Sentence examples for gender errors from inspiring English sources

Therefore, all following analyses focus on gender errors.

Clearly, across sessions, participants mostly made gender errors, whereas other errors occurred at a lesser rate.

Figure 3 depicts the percentage of gender errors out of all responses for all eight groups in each task.

Likewise, a significant interaction between grammaticality and emotionality in the participants' performance revealed that the presence of emotional adjectives did facilitate the detection of gender errors.

In order to assess the effects of session, training method, and training mode on the number of gender errors, we coded the errors as a binary variable (with all gender errors scoring 1 and all correct responses and all other errors scoring 0) and assessed the effects of training method and training mode for each session (see Fig. 3 and Table 8).

As of session 3, there was an effect of training method, with participants trained with the random training method producing significantly more gender errors than those trained with the blocked training method.

In the data cleaning process, several genders errors were discovered.

In the case of institutional prestige, it is possible, as in the case of gender, that errors in the input data may have masked some weak effects.

Multiple β coefficient**: adjusted for children's age, gender, refractive error, average parental refractive error, times spend on near work and outdoor, and item of eye exercises questionnaire; column 4 presented the OR (95% CI) of item of eye exercises questionnaire; column 5 presented the OR (95% CI) of item of the children's age.

A more serious attitude towards the exercises was also significantly associated with a lower CISS score (univariate β = -2.47, p = 0.002), even after adjusting for student's age, gender, refractive error, average parental refractive error, and time spend on near work and outdoor activity (multiple β = -1.65, p = 0.039).

In the case of the Czech & Slovak database, the emotion classification error rate was 28.82% and the gender recognition error rate was 12.42%.