Results 1 - 10 of 144

Table 2. Retrospective study.

in unknown title
by unknown authors

Table 4: Retrospective cluster evaluation

in Recognizing and organizing opinions expressed in the world press
by Janyce Wiebe, Eric Breck, Chris Buckley, Claire Cardie, Paul Davis, Bruce Fraser, Diane Litman, David Pierce, Ellen Riloff, Theresa Wilson, David Day, Mark Maybury 2003
"... In PAGE 8: ... Cluster these passages using the same algorithms as previously. Table4 gives the results for the same Zimbabwe and Kyoto topic discussed above, except using the answer segments as passages. The Zimbabwe topic gives almost perfect results.... ..."
Cited by 15

Table 4: Retrospective cluster evaluation

in Recognizing and Organizing Opinions
by Expressed In The, Janyce Wiebe, Eric Breck, Chris Buckley, Claire Cardie, Paul Davis, Bruce Fraser, Diane Litman, David Pierce, Ellen Riloff, Theresa Wilson, David Day, Mark Maybury 2003
"... In PAGE 8: ... Cluster these passages using the same algorithms as previously. Table4 gives the results for the same Zimbabwe and Kyoto topic discussed above, except using the answer segments as passages. The Zimbabwe topic gives almost perfect results.... ..."
Cited by 15

Table 3: Retrospective Detection Results: Duplicates Allowed.

in Topic Detection and Tracking Pilot Study Final Report
by James Allan, Jaime Carbonell, George Doddington, Jonathan Yamron, Yiming Yang 1998
Cited by 166

Table 2: Retrospective Power Analysis Type I

in %power: A Simple Macro For Power And Sample Size Calculations
by Kristin Lato Ur
"... In PAGE 2: ...05 0.01, N = 60); Table2 displays the resulting output. Table 2: Retrospective Power Analysis Type I... ..."

Table 7 Outcome vs Retrospect EB, 1995

in
by unknown authors
"... In PAGE 7: ... To estimate one project we use the other six to create an effort experience base in retrospect. This is done for all the seven projects and the relative differences between the outcome of the projects and the retrospect experience base are presented in Table7 and 8. In Table 7 from 1995 we can see that it is only two out of the seven projects that have a difference smaller then 10% and three of them had very large deviations.... In PAGE 7: ... This is done for all the seven projects and the relative differences between the outcome of the projects and the retrospect experience base are presented in Table 7 and 8. In Table7 from 1995 we can see that it is only two out of the seven projects that have a difference smaller then 10% and three of them had very large deviations. Project 2 and Project 5 consisted of three development groups and they have extremely different outcomes.... ..."

Table 2: results of retrospective relevance weighting

in Vries, ‘Relating the new language models of information retrieval to the traditional retrieval models.’ CTIT
by Djoerd Hiemstra, Arjen P. De Vries 2000
Cited by 15

Table 4. Results of the retrospective transient GA

in Crossover improvement for the genetic algorithm in information retrieval
by Dana Vrajitoru 1998
Cited by 9

Table 22. Additional transition rules for retrospection

in Splitting bisimulations and retrospective conditions
by J. A. Bergstra, C. A. Middelburg
Cited by 2

Table 8 Outcome vs Retrospect EB, 1996

in
by unknown authors
"... In PAGE 7: ... Even though they have produced the same software the figures vary very much. Four out of the seven projects in Table8 have a difference smaller than 10% and the deviations are not as large as the ones from the straightforward experience base. The largest differences are still related to Project 2 and 6, which consisted of five development groups.... ..."
Results 1 - 10 of 144