Sentence examples for difference in site from inspiring English sources

It was implicitly assumed that there was no difference in site effects or instrumental responses among stations.

Thus, including the difference in site amplification factor, the annual number of felt events was similar to that since 1923.

Because this method is focused not only on the difference in site amplification factors but also on the difference in site phase effects between the site of interest and the nearby station, it can be used to compute time histories of strong ground motions at the site of interest with high accuracy (e.g., Hata et al. 2013, 2016b).

Our prediction method assumes that the difference in seismic intensity between two stations is mainly caused by the difference in site amplification; however, numerical shake prediction method is based on the physics of wave propagation, so that effects of path term are included in their method.

The mean RMS of residuals of both prediction methods becomes worse as the interstation distance increases, representing that the differences in seismic intensity between stations could not be explained by the difference in site amplification term only, i.e., the effects of path and source term differences between two stations increased as the interstation distance increased.

The difference in site density of the ligand for spherical nanoparticles when compared to the platelet and rod samples may be due to a difference in the packing of the ligand on a highly curved surface such as the small spherical nanoparticles, when compared to the packing of the ligand on more planar surfaces like the platelets or the larger rods.

The co-existing, sibling species Mus booduga and Mus terricolor show a difference in site-preference for burrows.

The difference in site-specific AUCs did not change when CRC cases were excluded from the analysis (Table 2).

For the Illumina® HumanMethylation27 BeadChip, three replicates per population doubling level were studied and significant difference in site-specific methylation levels were determined as described above.

For guaiac-based FOBT, a similar difference in site-specific test performance was observed by Ahlquist et al (2008) in a study with about 2500 average-risk subjects, reporting a sensitivity of 13 and 7% (Hemoccult) and of 27 and 11% (Hemoccult SENSA) for left- and right-sided advanced colorectal neoplasia, respectively.

However, there was no evidence for a difference in sites which implemented education and crosswalk/sidewalk interventions (p-values not reported) (McDonald et al., 2013).