Summary of Results and Discussion
Summary of Results and Discussion Sample Clauses
Related to Summary of Results and Discussion
Results and Discussion Table 1 (top) shows the root mean square error (RMSE) between the three tests for different numbers of topics. These results show that all three tests largely agree with each other but as the sample size (number of topics) decreases, the agreement decreases. In line with the results found for 50 topics, the randomization and bootstrap tests agree more with the t-test than with each other. We looked at pairwise scatterplots of the three tests at the different topic sizes. While there is some disagreement among the tests at large p-values, i.e. those greater than 0.5, none of the tests would predict such a run pair to have a significant difference. More interesting to us is the behavior of the tests for run pairs with lower p-values. ≥ Table 1 (bottom) shows the RMSE among the three tests for run pairs that all three tests agreed had a p-value greater than 0.0001 and less than 0.5. In contrast to all pairs with p-values 0.0001 (Table 1 top), these run pairs are of more importance to the IR researcher since they are the runs that require a statistical test to judge the significance of the per- formance difference. For these run pairs, the randomization and t tests are much more in agreement with each other than the bootstrap is with either of the other two tests. Looking at scatterplots, we found that the bootstrap tracks the t-test very well but shows a systematic bias to produce p-values smaller than the t-test. As the number of topics de- creases, this bias becomes more pronounced. Figure 1 shows a pairwise scatterplot of the three tests when the number of topics is 10. The randomization test also tends to produce smaller p-values than the t-test for run pairs where the t- test estimated a p-value smaller than 0.1, but at the same time, produces some p-values greater than the t-test’s. As Figure 1 shows, the bootstrap consistently gives smaller p- values than the t-test for these smaller p-values. While the bootstrap and the randomization test disagree with each other more than with the t-test, Figure 1 shows that for a low number of topics, the randomization test shows less noise in its agreement with the bootstrap com- Figure 1: A pairwise comparison of the p-values less than 0.25 produced by the randomization, t-test, and the bootstrap tests for pairs of TREC runs with only 10 topics. The small number of topics high- lights the differences between the three tests. pared to the t-test for small p-values.
MEET AND DISCUSS A. Upon request of either party, the Chancellor and/or designees of the Chancellor shall during the term of this Agreement meet with a committee appointed by the Association for the purpose of discussing matters necessary to the implementation of this Agreement.
Records Audit and Disclosure 5.01 Access to records, books, and documents In addition to any right of access arising by operation of law, Performing Agency and any of Performing Agency’s affiliate or subsidiary organizations, or Subcontractors shall permit the System Agency or any of its duly authorized representatives, as well as duly authorized federal, state or local authorities, unrestricted access to and the right to examine any site where business is conducted or Services are performed, and all records, which includes but is not limited to financial, client and patient records, books, papers or documents related to this Contract. If the Contract includes federal funds, federal agencies that shall have a right of access to records as described in this section include: the federal agency providing the funds, the Comptroller General of the United States, the General Accounting Office, the Office of the Inspector General, and any of their authorized representatives. In addition, agencies of the State of Texas that shall have a right of access to records as described in this section include: the System Agency, HHSC, HHSC's contracted examiners, the State Auditor’s Office, the Texas Attorney General's Office, and any successor agencies. Each of these entities may be a duly authorized authority. If deemed necessary by the System Agency or any duly authorized authority, for the purpose of investigation or hearing, Performing Agency shall produce original documents related to this Contract. The System Agency and any duly authorized authority shall have the right to audit xxxxxxxx both before and after payment, and all documentation that substantiates the xxxxxxxx. Performing Agency shall include this provision concerning the right of access to, and examination of, sites and information related to this Contract in any Subcontract it awards.
Justification and Anticipated Results The Privacy Act requires that each matching agreement specify the justification for the program and the anticipated results, including a specific estimate of any savings. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(o)(1)(B).
UPDATING AND DISCLOSING FINANCIAL INFORMATION You will provide facts to update information contained in Your original Account application or other financial information related to You, at Our request. You also agree that We may, from time to time, as We deem necessary, make inquiries pertaining to Your employment, credit standing and financial responsibility in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. You further agree that We may give information about the status and payment history of Your Account to consumer credit reporting agencies, a prospective employer or insurer, or a state or federal licensing agency having any apparent legitimate business need for such information.
AGREEMENTS AND DISCLOSURES The Agreements and Disclosures provided to You at the time You opened Your Account and referred to throughout this Agreement, contain: (a) a list of fees and charges applicable to Your Account;
Publication of Results The National Aeronautics and Space Act (51 U.S.C. § 20112) requires NASA to provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof. As such, NASA may publish unclassified and non-Proprietary Data resulting from work performed under this Agreement. The Parties will coordinate publication of results allowing a reasonable time to review and comment.
Notice and Disclaimer 2.1. The Data is the property of Xxx Xxxxxxxx and is protected by applicable copyright law. In no event shall User publish, retransmit, display, redistribute, or otherwise reproduce any or all of the Data in any format to anyone, except as allowed in Section 1 of this agreement.
Settlement Discussions This Agreement is part of a proposed settlement of matters that could otherwise be the subject of litigation among the Parties hereto. Nothing herein shall be deemed an admission of any kind. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and any applicable state rules of evidence, this Agreement and all negotiations relating thereto shall not be admissible into evidence in any proceeding other than to prove the existence of this Agreement or in a proceeding to enforce the terms of this Agreement.
Discussion Staff has reviewed the proposal relative to all relevant policies and advise that it is reasonably consistent with the intent of the MPS. Attachment B provides an evaluation of the proposed development agreement in relation to the relevant MPS policies.
