Detection of single vs Sample Clauses

Detection of single vs multiple feature types Having come to the view above that a range of feature types might be viably detected in iMars imagery by citizen scientists, we carried out an optimisation experiment to assess whether it might be better to ask individual participants to search for a range of different features (a “General” strategy) or whether it might be more optimal to partition participants so that they looked only for a specific feature (a “Specific” strategy). Our analysis of the literature, discussed below, demonstrated that there were arguments on both sides generated through research interest primarily in industrial inspection. Thus, we had a fundamental human science issue to resolve. In this experiment non-planetary imagery was used (photographs of cork tiles some of which contained ‘features’ in the form of defects – scratches, notches and so on) in order to rapidly generate a high volume of appropriate imagery. The most relevant research base to the iMars citizen science task of inspecting planetary imagery for changed features is that which concerns industrial visual inspection, particularly in manufacturing quality control, but also in security and medical contexts (i.e., the inspection of X-rays images). Although the industrial (and consequently, research) emphasis on rapid visual inspection has generally declined in the manufacturing arena as computer-controlled manufacturing made visual inspection of finished goods less important as a locus of quality control, there remains a significant literature that examined the best ways of organising this activity. Two main strategies of improving performance for inspection have been identified in literature. One approach (the “General strategy”) is to ask inspectors to search for a range of defects. This increases the amount of targets that can be found and makes the task more stimulating and avoids the vigilance decrement, wherein performance falls in a repetitive task where valid targets only rarely appear. Alternatively, another approach (the “Specific strategy”) is to ask inspectors to only look for a specific type of defect. Reducing the number of things to “look out for” and allowing the viewer to specialise can improve performance (Xxxxxx & Xxxxxx, 1969, Megaw et al., 1979). While both these claims can be seen as intuitively valid, on consideration one might also notice that in any specific situation these would be contradictory approaches. In a real world task, a Specialised approach means that in any...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Detection of single vs

  • Compaction of surfaces 5 Compaction of ground surface under floors etc including scarifying for a depth of 150mm, breaking down oversize material, adding suitable material where necessary and compacting to 95% Mod AASHTO density. m2 96

  • Protection of Site from encroachments During the Concession Period, the Concessionaire shall protect the Site from any and all occupations, encroachments or Encumbrances, and shall not place or create nor permit any Contractor or other person claiming through or under the Concessionaire to place or create any Encumbrance or security interest over all or any part of the Site or the Project Assets, or on any rights of the Concessionaire therein or under this Agreement, save and except as otherwise expressly set forth in this Agreement.

  • Distribution of UDP and TCP queries DNS probes will send UDP or TCP “DNS test” approximating the distribution of these queries.

  • Transportation of Students Employees will not be required to transport students.

  • Use of Attachment Facilities by Third Parties Purpose of Attachment Facilities.‌‌ Except as may be required by Applicable Laws and Regulations, or as otherwise agreed to among the Parties, the Attachment Facilities shall be constructed for the sole purpose of interconnecting the Large Generating Facility to the New York State Transmission System and shall be used for no other purpose.

  • DESTRUCTION OF STATE DATA At any time during the term of this Contract within thirty days of

  • Access to System If Business Associate needs access to a Covered Entity Information Technology system to comply with its obligations under the Contract or this Agreement, Business Associate shall request, review, and comply with any and all policies applicable to Covered Entity regarding such system including, but not limited to, any policies promulgated by the Office of Information Technology and available at xxxx://xxx.xxxxx.xx.xx/about/policies.

  • Transfer or Deletion of Student Data The Provider shall review, on an annual basis, whether the Student Data it has received pursuant to the DPA continues to be needed for the purpose(s) of the Service Agreement and this DPA. If any of the Student Data is no longer needed for purposes of the Service Agreement and this DPA, the Provider will provide written notice to the LEA as to what Student Data is no longer needed. The Provider will delete or transfer Student Data in readable form to the LEA, as directed by the LEA (which may be effectuated through Exhibit D of the DPA), within 30 calendar days if the LEA requests deletion or transfer of the Student Data and shall provide written confirmation to the LEA of such deletion or transfer. Upon termination of the Service Agreement between the Provider and LEA, Provider shall conduct a final review of Student Data within 60 calendar days. If the LEA receives a request from a parent, as that term is defined in 105 ILCS 10/2(g), that Student Data being held by the Provider be deleted, the LEA shall determine whether the requested deletion would violate State and/or federal records laws. In the event such deletion would not violate State or federal records laws, the LEA shall forward the request for deletion to the Provider. The Provider shall comply with the request and delete the Student Data within a reasonable time period after receiving the request. Any provision of Student Data to the LEA from the Provider shall be transmitted in a format readable by the LEA.

  • Rectification of Safety Hazard 60.12 Where, because of the existence of a safety hazard, a site has been stopped for a defined period of time and Employees sent off site by agreement between Site Managers and any combination of Union Official/s, Health and Safety Committee, those people who remain on site to do rectification work will be paid at the rate of double time for all such work.

  • Distribution of Public Keys Each of Registry Operator and Escrow Agent will distribute its public key to the other party (Registry Operator or Escrow Agent, as the case may be) via email to an email address to be specified. Each party will confirm receipt of the other party’s public key with a reply email, and the distributing party will subsequently reconfirm the authenticity of the key transmitted via offline methods, like in person meeting, telephone, etc. In this way, public key transmission is authenticated to a user able to send and receive mail via a mail server operated by the distributing party. Escrow Agent, Registry Operator and ICANN will exchange public keys by the same procedure.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.