Sentence examples for ordering and presentation from inspiring English sources

At several occasions other members of the research team (KS, CS) asked critical questions as regards the categorization of the concepts, and this led to some adaptations in the final ordering and presentation of the categories and sub categories and consequently the results.

The wording, order, and presentation of items in the questionnaire were developed with input and review from scientists at the Cascade Volcano Observatory (United States Geological Survey) and GNS Science (New Zealand's Geological Survey) as well as emergency management officials with the Washington State Emergency Management Division and Skagit County Department of Emergency Management.

Several results indicate that local concentration may impact cell adhesion and spreading more than global concentration, including investigations of differences between confluent and micron-sized patches of nanopatterned ligand [ 38, 41], comparisons of ordered and disordered ligand presentation [ 42], and exploration of minimum numbers of ligands required per cluster for cell adhesion [ 53].

Our intent and hope in ordering the presentation this way is to allow the non-expert to appreciate the key ideas of the subject, without getting ensnarled in the at-first-glance formidable constructs which drive the generalizations.

However, we did not give any instructions to regulate, subjects did not report that they did, and randomized order and short presentation time of the pictures make it unlikely that they were able to.

Lists were presented auditorily at a rate of 1 word every 2500 ms, and presentation order of the lists was random.

The presentation orders of sentences describing the individual exemplars were varied within and between categories, and presentation orders of the age, location, and usage/occupation facts were randomized within each block.

A mixed linear model with 'type of playback sound', 'oestrus state' and 'presentation order' as fixed factors and subject as a random factor revealed a significant difference for presentation order (F1,46 = 7.2, p = 0.01) and a significant interaction between the type of playback sound and presentation order (F2,46 = 3.9, p = 0.027).

The context was blocked in separate sessions to avoid carry-over effects from one condition to another one (sessions were run at about 2 weeks distance, and presentation order was counterbalanced across subjects, n = 7).

Eight time series were recorded in each subject and presentation order of the conditions was randomized between these time series.

Table 4 presents the mean values of the FACT-G, FLIC and EORTC QLQ-C30 total / global functioning scores by performance status and presentation order.