"... In PAGE 8: ... Estimated and error values obtained by applying the proposed model to three real images (flrst and last columns in table 2) while for intermediate degrees (central column in table 2) higher errors are obtained, specially for those measures found in the last rows (corresponding to measures with high RMSE in table 1). Table3 shows a comparative between our model and the assessments ob- tained from subjects for a mosaic image. The flrst column of this table shows the mosaic image made by several images, each one with a difierent increas- ing perception degree of flneness.... ..."

"... In PAGE 3: ... In contrast to ACORN, MOSAIC features only two subdivisions into 11 groups and 52 types (Webber, 1993). Each neighbourhood receives a rather more evocative description within MOSAIC, for example apos;Pebble Dash Subtopia apos; and apos;Bohemian Melting Pot apos;! (see Table2 ). How representative these labels are of the actual populations of these areas is an open question to which we will return shortly.... In PAGE 4: ... One obvious shortcoming of EuroMOSAIC is in reconciling it with the national UK system. Referring back to Table2 , the EuroMOSAIC codes for each MOSAIC type are shown in the far right-hand column. We can see that the correspondence between the higher level MOSAIC groupings and the EuroMOSAIC groups is far from one-to- one.... In PAGE 22: ...Table 1. A categorisation of 1991 census agencies (based on information from Leventhal et al, 1993) Table2 . MOSAIC groups and types (Webber, 1993) Table 3.... ..."

"... In PAGE 40: ...where a0 and a33 are the block numbers of an image being divided into on length and on width, respectively, a18 is the number of quantization colours; and a1 a20 a8 a1 a19 a5 is the colour histogram for a13 th colour in a19 th block of image A. For example, the GCHs as well as the LCHs under 2x2 blocks of an original image, and its image mosaic under 4 quantization colours, are shown in Table14 . According to Equation 13, the GCH distance between the original image and image mosaic A is: a0 a5a4 a35 a3a2 a1 a6 a27 a3 a5 a8 a32 a11 a32 a23a22 As well, according to Equation 16, the average LCH distance between them is: a0 a0 a35 a3a2 a1 a6 a27 a3 a5 a8 a32 a11 a24 a32 a23a31 Then according to Equation 15, the MLCH Distance between the original image and image mosaic A is: a0 a0 a1a0 a35 a3a2 a1 a6 a27 a3 a5 a8 a32 a11 a24 a32 a23a31 a12 a32 a11 a32 a23a22 a8 a32 a11 a10 a30a23a31 Three distance measures have been discussed up till now in this section.... ..."

"... In PAGE 40: ... All participants resided in either Burnaby or Maple Ridge (where the largest number of discharges took place) and had been discharged as of March 1999. According to Livadiotakis, Gutman amp; Hollander (2003), when asked overall, how are you coping since your home support service was eliminated and you were discharged from continuing care? , answers fell broadly into these categories ( Table2 ): 30 ... In PAGE 88: ... The sample size for the combined data set was 88,865 (796 of which were interRAI CHA assessments). For the purposes of the logistic regression, CCACs were included, only if they matched regions with an interRAI CHA site (see Table2 0). Also, the RAI HC data was limited to those 75 years or older in order to match the interRAI CHA age cut-off.... In PAGE 89: ... Interaction terms (suggested in the literature) were tested for significance and found not to be significant. Bivariate analyses ( Table2 1) revealed significant relationship between the majority of potential independent variables and assessment type (interRAI CHA or RAI HC). Multicollinearity was tested for and found not to be a concern for the variables included in the equation.... In PAGE 89: ...nvolvement and bathing appeared non-linear. The Odds Ratio and corresponding 95% C.I. and c statistic for each potential independent variable, controlling for gender and age, was calculated ( Table2 2) in order to determine possible candidates for the logistic regression equation. Age and gender were non-significant and therefore not included in the final equations.... In PAGE 89: ... Not being self-reliant, having ADL decline, having more falls, self reporting to be in poor health, not reporting being lonely and living with others make one more likely to be receiving CCAC home care support (rather than support through a community support agency). The final c statistic for the first model ( Table2 3) was 0.85.... In PAGE 94: ....70. With whom the client lived is no longer significant and was dropped form the equation. The point estimates are much lower for this equation than for the first equation predicting being a CHA or HC client (see Table2 3); however, the same pattern is observed such that age and gender remain non-significant and self-reliance, ADL decline, having more falls, self reporting to be in poor health and not reporting being lonely make one more likely to be receiving CCAC home care support (LC home support specifically). A third logistic regression model predicting the likelihood of being a light care CCAC client (versus a CHA client who does not access supportive housing services) shows a similar pattern of variables (see Table 25).... In PAGE 94: ....70. With whom the client lived is no longer significant and was dropped form the equation. The point estimates are much lower for this equation than for the first equation predicting being a CHA or HC client (see Table 23); however, the same pattern is observed such that age and gender remain non-significant and self-reliance, ADL decline, having more falls, self reporting to be in poor health and not reporting being lonely make one more likely to be receiving CCAC home care support (LC home support specifically). A third logistic regression model predicting the likelihood of being a light care CCAC client (versus a CHA client who does not access supportive housing services) shows a similar pattern of variables (see Table2 5).... ..."

"... In PAGE 2: ... All measurements were done in December, 1998. Table1 gives a qualitative description of the set of data. We use the smallest ping packet (36 bytes: 20 bytes for IP head, 8 bytes for ICMP head, and 8 bytes for the two times- tamps) in our experiment in wish to minimumize the interfer- ence to other users.... ..."