Sentences with phrase «validation periods of»

Both the linearity and stationarity assumptions may be checked using the training and validation periods of the instrumental record.

As to the effects: at RealClimate and C - a-s, Gavin has recently said — using gramatically - complex sentences with conditional clauses — that inclusion of the Tiljander proxies greatly strengthens and lengthens the validation period of a number of the paleotemperature reconstructions that form the heart of Mann08.

Not exact matches

Even consensual validation — statistical evidence widely gathered over an extended period of time, can only provide «proof» of a higher degree of probability.

Despite the impressive success of automated period finding search algorithms and data validation pipelines may miss transits dominated by the star's natural variability.

We report here the characterization of an USP planet with a period of 0.28 days around K2 - 141 (EPIC 246393474), and the validation of an outer planet with a period of 7.7 days in a grazing transit configuration.

The certification is important, no doubt, but in a way, I've felt that certification is a later validation of what candidates learn about teaching and about themselves over a longer period.

Because the artists are working so close to one another over such a concentrated period of time, conversations are readily formed about the nature and approach to making art: to problems, struggles and validations of what constitutes appropriate criticism at any given time or situation.

Of course, that is the part of the record we know best, but since the proxys follow the instrumental curve in the validation period we have some confidence in them, and since, as Tamino points out, the more proxys we add the more confident we can be, and we can even take a bunch out and get more or less the same behavior, why yes, there is a probleOf course, that is the part of the record we know best, but since the proxys follow the instrumental curve in the validation period we have some confidence in them, and since, as Tamino points out, the more proxys we add the more confident we can be, and we can even take a bunch out and get more or less the same behavior, why yes, there is a probleof the record we know best, but since the proxys follow the instrumental curve in the validation period we have some confidence in them, and since, as Tamino points out, the more proxys we add the more confident we can be, and we can even take a bunch out and get more or less the same behavior, why yes, there is a problem.

Prior to its deployment off of New Jersey, the NJORD buoy was deployed off of the coast of Block Island, Rhode Island for an eight - week validation period.

However, it would then be more appropriate to measure the ability of the model to fit the proxies in the validation period rather than its ability to back out temperature, as they apparently have done.

When I said is: «If the period of time over which the weather is averaged in producing the climate, then, the sample that is available for model building and validation consists of 15 events» What I meant to say is: «If the period of time over which the weather is averaged in producing the climate IS TEN YEARS then, the sample that is available for model building and validation consists of 15 events.»

(2) GMST could stay flat between 2007 and 2028 — i.e., have a trend of 0 C per decade for a period of 21 years — and still remain inside the AR5 model validation envelope.

Brandon, the answer is already in my original comment: 1) None of the climate models has been subjected to a formal V&V process (no validation report available) 2) None of the models is able to formally hind - cast past observations and as a matter of fact there is a significant mismatch between models outputs and measurements over [1880 — 1970] and [2000 — 2010] periods, which means that all models would have failed to pass such a validation process.

Thus, validation conducted on these two blocks will prima facie favor procedures which project the local level and gradient of the temperature near the boundary of the in - sample period.

In addition, a small SW instrument drift over the 15 - yr period was discovered during the validation of the WFOV Edition3 dataset.

The period 1981 — 2000 is used for model calibration and 2001 — 2010 for validation, with performance assessed in terms of 27 Climate Extremes Indices (CLIMDEX).

PCA was performed as the first step (after areal adjustment) on the gridded instrumental data, 1902 — 1995 and the individual proxy series from 1902 — 1980 were calibrated against the corresponding EOFs of the instrumental data matrix by singular value decomposition to determine retention of reconstructed PCs for each proxy series and then tested for robustness against the 1854 — 1902 validation period as well as a smaller subset of instrumental / historical EOFs going back to the 16th century.

The movement of PC1 in the calibration period to PC4 in calibration + validation steps is likely due to the fact that it corresponds to the elevated trend in global temperatures being the most significant pattern in the 20th century greatly reduced by inclusion of earlier temporal variance that doesn't have this positive trend.

The sensitivity of the methods to large - scale anomalies and their ability to replicate the observed data distribution in the validation period are separately tested for each index by Pearson correlation and Kolmogorov — Smirnov (KS) tests, respectively.

Increase the transparency of the validation process after the end of public commenting period

Well, the focus was on a 20y forecast, since that is the amount of data we now have for validation, but yes, we tried a range of different hindcast periods for fitting the trend and for averaging for the sake of persistence - up to 30y, IIRC.

