standardize terminology/conventions

[eahowerton]

When describing different output types, decide and standardize:

1. report in code or not: "predictions of output type mean " or "predictions of output type mean"
2. whether to capitalize CDF/PMF Currently, both of these are used inconsistently throughout the manuscript. May be easier to wait until the last stages of editing.

[eahowerton]

This is also related to issue #2

[lshandross]

Something we should keep in mind that related to both of your points is that some of the inconsistency in capitalization for CDF/PMF has to do with whether they are listed in code syntax or not, as the output type values are lowercase in hubverse terminology and when fed into functions as argument values. Maybe this means we should just standardize to lower case, but I'm open to discussion of this

[eahowerton]

also noting here: need to standardize how x and theta are referred to throughout the text. In (#29) we decided on the sentence: "Throughout this article, we may refer to x as either a ‘value of the target variable’ or a ‘quantile’ depending on the context, and similarly we may refer to \theta as either a ‘quantile level’ or a ‘(cumulative) probability’." But in Table 3 we use "probability level" for the equivalent of "quantile level". I am hesitant to change Table 3, because it matches the hub docs site though... so perhaps we need to reconsider again.

[lshandross]

Personally I don't think it's that much of a problem if Table 3 is slightly different from what's on the hub docs site as long as our changes are being made to be consistent with other language in the manuscript. And even though that part of the documentation site is pretty finalized, there's no guarantee wording won't be changed in the future, so again matching exactly doesn't feel like a huge priority to me