Відмінності між версіями «Title Loaded From File»

Матеріал з HistoryPedia
Перейти до: навігація, пошук
м
м
Рядок 1: Рядок 1:
Adjustments more than time in adolescent.Eliability, primarily based on double coding of all interactions by trained graduate students, was calculated making use of intraclass correlation coefficients, and was inside the great variety (r = .82) for this coefficient (Cicchetti  Sparrow, 1981). Peer-rated friendship competence (Age 13, 18, and 21)--Closest friends reported on the target adolescents' competence in close friendships at ages 13, 18, and 21 utilizing the friendship competence subscale of a version from the Harter Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents, modified to be used as a peer-report instrument (Harter, 1988; McElhaney  Allen, 2001). The format for this measure asks the teen's closest pal to choose amongst two contrasting descriptors then price the extent to which their choice is sort of accurate or truly accurate in regards to the target teen. Item responses are scored on a 4-point scale then summed, with greater scores indicating higher levels of peer-rated close friendship competence. The close friendship competence scale included 5 items at age 18 and 21, but because of time constraints within the initial wave of information collection, the friendship competence scale was shortened from five products to four things at age 13. A sample item [https://dx.doi.org/10.5114/wo.2016.61847 title= wo.2016.61847] consists of "Some persons never have a pal that's close enough to share really individual thoughts and feelings with vs. some people do have a friend that is certainly close sufficient to share private thoughts and feelings with." The friendship competence subscale showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's  = .68 at age 13, .77 at age 18, and .78 at age 21).Author Manuscript [https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mcn.12352 title= mcn.12352] Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptJ Res Adolesc. Author manuscript; out there in PMC 2015 December 02.Chango et al.PagePeer-rated social withdrawal (Age 13 and 21)--The withdrawal scale in the Pupil Evaluation Inventory (PEI; Pekarik, Prinz, Liebert, Weintraub,  [https://dx.doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2016.651 title= ecancer.2016.651] Neale, 1976) sums closest buddy ratings (on a scale ranging from 0 = not correct to 2 = really normally or typically correct) from the target adolescent on nine different things tapping socially withdrawn behavior, for instance "She usually does not choose to hang out or do things with other little ones." The scale has been shown to be a reputable and valid indicator of childhood vulnerability to psychopathology (Pekarik et al., 1976; Weintraub, Prinz,  Neale, 1978) and internal consistency within the present study was fantastic (Cronbach's  = .72). Because the PEI is utilized to measure early adolescent social withdrawal (e.g., Johnston, Pelham, Crawford  Atkins, 1988; Wright, Pillard  Wiese, 1992), age 21 social withdrawal was assessed making use of closest pal ratings on the social withdrawal scale from the Adult Behavior Checklist (ABCL; Achenbach  Rescorla, 2003). This scale sums closest buddy ratings relating to how typically nine behavioral descriptions apply [http://girlisus.com/members/square1banjo/activity/145239/ E. The researcher sought consensus on the themes with certainly one of] towards the target participant inside the past six months, on a scale of 0 = not true to 2= incredibly or usually accurate. A sample item incorporates "She would rather be alone than with other other people." Internal consistency for the scale was very good (Cronbach's = .75).Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript ResultsPreliminary and Correlational Analyses Suggests and common deviations for all substantive variables are presented in Table 1. Examination of modify more than time in adolescents' close friendship competence between age 13 and 18, and between age 18 and 21 indicate no adjust inside the overall degree of friendship competence in items that had been consistent across waves of data collection.
+
To this finish, we concentrate on the study of the key source of errors developed by the technique developed. We are going to first introduce the errors regarding the NER, followed by a total analysis with the Relation Extraction issues. Around the 1 hand, concerning the NER activity, a sample of 50 user messages was randomly chosen and analysed. Concerning the detection of effects, the key causeTable 1 Outcomes on the distant supervision method.Evaluation [http://s154.dzzj001.com/comment/html/?272482.html Ousing complicated, which makes it possible for us to infer that these participants can] Dataset Test (25 ) Gold Typical TP 1,755 41 FP 1,926 27 FN 1,224 123 Precision 0.48 0.60 Recall 0.59 0.25 F1 0.53 0.Segura-Bedmar et al. BMC Healthcare Informatics and Choice Making 2015, 15(Suppl two):S6 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/15/S2/SPage six ofof false negatives was the usage of colloquial expressions to describe an impact. Phrases like me deja ko (it makes me KO) or me cuesta m  levantarme (it is harder for me to wake up) had been employed by sufferers for expressing how they felt. These phrases are not included in our dictionary. A doable solution may be to create a lexicon containing these lay expressions. The second highest result in of false negatives for effects was because of the various lexical variations with the same impact.The proper context kernel. The main distinction between the neighborhood and also the international [https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-016-1718-5 title= s12879-016-1718-5] context kernel is the fact that the neighborhood one particular uses morphological functions (for example PoS tags, lemmas and stems) whereas the international one particular does not. The reader can find a detailed description of each kernels in [35].Final results and discussion As talked about above, the collection of user messages was randomly split [https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006179 title= journal.pgen.1006179] 75  for coaching and 25  for testing for the Relation Extraction process. Then, the database was made use of to label every single relation instance as a good or unfavorable instance in both datasets.The proper context kernel. The primary distinction amongst the neighborhood as well as the global [https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-016-1718-5 title= s12879-016-1718-5] context kernel is that the local one particular utilizes morphological characteristics (which include PoS tags, lemmas and stems) whereas the international a single will not. The reader can find a detailed description of both kernels in [35].Final results and discussion As talked about above, the collection of user messages was randomly split [https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006179 title= journal.pgen.1006179] 75  for training and 25  for testing for the Relation Extraction activity. Then, the database was used to label each relation instance as a optimistic or unfavorable instance in each datasets. We are aware that this sort of automatic evaluation suffers from false negatives, however it supplies a realistic estimation of precision with no requiring highly-priced manual evaluation. Table 1 shows the outcomes from the SL kernel around the testing dataset and on the SpanishADR corpus. A previous operate described in [33], which combined a co-occurrence technique with all the SpanishDrugEffectDB database, showed a precision of 83 and also a recall of 15 . The distant supervision technique presented right here was evaluated on the SpanishADR corpus and accomplished animprovement of ten  in recall at the expense of a decrease of 23  in precision (see second row of Table 1) in comparison with our previous system.

