Sentence examples for pair types from inspiring English sources

By grouping certain pair types into so-called virtual-reciprocal pairs, xCM extends to handle 3-cycles.

At the phase of understanding the meaning of the source pair of Vietnamese sentences, we proposed in [31, 32] strategies for resolving the ambiguity when considering inter-anaphoric pronouns appearing in some pair types of Vietnamese sentences having special characteristics.

Implementing and applying model VRBCM, focusing on the phase of transforming the source representation form to summary, we based on considering objective and consequence inter-relationships between two sentences to propose in [27, 28, 29, 33] methods and techniques to summarize some pair types of Vietnamese sentences having suitable characteristics.

However, total food consumption did not differ between pair types (independent samples t-test: t19 = −0.192, P = 0.850).

This pattern of results fits with the finding of slower anterior N400 latencies for unrelated common nouns and larger N400 amplitudes for the latter word pair types.

Twenty one pair types were compared.

Do we consider the number of cell types that an organism has (Bonner 1988), the types of hierarchical organization it manifests (Maynard Smith 1988), or some more taxa-specific criterion, such as the information required to specify the diversity of limb-pair types (Cisne 1974)?

Base-pair types are grouped according to the number of hydrogen bonds, i.e., with strong s and weak w representing CG and AT base-pairs respectively.

The sib-pair types are sister sister, brother sister and brother brother, but the last two can be combined since they have the same covariance structure (Pawitan et al. 2004).

Host aggregation at the scale of the enemy's foraging range is described by the average frequencies of the three possible host-pair types (i.e. defended-defended, undefended-defended and undefended-undefended), when considering only host-pairs between which distance is inferior to the maximal foraging distance [ 40].

Specifically, repeating items in the same pair-type across lists led to a greater number of correct and incorrect responses but repeating items in different pair-types did not change performance.