"conceptual comparison" is a correct and usable phrase in written English.
It refers to the act of comparing ideas, theories, or concepts rather than concrete objects or items. It can be used when discussing abstract concepts or when analyzing different theories or perspectives on a particular topic. Example: In her research paper, Sarah provided a conceptual comparison of two prominent theories in psychology, highlighting their similarities and differences in understanding human behavior.
Our conceptual comparison makes the point that algebras embody sets with operations.
A chart just below indicates a kind of conceptual comparison of iterative and coiterative ideas.
The lines in at the bottom of the conceptual comparison chart are the most programmatic of all.
In addition, it is (nearly) the dual concept of a congruence on an algebra; this explains our line in the conceptual comparison chart.
The table above lists a few functors on Set or Class along with final coalgebras or other data from the conceptual comparison chart.
The paper focuses on a conceptual comparison of the different policies which will allow their evaluation independently of these implementation details.
The published Chinese versions are for the US Chinese population[ 8] and Hong Kong (the HK translation is being used in some other Southeast Asian countries) [ 9]. Results of psychometric testing of these Chinese versions suggested that scaling assumptions were generally met and conceptual equivalence was achieved in comparison with forms using Western languages.
The development of patient-reported outcomes measures such as WSWS for cross-cultural comparisons requires achieving "conceptual equivalence" between the original instrument and the target translation instrument [ 14- 16].
Hence, while revisions of the questions are critical to the validity of cross-cultural comparisons of OHQoL, conceptual equivalence remains the most challenging part of the translational process and it has been either addressed superficially or omitted altogether from many of the OHIP translations [ 6].
Category 2 (Fig. 2) is more conceptual in comparison and utilized during the initial stages of the product design process.
The paper presents conceptual designs comparison, mass and energy analyses of the four processes integrated in the coal-to-SNG system, based on AspenPlus™ modelling.
