Model Accuracy Evaluation Results Sample Clauses

Model Accuracy Evaluation Results. ‌ I used the generated futures prices to calculate four RMSEs. First, I calculated RMSEs of the generated in-sample live hog futures prices. This gives a base model error to compare to the other results. Second, I calculated RMSEs of the generated out-of- sample live hog futures prices. Third, I generated out-of-sample hypothetical lean hog futures prices by using a Kalman Filter model and calculated the RMSEs. Fourth, I generated out-of-sample hypothetical lean hog futures prices using the SUR methods and calculated the RMSEs. Table 6.4 RMSE of generated live hog futures prices RMSE Feb Apr Jun Jul Aug Oct Dec In-sample $/cwt % 0.88 1.88 0.78 1.67 1.32 2.80 1.01 2.15 0.97 2.07 0.89 1.90 1.06 2.26 Out-of-sample $/cwt % 1.48 3.15 2.68 5.70 3.58 7.62 3.64 7.75 4.29 9.13 4.89 10.41 4.87 10.37 Note: RMSE organized by contract month. % RMSE is the $/cwt RMSE divided by the average live hog price during 1996, 46.97 $/cwt, times 100. Table 6.5 RMSE of generated lean hog futures prices RMSE Feb Apr Jun Jul Aug Oct Dec Out-of-sample $/cwt 3.24 2.83 4.67 5.94 8.68 8.00 10.28 Kalman Filter % 4.44 3.88 6.40 8.14 11.89 10.96 14.08 Out-of-sample $/cwt 8.06 7.30 10.4 11.8 15.0 13.9 16.7 SUR % 11.04 10.00 14.24 16.16 20.55 19.04 22.87 Note: RMSE organized by contract month and all contracts were for expiration in 1997. All prices used were on or before 11/29/1996. % RMSE is the $/cwt RMSE divided by the average live hog price during 1996, 73.01 $/cwt, times 100. RMSEs of the in-sample live hog futures are displayed in table 6.4. To allow better comparison of RMSE of live hog futures to RMSE of lean hog futures, RMSE is also shown as a percent of the overall average live hog price during the sample period and organized by contract month. This is a more appropriate measure of comparison because live hog prices are much lower, with an average of 46.97 $/cwt, than lean hog prices, with an average of 73.01 $/cwt. The RMSEs of the out-of-sample live hog futures prices are also shown in table 6.4 organized by contract month. These RMSEs are higher than the RMSEs of the in-sample live hog futures generated. This shows that the model for existing futures will have larger errors when the prices generated are out-of-sample, and motivates the use of these out-of-sample RMSEs in comparison to the RMSEs of the hypothetical lean hog futures prices. It needs to be noted that the generated prices have different out-of-sample lengths. The latest maturity futures prices used in the estimati...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Model Accuracy Evaluation Results

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

  • JOC EVALUATION If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and xxxx them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials. No response TIPS/ESC Region 8 is required by Texas Government Code § 791 to be compensated for its work and thus, failure to agree shall render your response void and it will not be considered. Yes - No Vendor agrees to remit to TIPS the required administration fee or, if resellers are named, guarantee the fee remittance by or for the reseller named by the vendor?

  • Focused Evaluation The Focused Evaluation is used when a teacher is not evaluated using the Comprehensive Evaluation process, and will include evaluation of one of the eight state criteria (student growth impact required). If a non-provisional teacher has scored at Proficient or higher the previous year, they may be moved to Focused Evaluation. The teacher may remain on the Focused Evaluation for five (5) years before returning to the Comprehensive Evaluation. The teacher or the evaluator can initiate a move from the Focused to the Comprehensive Evaluation. A decision to move a teacher from a Focused to a Comprehensive Evaluation must occur by December 15.

  • PROGRESS EVALUATION Engineer shall, from time to time during the progress of the Engineering Services, confer with County at County’s election. Engineer shall prepare and present such information as may be pertinent and necessary, or as may be reasonably requested by County, in order for County to evaluate features of the Engineering Services. At the request of County or Engineer, conferences shall be provided at Engineer's office, the offices of County, or at other locations designated by County. When requested by County, such conferences shall also include evaluation of the Engineering Services. County may, from time to time, require Engineer to appear and provide information to the Xxxxxxxxxx County Commissioners Court. Should County determine that the progress in Engineering Services does not satisfy an applicable Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto, then County shall review same with Engineer to determine corrective action required. Engineer shall promptly advise County in writing of events which have or may have a significant impact upon the progress of the Engineering Services, including but not limited to the following:

  • Re-evaluation a) When a job has moved to a higher group as a result of re-evaluation, the resulting rate shall be retroactive from the date that Management or the employee has applied to the Plant Job Review Committee for re-evaluation.

  • Project Monitoring Reporting Evaluation A. The Project Implementing Entity shall monitor and evaluate the progress of its activities under the Project and prepare Project Reports in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.08(b) of the General Conditions and on the basis of indicators agreed with the Bank. Each such report shall cover the period of one

  • FINANCIAL EVALUATION (a) The financial bid shall be opened of only those bidders who have been found to be technically eligible. The financial bids shall be opened in presence of representatives of technically eligible bidders, who may like to be present. The institute shall inform the date, place and time for opening of financial bid.

  • BID EVALUATION The Commissioner reserves the right to accept or reject any and all Bids, or separable portions of Bids, and waive technicalities, irregularities, and omissions if the Commissioner determines the best interests of the State will be served. The Commissioner, in his/her sole discretion, may accept or reject illegible, incomplete or vague Bids and his/her decision shall be final. A conditional or revocable Bid which clearly communicates the terms or limitations of acceptance may be considered, and Contract award may be made in compliance with the Bidder’s conditional or revocable terms in the Bid.

  • TEACHER EVALUATION A. All monitoring or observation of the work performance of a teacher shall be conducted openly and with full knowledge of the teacher.

  • Forecasting Requirements 19.5.1 The Parties shall exchange technical descriptions and forecasts of their Interconnection and traffic requirements in sufficient detail necessary to establish the Interconnections necessary for traffic completion to and from all Customers in their respective designated service areas.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.