Before the proxy reconstruction is accepted as valid, the relationship between the reconstruction and the instrumental measurements during the validation period is examined to test the accuracy of the reconstruction.

The combination of a high RE and a low CE or r2 means that the reconstruction identified the change in mean levels between the calibration and validation periods reasonably well but failed to track the variations within the validation period.

We computed a rough validation (Table 2) of the altimeter - based acceleration estimate by comparing to other datasets, although they cover different time periods.

While the time periods are shorter than covered by the altimetry record, they provide a rough validation of the altimeter - based acceleration estimate.

Stationarity can also be tested for the validation period, although in most cases the use of the proxy relationship will involve extrapolation beyond the range of observed values, such as in the case of point A in the illustration given above.

Besides supplying an unbiased appraisal of the accuracy of the reconstruction, the validation period can also be used to adjust the uncertainty measures for the reconstruction.

The role of a validation period is to provide an independent assessment of the accuracy of the reconstruction method.

For example, the MSE calculated for the validation period provides a useful measure of the accuracy of the reconstruction; the square root of MSE can be used as an estimate of the reconstruction standard error.

If the validation period is independent of the calibration period, any skill measures used to assess the quality of the reconstruction will not be biased by the potential overfit during the calibration period.

The first step is typically to separate the period of instrumental measurements into two segments: a calibration period and a validation period.

where the sum on the right - hand side of the equation is over times of interest (either the calibration or validation period) and N is the number of time points.

This discussion also motivates the choice of a validation period that exhibits the same kind of variability as the calibration period.

All sorts of reasons might explain this — lasso might not br very good, their noise models are mis - specified, the validation metric is flawed, the holdout period too short etc..

The validation of the IDP covers 175 countries within a period of a year.

Project Web Analytics Consulting Customer Leading Commercial and Retail Bank in US Period Feb ’09 to Oct ’09 Description • Involved in Design and Execution of Web Analytics strategy to track the performance across various websites of Client • Set up KPIs to judge the performance of various online marketing campaigns and website presence • Provided consulting on web analytics tracking code implementation and validation processes.

The effect of the validation of intermediate period acts depended on whether they were category A, B, or C intermediate period acts (see ss 203A - 232E).

The validation of intermediate period acts in the amended NTA took place in very different circumstances.

In its justification of the provisions of the amended NTA which validated intermediate period acts the government sought to draw an analogy with the validation provisions in the original NTA.

In relation to the validation provisions, the inconsistency is between the legal rights of Indigenous title holders and the enjoyment by non-Indigenous titleholders of rights illegally obtained (either because of the invalidity of past acts under the Racial Discrimination Act, 1975, (Cth) or because of the invalidity of intermediate period acts, under the original NTA).

While there is some leeway within the NTA to enter into Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) that reverse the extinguishing effect of the validation of intermediate period acts (under sections 24BB and 24CB) this is insufficient to reframe the entire agreement - making process on the basis of equality.

A clear illustration of how agreements can mitigate the discrimination contained within the NTA is their capacity (under sections 24BB and 24CB) to change the extinguishing effects of the validation of intermediate period acts.

(18) It identifies counterveiling provisions such as, the provision for governments and native title holders to agree to change the effect of the validation provisions; the provisions which reinstate native title where the holders are in possession and the land is vacant crown land; and the provision of compensation where native title is affected by the validation of intermediate period acts.

(20) In summary, these provisions are inadequate to compensate for the discrimination that has occurred as a result of the validation of intermediate period acts.

Validation for preschool MDD (based on meeting all DSM - IV symptom criteria) has been supported by the finding of a specific symptom constellation that was distinct from other psychiatric disorders and stable during a 6 - month period.22 Additionally, alterations in the hypothalamic - pituitary - adrenal axis reactivity similar to those known in adults with depression, greater family history of mood disorders, as well as observational evidence of depressive affects and behaviors were detected in preschoolers with depression, providing further validation.22,25,27 - 30 More recent findings from a larger independent sample (N = 306) ascertained from community sites (and serving as the population for this investigation) have replicated the findings described above and have also demonstrated that preschoolers with depression display significant functional impairment evident in multiple contexts rated by both parents and teachers.24

The validation of intermediate period acts deprives native title holders of procedural rights to engage in decisions about land, substituting a compensation scheme for rights removed.