Table 6. Present paradigm of màgnare “eat” in Italian, Verona dialect (Bondardo, 1972, p. 150) ss p1 1 xxxxx magnémo 2 màgni magne 3 màgna màgna The Rumanian example shown in Table 3 is another example of a directional syncretism In this case, the first person singular form is dependent on the first person plural form, historically marked in the Romance languages (and, generally, in the Indo-European languages) by the bilabial nasal /m/. In addition to situations where syncretic forms constitute a coherent class of morphosyntactic properties (natural-class syncretism), and situations where pairs of syncretic forms exhibit a sort of directionality (directional syncretism), there are also instances of syncretism where the relation between pairs of syncretic forms may be seen as symmetrical, in that neither pair derives its exponence from the other pair. This type of syncretism has been called morphomic or symmetrical syncretism (Xxxxx, 2016, p. 179). The data on syncretism discussed above challenges the morpheme-based approach and provides further evidence for the paradigm-based approach presented in Section 2.0. In order to account for the ergative/dative syncretism in Yir-Yoront (Table 4) and the third person singular/plural syncretism in Italian (Verona dialect) (Table 6) paradigms are “irreducible” because they identify patterns in which two different paradigm cell license the same word forms. For the third person singular/plural syncretism in Italian, morpheme-based accounts would try to model the relationship between content and formal exponence in the following way (cf. [2a] in the Theoretical framework section):
Table 6. Means of Male and Female Delinquent Groups for Eight Risk/Need Factors Group Male(n = 173)Female (n = 90)Correlations of predictor variables with Note. All univariate F-ratios are ns. Predictor variables (OFF - Prior and current offences/dispositions; FAM - Family Circumstances/Parenting; EDUC - Education/Employment; PEER - Peer Relations; SUB - Substance Abuse; LEIS - Leisure/Recreation; PERS - Personality/Behaviour; ATT - Attitudes/Orientations).3 Values in brackets refer to the maximum score observed in the group. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Critical Evaluation
Table 6. Average Delivered Printing and Writing Paper Prices For Most Common Transactions: U.S. Dollars Per Ton: Uncoated Freesheet Papers" in the issue of the Paper Trader that reports prices elective on that Pricing Date.
Examples of Table 6 in a sentence
Based on the above analysis, AWY substance abuse prevention coalitions in 14 counties are eligible to apply for funding to support strategies for reducing prescription drug abuse as identified in this solicitation (Table 6).
There is currently one (1) legally established WHA8 that overlaps the FDU (Table 6).
More Definitions of Table 6
Table 6. Cutthroat/rainbow trout redds observed in three Lake Chelan tributaries, 2011. Survey Dates Tributary 4/20/11 5/04/11 5/17/11 Total Redds Fish Creek 0 0 0 0 Bear Creek 0 0 0 0 Safety Harbor Creek 0 NSa 0 0 Lake Chelan Level (ft.msl) 1084.1 1083.1 1084.8 aNS=No survey Table 7: Snorkel survey results for three Lake Chelan tributaries, 2011. Tributary Survey Dates Lake Chelan level (ft. msl) Survey Reach Length (m) Fish a Species Length of Fish (cm) <3 3-10 10-20 >20 Fish Creek 9/15/2010 1,098 100 XXX 0 18 29 11 WCT 0 1 1 0 UNK 3 0 0 0 Bear Creekb 9/15/2010 1,098 100 XXX 0 2 1 0 WCT 0 0 0 0 UNK 0 0 0 0 Safety Harbor Creek 09/29/2010 1,097 150 XXX 0 7 8 9 WCT 0 4 4 7 UNK 7 0 0 0 aRBT=rainbow trout; WCT=westslope cutthroat trout; UNK=either XXX or WCT (too small to determine); KOK=kokanee bThe water level was too high to effectively conduct a snorkel survey for Bear Creek. The USFS decided to not survey Lake Chelan tributary spawning grounds in 2012 due to the challenges of logistics, timing, and efficiency. Due to the occurrence of several fires that started in September, the USFS was only able to conduct one snorkel survey in 2012. The survey was conducted on September 12th on Fish Creek; 100 meters were snorkeled and zero fish were observed. In 2013 the USFS was unable to complete the work proposed in the 2013 work plan due to a change in district staffing. The USFS District Ranger has requested that the work planned for 2013 be rolled over to 2014.
