The phrase "approaches which did" is not correct in standard written English.
It seems to be an incomplete thought and lacks clarity without additional context.
Example: "The approaches which did yield positive results were implemented in the next phase of the project."
Alternatives: "methods that succeeded" or "strategies that worked".
Approaches which do not take these constraints into consideration will not be adopted by professionals.
Looking at the US, UK, and French approaches, which do you think is the appropriate grouping or is there another that is more logical and why?
So Rus has been investigating alternative approaches, which don't require separate modules to locate and connect to each other before beginning to assemble more complex shapes.
The feedback situation between policy, human behaviour and ecological systems behaviour can confound these approaches, which do not take systems complexity into account.
Crucially, despite uncertainty being an inherent quality of EA information particularly in the early stages of a design project, current tools solely rely on numerical approaches which do not support such incomplete and vague information.
In the empirical section we perform experiments to demonstrate the scalability of the method and the improvement in terms of reduction of information loss with respect to approaches which do not consider the local neighborhood context when anonymizing.
The design of such devices, however, is still an open issue, since it is often carried out by means of inefficient trial-and-error procedures, or simplified analytical approaches which do not guarantee the optimal exploitation of the dampers.
Existing alongside this however, is the observation that students remain under confident in the application of knowledge to a clinical context and frustrated with learning approaches which do not appear directly related to improving their competence in this area.