Версія за 08:39, 23 березня 2018

To this finish, we concentrate on the study of the key source of errors developed by the technique developed. We are going to first introduce the errors regarding the NER, followed by a total analysis with the Relation Extraction issues. Around the 1 hand, concerning the NER activity, a sample of 50 user messages was randomly chosen and analysed. Concerning the detection of effects, the key causeTable 1 Outcomes on the distant supervision method.Evaluation Ousing complicated, which makes it possible for us to infer that these participants can Dataset Test (25 ) Gold Typical TP 1,755 41 FP 1,926 27 FN 1,224 123 Precision 0.48 0.60 Recall 0.59 0.25 F1 0.53 0.Segura-Bedmar et al. BMC Healthcare Informatics and Choice Making 2015, 15(Suppl two):S6 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/15/S2/SPage six ofof false negatives was the usage of colloquial expressions to describe an impact. Phrases like me deja ko (it makes me KO) or me cuesta m levantarme (it is harder for me to wake up) had been employed by sufferers for expressing how they felt. These phrases are not included in our dictionary. A doable solution may be to create a lexicon containing these lay expressions. The second highest result in of false negatives for effects was because of the various lexical variations with the same impact.The proper context kernel. The main distinction between the neighborhood and also the international title= s12879-016-1718-5 context kernel is the fact that the neighborhood one particular uses morphological functions (for example PoS tags, lemmas and stems) whereas the international one particular does not. The reader can find a detailed description of each kernels in [35].Final results and discussion As talked about above, the collection of user messages was randomly split title= journal.pgen.1006179 75 for coaching and 25 for testing for the Relation Extraction process. Then, the database was made use of to label every single relation instance as a good or unfavorable instance in both datasets.The proper context kernel. The primary distinction amongst the neighborhood as well as the global title= s12879-016-1718-5 context kernel is that the local one particular utilizes morphological characteristics (which include PoS tags, lemmas and stems) whereas the international a single will not. The reader can find a detailed description of both kernels in [35].Final results and discussion As talked about above, the collection of user messages was randomly split title= journal.pgen.1006179 75 for training and 25 for testing for the Relation Extraction activity. Then, the database was used to label each relation instance as a optimistic or unfavorable instance in each datasets. We are aware that this sort of automatic evaluation suffers from false negatives, however it supplies a realistic estimation of precision with no requiring highly-priced manual evaluation. Table 1 shows the outcomes from the SL kernel around the testing dataset and on the SpanishADR corpus. A previous operate described in [33], which combined a co-occurrence technique with all the SpanishDrugEffectDB database, showed a precision of 83 and also a recall of 15 . The distant supervision technique presented right here was evaluated on the SpanishADR corpus and accomplished animprovement of ten in recall at the expense of a decrease of 23 in precision (see second row of Table 1) in comparison with our previous system.