Sentence examples for the average relevance from inspiring English sources

Compute the average relevance value on the frequency range, as ρ rF = E { ρ ij : ∀ j }   3.

Estimate the relevance measure ρ(x ij |c) of the t f points, building the relevance map R: R = ρ ( x 11 | c ) ρ ( x 12 | c ) … ρ ( x 1 T | c ) ρ ( x 21 | c ) ρ ( x 22 | c ) … ρ ( x 2 T | c ) ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ρ ( x F 1 | c ) ρ ( x F 2 | c ) … ρ ( x FT | c ). Compute the average relevance value on the frequency range, as ρ rF = E { ρ ij : ∀ j }.

The average relevance score measures the level of similarity of all generated biclusters compared to implanted biclusters.

To calculate the average relevance score (S rel) of an image, its relevance scores (r i) for each selected semantic in Q are averaged.

Conversely, if M 1 is the set of generated biclusters and M 2 is the set of implanted true biclusters, the average match score, S G (M 2, M 1 ), represents the average relevance score.

Although the average relevance score of CPB in each correlated pattern was higher than that of BCCA and QUBIC, more than 30% of extracted biclusters from CPB are irrelevant to true biclusters.

Given the overall average relevance of baseline creatinine level to risk, the RR of ESRD was about 50% higher for a 30% higher phosphate level (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.21-1.77; P = 0.001) and for a 5-fold higher urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.24-1.85; P < 0.001), which represent differences of about 1 SD, and with female sex (RR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.13-2.09; P = 0.006; Table 5).

Regarding the quantitative information on SMEs (Table 1), the survey results show, however, the following: Large bank managers attach an average relevance to the trend analysis of the credit relationship and a great importance to guarantees.

The mean values of average relevance scores of biclustering algorithms for each correlated pattern are shown in Table  2.

Large bank managers attach an average relevance to the trend analysis of the credit relationship and a great importance to guarantees.

The mean relevance rating of NIHR HTA original research reports was similar to publications from the same studies publishing outside the HTA Journal, which had a mean average relevance rating of 5.57 (95% CI 5.36 to 5.78) (mean difference=0.03, 95% CI −0.32 to 0.26, p=0.875; table 4).