Sentence examples for stringency estimates from inspiring English sources

Figure 11 shows a scattergram of the stringency estimates for each examiner in the two periods, broken down according to the total number of candidates examined by each examiner in the two periods.

The distribution of examiner stringency estimates in the yardstick also makes clear that, to a good first approximation, stringency is normally distributed, and refutes any simple differentiation of examiners into two separate classes who can be called hawks and doves.

The correlations of the stringency estimates across the two periods were 0.402 (n = 146, p <.001) for those examining more than 200 candidates in the entire data, 0.442 (n = 309, p <.01) for those examining 100 199 candidates, 0.335 (n = 101, p <.001) for those examining 50 99 candidates, and 0.468 (n = 20, p =.037) for those examining 49 or fewer candidates overall.

Although by lowering the stringency of estimated FDR, the sensitivity of SFP detection was increased substantially in CP&RT dataset but simultaneously the observed FDR determined after sequencing also doubled (20%) compared to the estimated value by permutation (Table 3b).

However by lowering the stringency of estimated FDR to 10% the number of predicted SFPs in CP&RT dataset nearly doubled to 61055 that account 9.6% of the total PM features (Table 1b, Figure 4).

For those examiners seeing large numbers of candidates it is clear that there is an acceptably high correlation of 0.598 between the two independent estimates of stringency.

In each analysis the program calculated entirely separate estimates of examiner stringency, based on different candidates and different pairings of examiners.

That is more than high enough for statistical analysis for comparison of groups, but estimates of the stringency of individual examiners should also be treated with care.

Using a much lower stringency (MLQ>19, distance120 km), the estimates suggested that there was again a major contribution from the Eastern population (0.900, 0.829 0.971) and again, when non-local samples are used, there was a substantial contribution from both source populations (0.525, 0.482 0.568).

Despite Ross's denial that there is any general method for estimating the comparative stringency of prima facie duties, there is a further strand in his exposition that many find irresistible and that tends to undercut this denial.

As raters remained at their station throughout the test, systematic differences in stringency (rater effect) could be estimated, while the rater*candidate effect (rater candidate taste) could not be separated from error.