Sentences with phrase «negative scaling factors»

The first of the five individual CMIP5 models included in Shindell's analysis, CanESM2, shows negative scaling factors for «other anthropogenic» over all three periods — strongly negative over 1901 — 2010.

SF 2.5 and negative scale factors.

Negative SCALE FACTOR.

Red (hard)- Enlarge and object by a negative scale factor from a centre of enlargement Purple (challenging) Describe fully an enlargement; work out a scale factor and centre of enlargement.

Not exact matches

[25] Lemaitre's famous differential equation for cosmic expansion is: R [2] = C / R + 1 / 3AR [2]- k where R is the scale factor for cosmic expansion which is proportional to the radius of the universe when that radius has meaning; C > 0 and proportional to the average present - day density of non-relativistic matter in the universe; cosmological constant, - C [0] < A < C [0], which serves to create a cosmic repulsion that keeps galaxies from being drawn together by gravity when it is positive and adds to the attractive force of gravity when it is negative; and spatial curvature, k = -1,0, +1.

To do each puzzle, students enlarge objects by negative and / or fractional scale factors.

This report also underlines that the risk of having an ICT infrastructure with a negative energy efficiency balance often comes from the «scale» factor: this means small and low - power devices may have a huge energy footprint when they are massively deployed.

For example, the use of a single scaling for all other anthropogenic forcers doesn't sit well with me given the combination of spatially - heterogeneous large (> 1W / m2) positive and negative factors — but really it needs to be shown why such a thing is an issue, and what effect it might have.

We assessed mood and emotion regulation with the following measures: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), 22 the Differential Emotions Scale (DES), 23 the Aggression scale, 24 and the State - Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI - 2).25 The PANAS yields 2 factors: positive affect and negative affect, with good reliability in our sample (positive affect α = 0.81 and 0.89; negative affect α = 0.84 anNegative Affect Schedule (PANAS), 22 the Differential Emotions Scale (DES), 23 the Aggression scale, 24 and the State - Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI - 2).25 The PANAS yields 2 factors: positive affect and negative affect, with good reliability in our sample (positive affect α = 0.81 and 0.89; negative affect α = 0.84 and 0Scale (DES), 23 the Aggression scale, 24 and the State - Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI - 2).25 The PANAS yields 2 factors: positive affect and negative affect, with good reliability in our sample (positive affect α = 0.81 and 0.89; negative affect α = 0.84 and 0scale, 24 and the State - Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI - 2).25 The PANAS yields 2 factors: positive affect and negative affect, with good reliability in our sample (positive affect α = 0.81 and 0.89; negative affect α = 0.84 annegative affect, with good reliability in our sample (positive affect α = 0.81 and 0.89; negative affect α = 0.84 annegative affect α = 0.84 and 0.87).

