Sentence examples for language score of from inspiring English sources

where PNgram W ij |L) is the language score of back-off N-gram for hypothesis W ij. By substituting Equation 9 into Equation 1, the global score for each hypothesis is computed as g ( X i, W ij | Λ, L ) = α · λ · ∑ t = 1 n ij s ijt + α · ( 1 - λ ) · logP Ngram ( W ij | L ) + logP ( X i | W ij, Λ ) + n ij · wdpenalty ′ with wdpenalty ′ = wdpenalty - α · λ · μ, (10).

To examine this issue, Figure 1 plots the SDQ total scores (separately for Parent and Teacher rating) against receptive language score of children.

The marginal effect on the Total Language score of an extra hour per week of adult time spent reading to the child was an increase of 60 × 0.096 = 5.76 points ([1.33 10.17], 6.64%).

However, at age 2, our sample's mean receptive language score of around 90 was very similar to their low mean expressive language score, with rapid gains in both receptive and expressive scores towards the population mean of 100 by age 3 years.

Thus, the percentages of relatives with pure LI are 21%, 6% and 14% for the SLI, ASD and ASD+LI probands in the CRE model, compared with 52%, 12 % and 27 for the sample of Lindgren et al. To some extent the discrepancy may reflect the fact that the criterion of LI used by Lindgren et al. was a language score of 1 SD below average on one of two measures, whereas the model cutoff was at 1.5 SD.

Controlled processing was predictive of Block Design score for Non-BAP participants, and was predictive of Pragmatic Language score on the BAPQ for BAP participants.

This assumption can be confirmed by the significantly higher math and language scores of industrial clerks than of logistic clerks in Switzerland.

These features were combined with the acoustic and language scores of the first-pass model through a segmental conditional random field to rescore word lattices.

The language scores of KN3 is usually available in the lattice or N-best list, so that the UP-RNNLM combined with the KN3 reduces WER by 0.8% and 1.2% absolute on Hub5'00-SWB and RT03S-FSH sets, respectively.

Fathers' parenting behaviours have been shown to be predictive of young children's language development [48] and fathers' outputs have been shown to predict language scores of children [37].

Recent language scores were unavailable for 11 children, and the language skills of 5 additional children were assessed with alternative, incomparable instruments, leaving us with language scores of 43 children with CI (Table  2).