeremi_2014}, comparisons between outputs in one-factor-at-a-time approaches may give a misleading signal since the statistical effects are not fully calibrated. However, we will focus our discussion on those statistics deemed by Koch et al. (2015) to be ``good", i.e., those which exhibit a response to changes in underlying physical parameters rather than to statistical fluctuations in the data.   Table ??? enumerates our astrostatistical toolkit. We classify the established turbulent statistics by their methods of analysis. Intensity statistics quantify emission distributions using intensity moment maps. Fourier Statistics analyze a 1-dimensional power spectrum obtained through spatial integration techniques (established in the literature??). Morphology statistics characterize structure and emission properties.