Tools
Sorted by:
Try your query at:
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Results 1 - 10
of
11,237
Table 5: Answering Negative Questions
"... In PAGE 8: ... 2005). Table5 details the perfor- mance of four different strategies: (1) a negation detection strategy which returned answers associated with a negated predicate, attribute, or entity, (2) a set intersection strategy which returned answers that were not included in the in- tersection of the answers returned by two positive analogs of the question, (3) an entailment strategy which returned answers that were deemed to be close approximations of the negated proposition expressed by the question, and (4) a hybrid strategy, which combined and re-ranked answers returned by all three strategies using a method described in (Harabagiu et al. 2005).... ..."
Table 5 shows the number of respondents that considered each categorization not useful, negative answers:
"... In PAGE 10: ... Table5 . How many subjects considered the classification not useful Table 6 shows the results of those classification(s) found to be most useful: Classification schema No.... ..."
TABLE VI THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LOOKUPS THAT CONTACTED ROOT AND GTLD SERVERS, AND THE TOTAL NUMBER OF NEGATIVE ANSWERS RECEIVED. THE PERCENTAGES ARE OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LOOKUPS IN THE TRACE.
2001
Cited by 98
Table 5: Numbers of negative answers following an unproblematic system utterance (: prob- lems) and following those containing one or more problems (problems).
"... In PAGE 11: ...egations is .62. The subjects apos; responses to the yes/no questions were analysed in terms of the following features: (1) type of boundary tone in \no quot; (high or not high); (2) duration (in ms) of \no quot;; (3) duration (in ms) of pause after \no quot; before stu ; (4) duration (in ms) of pause between system apos;s prompt and user response; (5) F0 max12 (in Hz) at energy peak of major pitch accent in stu ; (6) number of words in stu . Results Table5 gives the distribution of di erent types of negations following either an unproblematic system utterance or one which contains one or more problems. A 2 test re- veals that these numbers signi cantly di er from chance level (p lt; 0:001).... ..."
Table 1 Means for the General Questions Asked in the Questionnaire (Part A). Ratings ranging from 0 (negative answer, i.e., indicating disagreement) to 4 (positive answer, i.e., indicating agreement).
1998
"... In PAGE 16: ...ur study revealed a positive e ect (cf. Tables 1 and 2). Only one subject indicated that he would prefer presentations without a Persona in the future. T-tests on the data listed in Table1 show that subjects confronted with techni- cal descriptions 1 found the subject matter signi cantly less di cult (t(26)=- 2.... ..."
Cited by 33
Table 3: Numbers of negative answers following an un- problematic system utterance (: problem) and following those containing one or more problems (problem) Type : problems problems total
1999
"... In PAGE 3: ...Table 4: Distribution of high and low boundary tones for positive and negative cues Boundary tone : problems problems total Low 32 7 39 High 9 37 46 total 41 44 85 Table3 gives the distribution of di erent types of discon- rmations following either an unproblematic system utter- ance or one which contains one or more problems. A 2 test reveals that this distribution is highly signi cant ( 2 = 22.... ..."
Cited by 2
Table 3: Numbers of negative answers following an un- problematic system utterance (: problem) and following those containing one or more problems (problem) Type : problems problems total
"... In PAGE 3: ...Table 4: Distribution of high and low boundary tones for positive and negative cues Boundary tone : problems problems total Low 32 7 39 High 9 37 46 total 41 44 85 Table3 gives the distribution of di erent types of discon- rmations following either an unproblematic system utter- ance or one which contains one or more problems. A 2 test reveals that this distribution is highly signi cant ( 2 = 22.... ..."
Table 1: Summary of results concerning classes of path diagrams. Known positive (or negative) answers to the questions stated in the row margins are indicated by Y (or N). Question marks flag open problems. Asterisks indicate new results in this paper. Classes to the left are contained in those to the right.
2007
"... In PAGE 6: ... The extension of these results to BAPs constitutes an open problem for research. This is indicated in Table1 which summarizes our overview. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows.... ..."
Cited by 1
Table 1: Subjective evaluation of suggestion engines. The table shows the number of subjects who evaluated each suggestion positively or negatively. Six subjects provided answers.
"... In PAGE 7: ... We also asked them to list suggestion engines that they evaluated positively (useful) and negatively (useless or difficult to use). Table1 summarizes the results. The basic engines (S1-S6) were popular, but other engines received mixed reactions reflecting large diversity in personal preferences.... ..."
Table 5. Number of negative feedbacks in first and last try on the user side to correctly answer an exercise with respect to content errors
in Strategies
"... In PAGE 6: ... The figure and the characteristics of the sample chosen can therefore be hardly considered representative. Table 4 presents data related to spelling and grammar errors, while Table5 presents data related to content errors. In both cases there is a reduction of almost one point, which is clearly more significant in the case of grammar and spelling errors, where the initial average number of negative feedback messages was 1.... ..."
Results 1 - 10
of
11,237
