Sentence examples for variability language from inspiring English sources

First, total variability language recognition system (TV) is experimented, then exports to multiple total variability language recognition system (MTV).

Common Variability Language (CVL) is an Object Manager Group (OMG) standardization used for specifying and resolving domain variability (Rouille et al. 2012).

Actually, in multiple total variability language recognition system, the combination of total factor vectors is implemented after intersession compensation which is shown in Section 3.3.

This is achieved by: (1) modelling architectural variability at design-time using the Common Variability Language (CVL), and (2) using a genetic algorithm that finds nearly-optimal configurations at run-time using the information provided by the variability model.

We will provide and compare two implementations of our generic approach using different variability and architecture description languages: (i) feature models and an aspect-oriented architecture description language; and (ii) the Common Variability Language (CVL) and a MOF-compliant language (e.g., UML).

NICU patients experienced substantial variability in language exposure (range: 10 2040 words per hour).

Thus we propose multiple total variability (MTV) language recognition system based on total variability (TV) language recognition system.

The data provided further evidence for the high anatomical variability of language areas, which underlined the relevance of an individual language localization and lateralization prior to brain surgery.

From the clinical perspective, inter-subject variability in language lateralization has important implications for predicting how neurosurgical intervention will impact upon language function (e.g., for review see [Bookheimer, 2007; Ganslandt et al., 2009; Stippich et al., 2007; Tharin and Golby, 2007]).

Despite the large reported variability in language outcomes, the present study was able to account for a significant proportion of the variance in language outcomes (up to 69%), which was higher than that in many studies.

Despite the large variability in language outcomes, a moderate sample size, and multiple factors that influence these outcomes, significantly faster rates of vocabulary and language development were found for the children with bilateral CIs in this study.