Table 6. SUPPORT CLASSIFICATION BETWEEN MCC AND RSC The Table below describes, without limitation, the major functions of the MCC and the RSC. INSCOPE OWNER OUT OF SCOPE ------------------------------------- ------------ ------------- [**] [**] [**] [**] Escalation Management MCC Exchange administration MCC [**] [**] [**] [**] 2nd and 3rd Tier support MCC Crisis management MCC [**] [**] 3rd party contracts management MCC System management & maintenance o Install patches o Change parameter o File system modifications MCC o User setup [**] [**] [**] Remote traveling users MCC Hardware break/fix RSC Hardware replace RSC [**] [**] [**] PORTIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT HAVE BEEN OMITTED PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT FROM THE SEC Statement of Work (SOW) In scope Owner Out of scope ----------------------------------------- --------------- ---------------- 1st Tier support RSC General Software support RSC All Customer purchased application on RSC make it work basis
Table 6. Clustering performance (mean standard deviation) on the MirFlickr dataset. Per- formance metrics Accuracy and Normalized Mutual Information (NMI) are shown. Paired t-tests are performed and the symbol indicates that MMRSC is significant better than the corresponding algorithm at p value< 0.05. The best performance is indicated in bold. Dataset MirFlickr Method Accuracy (%) NMI (%) ConcatKmeans 28.5±3.2 † 31.4±3.7 † 35.7±2.5 † 33.4±2.5 † 31.5±2.0 † 24.0±0.9 † 21.0±1.3 † 36.6±3.6 37.9±1.9 13.3±4.8† 16.4±4.5† 22.2±3.3† 18.7±2.5 † 17.1±2.1 † 12.0±2.3 † 6.6±0.6 † 21.5±3.1 † 23.2±1.3 ConcatNMF ConcatSC ConcatGraphSC CollNMF MultiNMF CONMF-W CONMF-B MMRSC accuracy of 0.21. As we mentioned before, the drawback of CoNMF is that it is impractical to select the best performing coefficient matrix, thus limits its application. MMRSC signifi- cantly outperforms CoNMF-B for the NMI metric, and also has a better performance than CoNMF-B for the Accuracy metric. It shows that on the heterogeneous dataset Mirflickr, MMRSC can achieve a better performance.
Table 6. Means and standard deviations of dive rates, dive segments and dive depths for selected dive types of three adult females. N = 12 for each dive type. Rate (m/see) Duration (rein) FemaleDiveTypeDescentAscent TotalBottom(m) Gi D 1.96.43 1.10.16 17.342.77 4.021.34 54797 A1.86.461.02.13 17.772.61 68793 B.55.05.88● 17 22.223.94 44970TdD1.40.242.11.44 19.821.828.282.0056992 A.99.232.07.45 18.042.84 718127 B.411.22 24.94 436 D.07.65.392.73 4.6523.10 7.0564491(1985) . 13.883.041.5973 E.402.3230.0014.74284 Depth .12 .99 2.85 3.20 37 Legends to Figures
Table 6. 2: Monthly XXXX Oil data for country Z Unit: 1,000 metric tons Monthly balance LPG Naphtha Motor/ aviation gasoline Kerosenes Gas/diesel oi Fuel oi Total oil products Refinery output 88 21 846 557 1955 752 4483 Imports 85 82 63 11 110 348 1878 Exports 19 15 239 10 69 125 48 Stock change 5 6 -12 7 73 -15 54 Statistical difference -6 2 23 35 52 60 ? Demand 155 265 664 615 2863 990 ? Closing Level 26 44 25 62 464 34 884 Monthly balance Subtota six products % of Tota Other oil products % of Tota Refinery output 4408 98.3% 75 1.7% Receipts 0 0.0% 60 100.0% Imports 1790 95.3% 88 4.7% Exports 476 99.0% 5 1.0% Products transferred 0 0.0% 2 100.0% Interproduct transfers 60 -60 Stock change 64 -10 Statistical difference 167 ? Demand 5552 96.9% ? 