Xxxxx’x κ Sample Clauses

Xxxxx’x κ. Xxxxx’x κ coefficient measures the concordance between two judges classifications of m elements into k mutually exclusive categories. Xxxxx defined the coefficient as “the proportion of chance-expected disagreements which do not occur, or alternatively, it is the proportion of agreement after chance agreement is removed from consideration” [5]. The coefficient is defined as‌ κ = Po − Pc , 1 − Pc where Po is the proportion of units for which the judges agreed (relative observed agreement among raters) and Pc is the proportion of units for which agreement is expected by chance (chance-expected agreement). In order to compute these proportions, we will use the so-called contingency matrix, as shown in Table 3. This is a square matrix of order the number of categories k. The (i, j)-entry, denoted ci,j, is the number of times that an item was assigned to the i-th category by judge J1 and to the j-th category by judge J2. In this way, the elements of the form ci,i are precisely the agreements in the evaluations. J1 Category 2 c1,2 c2,2 · · ·
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Xxxxx’x κ. In [13] Xxxxxxxxxx describes two inter-annotator agreement metrics: Xxxxx’x κ [12] and original Krippendorff α [14]. κ = pAO − pAE 1 − pAE α = 1 pDO pDE − κ is defined as the difference of observed agreement (pAO ) and chance agree- ment (pAE ) while α involves the observed non-agreement (pDO ) and chance non-agreement (pDE ). Passonneau shows that α = κ, so in the further part of the text we concentrate on the procedure of calculating κ. Annotator A Label X Label Y Σ Annotator B Label X 47 14 61 Label Y 10 29 39 α and κ can be calculated when coincidence matrix is available for multi- ple annotators’ decisions (with data how frequent each of the annotators were choosing each label). For example, when it is defined as in Table 2, we can calculate: pAO = 47 + 29 = 0.76 100 pAE = 100 ∗ 100 + 100 ∗ 100 = 0.5154 ∗ Observed agreement shows diagonally in the matrix. Expected agreement is based on the probability of selection of each label by each annotator. For instance, when annotator A selected label X in 57% decisions and annotator B in 61% decisions, the chance that they accidentally chose the same label A is (57/100) (61/100). The sum of probabilities for all labels gives the expected agreement. Finally for Table 2 we have: κ = pAO − pAE 1 − pAE = 0.5 For the coreference annotation agreement assessment, crucial decision is to choose how to represent coreference annotation in coincidence matrix similar to Table 2. We present some approaches in the following sections. For the reason described in the near-identity section, we suggest calculating the agreement for each text separately and then averaging it.
Xxxxx’x κ. We can also consider the case where an estimate of the IAA matrix M is not available and we only have access to a scalar representation of the inter-annotator agreement like Xxxxx’x κ. In this case we can only estimate one parameter and hence the matrix T has to be parameterized by a single parameter that can be estimated. One particular example is the case where the noise is uniform among classes. Under these hypotheses, T is a ma- trix with all values 1 − p on the diagonal and p off the dominant, the exact details about the generation of T can be found in Appendix D.1. For each annotator we produce their prediction according to the matrix T . We run exper- iments for the number of annotators H = 10, 7, 3, 2. We report here the results for H = 10, and 4 classes, all the other plots are in D.1. In Fig. 4 (as well as the the plots in the appendix) we can be observed that the error in the esti- mation decreases as √1 with n number of samples, which is in agreement with the bound provided in Theorem 4.3. We also observed that, as expected, the estimation becomes diagonal. C−1 more accurate as the number of annotators increases. Lemma 5.1 (Relationship between p and κ). In the case of classification with uniform noise for two homogeneous annotators with noise rate p, i.e if a is one annotator, P(ya = i|y = j) = p if i j. If the distribution of the p = (1 − C−1)(1 − √κ) (22) with κ the Xxxxx’x kappa coefficient of the two annotators (see Appendix A). Proof. The proof can be found in Appendix C.6. C 1) −1 (this follows from the fact that in this case T can be written as a weighted summation of the identity and a rank-one matrix). Hence using Eq.

Related to Xxxxx’x κ

  • Xxxxxx Failure by either party to take action or assert any right under this Contract will not be deemed a waiver of such right in the event of the continuation or repetition of the circumstances giving rise to such right. Any such waiver must be in writing and signed by the parties.

