Sentence examples for linguistic variance from inspiring English sources

The linguistic variance used to represent each antecedent is labeled high, medium, or low, indicating the possibility of the presence of the PU.

Let λ1A and λ1B are two thresholds for which linguistic variance is high, medium, and low when the output of detector is greater than or equal to λ1A, between these two thresholds, and less than or equal to λ1B, respectively.

Therefore, the data-driven approach having revealed three clearly interpretable sources of linguistic variance, we now find it preferable to redefine those factors in a more theory-driven manner (thus forming components) for the purpose of further analysis.

The third and perhaps less straightforward result of this study is that a third independent source of variance of linguistic skills can be identified (and explains an additional 12% of variance).

To solve this issue, this paper integrates the hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and minimal variance OWGA weights to effect flexible allocation of system reliability.

The fact that, in our structural model, L2 linguistic knowledge explained the most variance in L2 listening proficiency confirms that both grammar knowledge and vocabulary knowledge are key factors in determining L2 listening proficiency.

Furthermore, in our model L2 linguistic knowledge explained the most variance in L2 listening proficiency, which provides evidence that both grammar knowledge and vocabulary knowledge are key factors in determining L2 listening proficiency that may at certain levels even override other cognitive and affective factors in this case, L2 listening strategy use.

The genetic variance among the linguistic and geographical groups was 2.85% and 4.71%, respectively.

Instead, we can only say that the two languages share common variances in the linguistic skills examined and there is potential for bi-directional, L1-to-L2, and L2-to-L1 influences.

Variance among populations within the linguistic groups was 14.71%, which is slightly higher than the variance among the geographic groups (13.17%).

A non-significant −0.45% of the variance was explained by these linguistic groups, suggesting a lack of correlation between mtDNA genetic diversity and linguistic classification.