Tools
Sorted by:
Try your query at:
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Results 11 - 20
of
22,290
TABLE 3: The rate of response for the survey, in number and per cent Category No. of Targeted Companies No. of Respondent
2004
Table 3. Categories in the FreeBSD target Index Name Index Name
2007
"... In PAGE 4: ...http://www.gnu.org/). Among them we have chosen the Packages and Ports Collection of FreeBSD as the target, since it is well maintained and it is already partitioned into categories. The size characteristic of the FreeBSD target and its cat- egory names are shown in Table 2 and Table3 respectively. The FreeBSD target sometimes includes several versions of the same project, for example versions 1.... ..."
Cited by 2
Table 2: Results of the two-target-speaker detection experiments for the alldata category.
1999
"... In PAGE 4: ... Similar observations can be made at the segment level. Table2 reports results for the two-target-speaker detection ex- periments. The results are reported only for data from the alldata category (total duration = 410 minutes), and when B1 only is used as background model.... ..."
Cited by 5
Table 2: Results of the two-target-speaker detection experiments for the alldata category.
1999
"... In PAGE 4: ... Similar observations can be made at the segment level. Table2 reports results for the two-target-speaker detection ex- periments. The results are reported only for data from the alldata category (total duration = 410 minutes), and when B1 only is used as background model.... ..."
Cited by 5
Table 1: Results using different image spam filters. The categories shown in bold are the targeted group for each filter.
2007
Cited by 1
Table 5. Area 3A data from 2007 interviews showing halibut released by hook type and target category for each user group, and calculation of discard mortality rates (DMRs) by port. Overall DMRs for each port and user listed at right in bold text. No. Halibut Released by Hook Type
2007
"... In PAGE 8: ...stimated DMRs in Area 3A ranged from 3.5%-6.5% in the charter fishery and 3.5%-6.6% in the private boat fishery ( Table5 ). Circle hooks accounted for the majority of halibut released in the charter and private fisheries.... In PAGE 20: ... 19 Table5 (continued). No.... ..."
Table I Summary of takeover classification This table summarizes the results of section 3 classifying takeovers based on how much information can be extracted from stock prices surrounding the takeover event. In Category I, investors know that one of the bidders will acquire the firm. In Category II, investors know that there is positive probability that the target will remain a stand-alone company. Category IIA occurs when the target is taken over. Category IIB occurs when it is not. Comparative synergies implies that while it is not possible to solve for the actual synergies in the acquisition, it is possible to see which bidder-target combination offered higher synergies. Category I Category II # of
2002
Table 1: Classification of targets.
"... In PAGE 3: ...From the observation of TV programs, we consider cameraworks from two points of view: which tar- get we want to shoot, and which aspect-of-target we want to focus. Table1 shows the category of targets that we prepared for this purpose. Table 2 shows the category of aspect-of-target.... ..."
Table 1. A schematic distribution of targets and nontargets in each experiment on a unidimen- sional feature scale. Each distribution represents a single object across all views. The distances between the objects are relative and depend on the interobject similarity. Highly similar objects, such as different exemplar objects from the same category, are located near to each other whilst less similar objects, such as objects from different categories, are located far from each other. Targets are illustrated in darker shading. In experiment 1 for example, a target object was shown in either the exemplar condition where all nontargets are represented close to the target or in the category condition where all nontargets are represented far from the target. A unidimensional scale is used for the purposes of illustration only and is not meant to represent any metric differences between the objects.
1997
"... In PAGE 5: ...51 Table1 shows a schematic illustration of the different similarity conditions and the number of target objects used across the experiments. In experiment 1, recognising a single target object from amongst a set of nontarget objects shown across different views in both the exemplar and the category condition was examined.... In PAGE 15: ... Once the subjects learned to discriminate each target from an exemplar, they were then tested on the discrimina tion of all the target objects shown together in the same test (as in experiments 3 and 4). Table1 illustrates the design of this experiment. If the view-dependent recogni tion performance found in experiments 3 and 4 was due to a reduction in the ability of the system to learn to discriminate between the target and exemplar nontarget because of the presence of many targets, then it was expected that prior learning of the differences between the exemplars would result in view-independent recognition performance when the target set size increased.... ..."
Table IV. SI-target values separately for the three speakers averaged across three of the four fricative categories.
Results 11 - 20
of
22,290
