### Table 1: Evaluation of different systematic error extraction models

"... In PAGE 5: ...signal for trend extraction and the result is evaluated ( Table1 ). The noise-added series and the residual series of different signal trend extraction models are show in Figure 5.... In PAGE 5: ... EMD results and wavelet trend extraction of imf1 are shown in Figures 8 and 9 respectively. Table1 gives the quantitative evaluation quantities for the different models, which shows that the EMD-Wavelet model has the highest SNR and lowest RMSE with respect to the four pairs of simulated DD series. EMD-WAVELET BASED PRECISE BASELINE SOLUTION Given that the double-difference observables are a non- linear time series, the presented EMD-Wavelet based trend extraction model is applied to a GPS static baseline solution by first extracting the systematic errors (including multipath, receiver hardware noise, etc) from the DD observables.... ..."

### Table 2.3 summarizes the complexity of different word-level decision diagrams to represent the integer functions and operations such as X, X + Y , X #03 Y , X 2 and 2X . Note that *BMDs and K*BMDs have more compact representations than others.

1998

Cited by 6

### Table 2.3 summarizes the complexity of different word-level decision diagrams to represent the integer functions and operations such as X, X + Y , X Y , X2 and 2X. Note that *BMDs and K*BMDs have more compact representations than others.

### Table 9 Systematic review process proposed in different sources Systematic Reviews Group [24] Australian National

2007

"... In PAGE 56: ... The Systematic Reviews Group (UC Berkeley) present a very detailed process model [24], other sources present a coarser process. These process steps are summarised in Table9 , which also attempts to collate the different processes. ... ..."

### Table 9 Systematic review process proposed in different sources Systematic Reviews Group [24] Australian National

2007

"... In PAGE 56: ... The Systematic Reviews Group (UC Berkeley) present a very detailed process model [24], other sources present a coarser process. These process steps are summarised in Table9 , which also attempts to collate the different processes. ... ..."

### Table 2. Systematic variation of boundary conditions of four different vowels.

"... In PAGE 8: ... With liprounding included, the most notable effects of the decreased Dt is an increase of about 100 Hz in F3 of rounded front vowels such as [GCA] and [G33]. Perturbations Results from a systematic variation of boundary conditions are illustrated in Table2 which shows differences between standard conditions and the system after a removal or a change in one of the boundary elements, the Sinus piriformis, the VT wall load or the length of the larynx tube. Our standard wall load is a lumped impedance with the 1.... ..."

### Table 1 Systematic reviews of acupuncture for chronic pain

"... In PAGE 3: ...18-26 D2. Chronic pain Several systematic reviews have evaluated the effectiveness of acupuncture for the treatment of chronic pain (see Table1 ).27-45 Some systematic reviews have examined particular diagnoses, such as headache or back pain, whereas others have included studies across a range of chronic pain conditions.... In PAGE 5: ...Table1 Systematic reviews of acupuncture for chronic pain cont. sham, other, no treatment sham, other treatments sham, other, no treatment sham, no treatment, different acupuncture sham 7 RCT 3 RCT, 4 CS 7 RCT, 4 RCT/CCT, 2 RCT 2 RCT, 7 CCT, 9 CS 1 RCT, 2CCT y/y/y/n/n y/y/y/y/n y/p/n/y/n n/p/n/y/n y/p/y/n/n Strong evidence that acupuncture is more effective than sham acupuncture for pain.... ..."

### TABLE 3 Absolute and Mean Glenohumeral Translation (in millimeters) at Different Arm Positions in the Asymptomatic and Affected Shoulders of Patients with Traumatic and Atraumatic Instabilitya

### Table 12 : Comparison of Average Annual Percentage Rates of Change

"... In PAGE 37: ... Allowing for changes in the capital stock and for the substitution of lower priced labor for capital when the estimated output elasticity of capital is higher than that of labor, these findings are understandable and illustrate the differences in the medium to long-run results of these policies in the present context and the short-run theoretical results found by Bruno and Sachs and Marston and Turnovsky in the cases they examined. Table12 presents a summary of the results of the same five simulations when conducted with the non-linear model estimated by the linear approach and comparisons with the findings presented in Table 11. 20 While the qualitative nature of the findings is consistent with those previously reported, there are a number of interesting differences.... ..."

### Table 2: Results from all 25 possible systematic sub-samples from the phase 1 sample for the simulated populations. Estimators are expansion (EXP), post-stratification (PS), regres- sion on linear terms of the continuous auxiliaries, plus dummies for the categorical variable (REG); generalized additive model on the same variables (GAM); and linear regression on the same terms, but with all terms interacted with the indicator that the GAM-predicted probability of forest is greater than the empirical proportion of forest (REGI).

"... In PAGE 16: ... Note that these 25 represent the entire conditional randomization distribution of the estimators, so that empirical means and variances are exactly the conditional expectation and conditional variance, given phase 1. The results are given in Table2 . The expectations of the estimators for the simulated populations are comparable to the corresponding estimates for the actual populations in Table 1, and the expectations of the estimated standard errors for the simulated populations are comparable to the corresponding estimates for the actual populations.... In PAGE 16: ... The efficiency gains estimated through this simulation procedure are quite different from those estimated using the simple random sampling approximation, with those for FOREST, BA and QMDALL larger but those for NVOLTOT, BIOMASS and CRCOV smaller. This is readily explained by the results in the last column of Table2 , which shows that the simple random sampling variance estimator performs very poorly in this context, behaving somewhat like the hypothetical F random variable described in Section 3.2.... ..."