  • XXXXXXX Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxxx

  • Xxxxxxx, P E. will perform as the Consultant’s principal for this Project. As principal on this Project, this person shall be the primary contact with the Utilities Director, Utilities Engineer, or another person so designated, and shall have authority to bind the Consultant. So long as the individual named above remains actively employed or retained by the Consultant, he/she shall perform the function of principal on this Project.

  • Xxxxxxxx District reserves the right to terminate or otherwise suspend this Contract if District's Board determines that funding is insufficient to remain fully open and calls for a District-wide furlough or similar temporary District reduction in operations. Any temporary closure shall not affect amounts due Contractor under this Contract, subject to a pro-rated adjustment for reduction in services or need for goods during the furlough.

  • Xxxxxxx, Xx Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxx, Xx. has served as a Senior Vice President of IPT since August 1997, and served as Vice President and Director of Operations of IPT from December 1996 until August 1997. Xx. Xxxxxxx'x principal employment has been with Insignia for more than the past five years. From January 1994 to September 1997, Xx. Xxxxxxx served as Managing Director-- Partnership Administration of Insignia. PRESENT PRINCIPAL OCCUPATION OR EMPLOYMENT AND NAME FIVE-YEAR EMPLOYMENT HISTORY ---- ---------------------------- Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx has served as Vice President and Treasurer of IPT since December 1996. Xx. Xxxxxx served as a Vice President of IPT from December 1996 until August 1997 and as Chief Financial Officer of IPT from May 1996 until December 1996. For additional information regarding Xx. Xxxxxx, see Schedule III.

  • Xxxxxx, Xx Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxxx

  • Xxxxxxxx Xxxx Xxx #000, Xxxxxx, XX 00000

  • Xxxxxxx Xxxx CareFirst BlueChoice’s Service Area is a clearly defined geographic area in which CareFirst BlueChoice has arranged for the provision of health care services to be generally available and readily accessible to Members. CareFirst BlueChoice will provide the Member with a specific description of the Service Area at the time of enrollment. The Service Area is as follows: the District of Columbia; the state of Maryland; in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the cities of Alexandria and Fairfax, Arlington County, the town of Vienna and the areas of Fairfax and Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Counties in Virginia lying east of Route 123. SAMPLE If a Member temporarily lives out of the Service Area (for example, if a Dependent goes to college in another state), the Member may be able to take advantage of the CareFirst BlueChoice Away From Home Program. This Program may allow a Member who resides out of the Service Area for an extended period of time to utilize the benefits of an affiliated Blue Cross and Blue Shield HMO. This Program is not coordination of benefits. A Member who takes advantage of the Away From Home Program will be subject to the rules, regulations and plan benefits of the affiliated Blue Cross and Blue Shield HMO. If the Member makes a permanent move, he/she does not have to wait until the Annual Open Enrollment Period to change plans. Please call 000-000-0000 or visit xxx.xxxx.xxx for more information on the Away from Home Program. This attachment contains certain terms that have a specific meaning as used herein. These terms are capitalized and defined in Section A below, and/or in the Individual Enrollment Agreement to which this document is attached. These procedures replace all prior procedures issued by CareFirst BlueChoice, which afford CareFirst BlueChoice Members recourse pertaining to denials and reductions of claims for benefits by CareFirst BlueChoice. These procedures only apply to claims for benefits. Notification required by these procedures will only be sent when a Member requests a benefit or files a claim in accordance with CareFirst BlueChoice procedures. An authorized representative may act on behalf of the Member in pursuing a benefit claim or appeal of an Adverse Benefit Determination. CareFirst BlueChoice may require reasonable proof to determine whether an individual has been properly authorized to act on behalf of a Member. In the case of a claim involving Urgent/Emergent Care, a Health Care Provider with knowledge of a Member's medical condition is permitted to act as the authorized representative. SAMPLE

  • Xxxxxx, P A., special counsel for IMC, in IMC's capacity as both Seller and Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, and/or Xxxxx & Xxxxxx LLP shall have furnished to the Underwriters their written opinion or opinions, addressed to the Underwriters and the Depositor and dated the Closing Date, in form and substance satisfactory to the Underwriters, to the effect that:

  • XXXXXXS xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxo desire to modify the Pooling and Servicing Agreement as set forth in this Amendment;

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!