### Table 3: Parameter estimates for Lubik and Schorfheide model

2007

"... In PAGE 20: ...Euro Area data, Table3 presents estimation results from the LS model over 1971Q1 to 2003Q4, using both the LS dataset and also replacing the Euro Area data in LS with our sliding weights data for interest rates, exchange rates and inflation. The table also includes the prior distributions employed in the Bayesian estimation and the LS results over 1983Q1 to 2002Q4, with these taken from LS15.... ..."

### Table 12. Means and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for Antecedents Based on the Final Groups

"... In PAGE 63: ... The groups exhibiting pure forms of externalizing problems (both moderate and chronic) were overrepresented by males, and the same was true for the group exhibiting moderate internalizing-chronic externalizing problems. Antecedents Table 11 shows the means and Standard Deviations (SD) for the antecedents for the whole sample, and Table12 the means and Confidence Intervals (CI) for the antecedents differently for the 8 final groups. The analyses proceeded to compare the low/normative group to the rest of the groups with the use of multinomial logistic regression.... ..."

### Table 3 Maximum likelihood parameter estimates and confidence intervals Distribution Parameter Maximum likelihood

"... In PAGE 7: ...iques. Note from Fig. 4 that the likelihood surface has local maxima, which could prove to be problem- atic for numerical optimisation routines. The maximum likelihood parameter estimates for the data set in Table 2 are listed in Table3 . The parameters of the gamma distribution correspond to a mean time between landslides of 51 years and a standard deviation of 4 years.... In PAGE 8: ... The parameters of the log-normal distribution correspond to a mean landside size of 27 m and a standard deviation of 13 m. The predicted distributions of recession distance over the four durations in the calibration data set, based on the maximum likelihood parameter estimates ( Table3 ), are illustrated in Fig. 5.... In PAGE 10: ...ained at l(h i) C0 0.5 C2 c1,0.05. These confidence inter- vals are listed in Table3 . Note how the parameters of the log-normal distribution are quite precisely identi- fied, while the parameters of the gamma distribution have somewhat larger confidence intervals.... ..."

### Table 4.2: Tree Algorithm We assume that the packet generation interval for both unicast and multicast is exponentially distributed with mean 1= u and 1= m respectively. We also assume that the group apos;s birth and death interval is exponentially distributed with mean 1= g.

### Table 2 Odds Ratios (95% confidence interval) for MZ and DZ Complete Twin Pairs and Tetrachoric Correlations (95% Confidence Interval) Based on Data from Complete and Incomplete Pairs (below bold line)

2005

"... In PAGE 3: ...001 in both age groups). Next, OR and tetrachoric correlations were calcu- lated for each sex by zygosity group ( Table2 ). In Appendix A, the number and percentages of concor- dant exposed, and discordant and concordant not exposed twin pairs are given for the five groups.... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 13: Average and 95% Confidence Interval for Performance Change of MADOV-PTM based on MAODV under Different Group Size

2002

"... In PAGE 10: ...f Group Members ....................................................................................90 Table13 : Average and 95% Confidence Interval for Performance Change of MADOV-PTM based on MAODV under Different Group Size.... In PAGE 103: ... The sharp increase of the delay for MAODV-PTM in the 50 group members scenario indicates the unicast data packet delivery is not suitable for delivering packets a in broadcast environment. Table13 lists the differences of the four metrics under different number of group members between MAODV-PTM and MAODV by comparing them ... ..."

### Table 13: Average and 95% Confidence Interval for Performance Change of MADOV-PTM based on MAODV under Different Group Size

"... In PAGE 10: ...f Group Members ....................................................................................90 Table13 : Average and 95% Confidence Interval for Performance Change of MADOV-PTM based on MAODV under Different Group Size.... In PAGE 103: ... The sharp increase of the delay for MAODV-PTM in the 50 group members scenario indicates the unicast data packet delivery is not suitable for delivering packets a in broadcast environment. Table13 lists the differences of the four metrics under different number of group members between MAODV-PTM and MAODV by comparing them case-by-case, which shows consistency with the general performances... ..."

### Table 4: Independent samples t-test results for comparing interacting group performance between

"... In PAGE 17: ...Table 4: Independent samples t-test results for comparing interacting group performance between experiments, with and without normalisations Hypothesis 1 is supported ( Table4 ). When normalisation is not applied, the mean number of defects reported by the interacting group that employ process roles (mean 2.... ..."

### Table 4. QTL estimator. D is the estimate of additive genetic effects, calculated as half the difference between parental phenotypes. The mean QTL effect and minimum QTL effect are the additive effects (not the percentage variation explained by the locus), derived from univariate analyses of each phenotype. The estimated number of QTL is from equation 6, and the 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) are from equation 9 of Otto and Jones (2000). An exponential distribution of effect sizes was assumed

"... In PAGE 6: ... We combined data from the replicates to esti- mate the difference between the high and low strains for each of the phenotypes. Table4 gives the sum of additive effects for 23 phenotypes, calculated as half the phenotypic difference between the parental lines, the number of detected QTL for each pheno- type, estimates of the mean QTL effect, the smallest detectable QTL effect 1 (Turri et al. 2001a), the num- ber of QTL from the QTL estimator, and the 95% confidence intervals of the latter.... ..."

### Table 5.12: The confidence intervals calculated for inputs generated from a group of subjects Subject Mean Std. dev. 90 % Confidence Interval

2006