3.1% Closing Xxxxx 000 96.7% 29 3.3% If the monthly demand of the six major products (sub-total) is 5552 thousand metric tons, then the Total oil products can be calculated using the percentage we derived from the annual balance. We have determined that on a yearly basis the six major products account for 96.9% of demand in the country, therefore we can estimate Total oil products Demand for this month as: 5552/0.969= 5730. (i.e. Subtotal six products / % of Total). The missing Other oil products account for 5730 – 5552 = 178 thousand tons. It is essential however to establish that for none of the flows of the Other oil products there is a strong seasonal trend; should there be, then the seasonality of the product needs to be taken into account when making the estimate
Table 6. Eligible Coalitions County Eligible AWY Member Coalitions Ashland • Chequamegon Coalition on Emerging Drugs • Mashkiiziibii Drug Awareness Coalition (Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians) Columbia • Lodi Community Action Team • Prevention and Response Columbia County Dane • Belleville Area CARES Coalition • Cottage Grove Cares Coalition • Deerfield Cares Coalition • Monona Cares Coalition • Mt. Horeb Cares Coalition • Oregon CARES • Safe Communities Madison and Dane County • StoughtonCARES • Stoughton Wellness Coalition • Waunakee Community Cares Coalition Xxxxxxx Eau Claire • Alliance for Substance Abuse Prevention • Eau Claire Coalition for Youth • Eau Claire Healthy Communities Xxxxxxxx • Xxxxxxxx County AODA & Mental Health Coalition Forest • Community Coalition of Forest County • Mole Lake Coalition Kenosha • Concerned Citizens Coalition on Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse for Greater Kenosha • Women’s Substance Abuse Coalition Marinette • Healthy Youth Coalition of Marinette and Menominee Counties Menominee • Netaenawemakanak Coalition Milwaukee • 27th Street West Drug Free Coalition • Franklin Area Parents and Students United • Milwaukee County Substance Abuse Prevention Coalition (MCSAP) • West Allis-West Milwaukee Community Coalition Oneida • Healthy People, Healthy Oneida County Coalition • Northwoods Tobacco-Free Coalition (NWTFC) Rock • Building A Safer Evansville (BASE) • Edgerton Coalition for a Healthy Community • Janesville Mobilizing 4 Change (JM4C) • Youth2Youth 4 Change Vilas • Healthier Community Action Team (LDF Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians) • Minobimaadiziiwin Coalition • Positive Alternatives Coalition • Vilas County Youth Coalition If an eligible AWY member coalition does not exist in the county, or if there is not an eligible coalition who applies from a county, the AWY RPC will work to support county efforts and coalition building activities in order to strengthen community partnerships and to support an AWY coalition’s efforts in order for an eligible applicant to apply for funding in future years.
Table 6. Health Facility Assessment results «) Stíc"gt»c"i"g t»c Kc; Pop"l»tio" S"ppl; C»»i" (KPSC) Co"doms »"d Ḻ"bíic»"ts Distíib"tio" EMPOWER co"ti""cs to s"ppoít ® Kc; Pop"l»tio" Implcmc"ti"g P»ít"cís (CEDEP P»k»c»cíc, IPAM, ḺICO, Yo"cco, To:wií»"c, T»c»tcí roí C»»"gc »"d J»picgo. T»csc KPIPs co:cí 22 distíicts »cíoss t»c co""tí;.