Methods and Materials Sample Clauses

Methods and Materials. ‌ 2.1 Patient population and ground truth labeling

Methods and Materials. For each of the 18820 pairs of the ad-hoc retrieval runs of TREC 3, 5–8, we computed the two-sided statistical sig- nificance (p-value) of the difference in the pair’s mean aver- age precision using each of three tests: the randomization, shifted bootstrap, and Student’s paired t-test. Both the ran- domization and bootstrap are distribution-free tests. Space limitations prevent us from explaining the details of each of these well-known tests. For both the randomization and bootstrap, we performed 100,000 samples. For each pair of runs, we sampled topics without replacement to produce runs with 10, 20, 30, and 40 topics. To compare significance tests, we computed the root mean square error between each test and each other test’s p-values. The root mean square error is: Copyright is held by the author/owner(s). 1 ΣN (Ei − Oi)2 1/2 ACM 978-1-60558-483-6/09/07. N i Pairs of TREC runs with p-values ≥ 0.0001 Number of Topics 50 40 30 20 10 rand. vs. t-test 0.007 0.009 0.011 0.018 0.037 boot. vs. t-test 0.007 0.009 0.011 0.017 0.035 boot. vs. rand. 0.011 0.014 0.017 0.026 0.051 Run pairs with p-value p such that 0.0001 < p < 0.5 rand. vs. t-test 0.005 0.006 0.008 0.012 0.027 boot. vs. t-test 0.008 0.010 0.013 0.020 0.041 boot. vs. rand. 0.010 0.013 0.016 0.024 0.047 Table 1: The root mean square error among the ran- domization (rand.), t-test, and the bootstrap (boot.) test’s p-values for pairs of TREC runs such that all three tests agree that the p-value p is 0.0001 (top) and 0.0001 < p < 0.5 (bottom). where Ei is the estimated p-value given by one test and Oi is the other test’s p-value.

Methods and Materials. To decide upon the means and methods of instruction, the selection of the textbooks and other materials, and the use of teaching aids of every kind and nature-making consultation with the teacher or teachers concerned.

Methods and Materials. The first set of studies was designed to better docu- ment and quantify the variations between British and American English in the use of plural number when an agreement target’s controller or antecedent has a collective head. We gathered two types of data from British and American speakers and writers. First, to assess verb agreement using matched collective and noncollective materials under comparable conditions, we elicited spoken sentence completions from American and British college students. The collective nouns sampled were chosen from a diction- ary of collectives (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1985) to represent a range of human (team, committee), nonhuman animate (herd, flock), corporate (government, association), and ostensibly inanimate (fleet, forest) groupings. Second, for a subset of these collectives we carried out counts of singular andplural verb andpronoun agreement with collective controllers in the Wall Street Journal corpus and the British National Corpus. SPOKEN SENTENCE COMPLETIONS. To compare the incidence of plural agreement after collective controllers with the incidence of plural agreement after semantically related plural and singular noncollectives, thirty-nine students at Michigan State University and thirty-nine students and research workers at Cambridge University provided spoken sentence completions. The completion test was assembled from ninety-six triplets of semantically relatednouns (see Appendix A). Each triplet consistedof a collective (e.g. army), a semantically related noncollective singular (e.g. soldier), and the correspond- ing plural (e.g. soldiers). Three lists of ninety-six simple definite noun phrases were assembledfrom these triplets, with one noun in each noun phrase (e.g. the army). Every list contained one noun from every set and an equal number of nouns of each of the three types (collective, singular, andplural). Across the three lists, every noun occurred just once. The order of the nouns within lists was random, constrained so that there were no more than two successive occurrences of the same kind of noun. The same random order was used for all three lists, so that nouns from the same triplet occurred in the same ordinal position in every list. Each list began with the same four practice items, consisting of two noncollective singulars and two noncollective plurals that differed from the noun phrases used within the lists. The phrases were presented to participants individually under computer control, each phrase appeari...

Methods and Materials. The current study employed quantitative method to examine factors of TAM toward ICT use for English language learning. Besides, it investigated students' activities related to the usage of ICT for general and English language learning purposes. This study used a convenience sample of 303 student teachers of the English Department at a state university in Jambi, Indonesia. The the participants are all student teachers majoring English from the first-year to the fourth-year students enrolled in 2020. The student teachers had formally learned English for three years at secondary school level, three years at high school level, and continue to study English courses as well as receive instruction through the medium of English during their undergraduate study at university. Two hundred thirty-seven respondents are were female (78.2%), and sixty-six respondents are were male (21.8%). The primary instrument to collect data in this study was a questionnaire. The online questionnaire survey was developed by the researchers based on the research question and previous related studies in a close-ended format, and distributed to all of the respondents. The developed questionnaire consists of 33 items. The first section elicited background information of the respondents including gender, academic years, ICT devices ownership, the use of ICT for English learning purposes, and their activities in using ICT for English learning purposes (5 items). The second section entailed the variables of TAM in using ICT for English language learning, which included equipment (Eq), 2 items (adapted from Sabti & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2014); motivation (Mo), 2 items (adapted from ▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2014); ICT skills (Sk), 3 items (adapted from Sabti & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2014); perceived ease of use (PEoU), 5 items (adapted from ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1989; Park, 2009; and Venkatesh & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2000); perceived usefulness (PU), 5 items (adapted from ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1989; Park, 2009, and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2000); attitude (At), 3 items (adapted from ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1989; Park, 2009, and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2000); and actual use (AU), 4 items (adapted from ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1989; ▇▇▇▇, 2009, and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2000), with four-point Likert-type scales, from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree. Before administering the instrument questionnaire in this study, a representative group (25 students) who were not involved in the main study were piloted to allow the researchers to identify and adjust the instrument. Expert judgment and literature rev...

Methods and Materials. The method was developed and refined through a series of failed pilots discussed in the Appendix. The main experiment consisted in acceptability judgments, complemented in some cases with semantic questions to check that the 'stripping' construction was understood in the expected fashion.

Methods and Materials. Participants and contouring instructions Data analysis and statistical methods Results

Methods and Materials. All Work will use like-kind materials and colors, applied with workmanship comparable to that used in the construction or application of those materials being repaired or maintained for the purpose of retaining in good condition the appearance and construction of the Resource and its Character-Defining Features.

Methods and Materials. 290 patients with LARC who underwent multimodality treatment between 1994 and 2006 were studied. For patients who developed LR, the subsite was classified into presacral, postero-lateral, lateral, anterior, anastomotic or perineal. Patient and treatment characteristics were related to subsite of LR.