Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(30)
Comparison between predicted and measured temperatures shows a good agreement with a relative error of ± 4.4%.
All samples were measured four times with a relative error of ±10%.
CH4 was predicted with a relative error of between 3.8 and 19.2%.
The numerical model outcomes, with a relative error of 3.8%, best matched the reality and the analytical method, with a relative error of 27.8%, yielded the highest level of model uncertainty.
Despite the dilution, the cuvette test method is found to yield precise results with a relative error of 2.1%%.
The average methane concentration measured in ambient air was 2.01 ppm with a relative error of ± 2.5%.
Similar(30)
The models were found to have various degrees of relative error, with the best fitting model having a relative error of less than 10% for all three fuels with a marginal bias towards underestimation.
In samples of bleaching cream, the proposed procedure has a recovery of 102.2% with standard deviation of 4.4% and a relative error of 6.2%.
The experimental values of kf were compared with those estimated from literature correlations, giving a relative error of ca. 11% when Pfeffer equation was used for estimating kf.
A relative error of 1.5 % with respect to the undiluted samples has been determined.
Initially calibrated to 14 gauged sites, the GEP derived model was further validated to 10 and 100 year flood events with a relative errors of 29% and 18%, respectively.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com