Sentence examples for comparative judgments of from inspiring English sources

Positive comparative judgments of value specify the way in which two items compare (e.g., "better than") rather than the way in which two items do not compare (e.g., "not better than") in virtue of some value.

The approach Sen favors, on the other hand, focuses on the comparative judgments of what is 'more' or 'less' just, and on the comparative merits of the different societies that actually emerge from certain institutions and social interactions.

Along the way, the superiority of contextualism over subject-sensitive invariantism is defended, and, in the final section, important objections to contextualism based on how "knows" operates in comparative judgments of content, metalinguistic claims, belief reports, and speech reports are answered.

Thus comparative judgments of electrical resistivity and elasticity are acceptable and the local weights of performances indicators is the value in Tables 5 and 6.

The scale represents the outcomes of the assessors' cumulative comparative judgments of the quality of the psychometric latent trait being measured (Bramley, 2007; Pollitt, 2012a).

To determine the relative importance among the performance indicators (very low, low, moderate, negligible) of electrical resistivity, consistency ratio of the comparative judgments of Table 5 is calculated to be 0.01.

Two bearers of value are held to be incomparable if no positive comparative judgment of their value is true.

The method of AHP is based on three principles: first, structure of the model; second, comparative judgment of alternatives and decision-making criteria; third, synthesis of the priorities [35, 36, 37].

We will refer to the latter as comparative judgments to keep this idea separate from relative judgment as an explanation.

Also, the ordinal notion of confirmation is arguably of greater theoretical significance than its quantitative counterpart, because ordinal divergences, unlike purely quantitative differences, imply opposite comparative judgments for some evidence-hypothesis pairs.

An alternative scaling method as described by Sloan et al.[ 20] uses Thurstone's "law of comparative judgment" to reduce the number of ties, thus avoiding the "ceiling effect" by forcing respondents to choose each of the items over each other.