Many of the scales demonstrated weak psychometrics in at least one of the following ways: (a) lack of psychometric data [i.e., reliability and / or validity; e.g., HFQ, MASC, PBS, Social Adjustment Scale - Self - Report (SAS - SR) and all perceived self - esteem and self - concept scales], (b) items that fall on more than one subscale (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version), (c) low alpha coefficients (e.g., below.60) for some subscales, which calls into question the utility of using these subscales in research and clinical work (e.g., HFQ, MMPI - A, CBCL - 1991 version, BASC, PSPCSAYC), (d) high correlations between subscales (e.g., PANAS - C), (e) lack of clarity regarding clinically - relevant cut - off scores, yielding high false positive and false negative rates (e.g., CES - D, CDI) and an inability to distinguish between minor (i.e., subclinical) and major (i.e., clinical) «cases» of a disorder (e.g., depression; CDI, BDI), (f) lack of correspondence between items and DSM criteria (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version, CDI, BDI, CES - D, (g) a factor structure that lacks clarity across studies (e.g., PSPCSAYC, CASI; although the factor structure is often difficult to assess in studies of pediatric populations, given the small sample sizes), (h) low inter-rater reliability for interview and observational methods (e.g., CGAS), (i) low correlations between respondents such as child, parent, teacher [e.g., BASC, PSPCSAYC, CSI, FSSC - R, SCARED, Connors Ratings Scales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiscales demonstrated weak psychometrics in at least one of the following ways: (a) lack of psychometric data [i.e., reliability and / or validity; e.g., HFQ, MASC, PBS, Social Adjustment Scale - Self - Report (SAS - SR) and all perceived self - esteem and self - concept scales], (b) items that fall on more than one subscale (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version), (c) low alpha coefficients (e.g., below.60) for some subscales, which calls into question the utility of using these subscales in research and clinical work (e.g., HFQ, MMPI - A, CBCL - 1991 version, BASC, PSPCSAYC), (d) high correlations between subscales (e.g., PANAS - C), (e) lack of clarity regarding clinically - relevant cut - off scores, yielding high false positive and false negative rates (e.g., CES - D, CDI) and an inability to distinguish between minor (i.e., subclinical) and major (i.e., clinical) «cases» of a disorder (e.g., depression; CDI, BDI), (f) lack of correspondence between items and DSM criteria (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version, CDI, BDI, CES - D, (g) a factor structure that lacks clarity across studies (e.g., PSPCSAYC, CASI; although the factor structure is often difficult to assess in studies of pediatric populations, given the small sample sizes), (h) low inter-rater reliability for interview and observational methods (e.g., CGAS), (i) low correlations between respondents such as child, parent, teacher [e.g., BASC, PSPCSAYC, CSI, FSSC - R, SCARED, Connors Ratings Scales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiscales], (b) items that fall on more than one subscale (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version), (c) low alpha coefficients (e.g., below.60) for some subscales, which calls into question the utility of using these subscales in research and clinical work (e.g., HFQ, MMPI - A, CBCL - 1991 version, BASC, PSPCSAYC), (d) high correlations between subscales (e.g., PANAS - C), (e) lack of clarity regarding clinically - relevant cut - off scores, yielding high false positive and false negative rates (e.g., CES - D, CDI) and an inability to distinguish between minor (i.e., subclinical) and major (i.e., clinical) «cases» of a disorder (e.g., depression; CDI, BDI), (f) lack of correspondence between items and DSM criteria (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version, CDI, BDI, CES - D, (g) a factor structure that lacks clarity across studies (e.g., PSPCSAYC, CASI; although the factor structure is often difficult to assess in studies of pediatric populations, given the small sample sizes), (h) low inter-rater reliability for interview and observational methods (e.g., CGAS), (i) low correlations between respondents such as child, parent, teacher [e.g., BASC, PSPCSAYC, CSI, FSSC - R, SCARED, Connors Ratings Scales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiScales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiscales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiscales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsivity).

Prognostic factors Severity of positive and negative symptoms (schedules for positive and negative symptoms); course of illness over the past 2 years; level of functioning (Global Assessment of Functioning scale (GAF)-RRB-; premorbid functioning (Premorbid Adjustment scale); duration of untreated psychosis (interview for retrospective assessment of onset of schizophrenia); days of hospitalisation; number of contacts with psychiatric services; number of days in supported housing.

Parents, teachers and early childhood educators can all work together to help young children to load up the positive side of the scale and minimise the factors weighing down the negative side.

Thus, all the above mentioned items of the two negative emotions factors are taken into account in the total estimation of the negative emotions total scores of scale takers.

The measure consists of eight three - item scales that load on two factors: (1) support (affection, admiration, reliable alliance, intimacy, companionship, and instrumental help) and (2) negative interactions (conflict and antagonism).

LPP amplitude window = 500 — 900 ms. MAAS = Mindful Attention Awareness Scale; FFMQ = Five - Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire; NEO-FFI = Neuroticism Extroversion Openness - Five Factor Inventory; PANAS = Positive Affectivity Negative Affectivity Schedule.