Thai - Science topic

Great collaborations in this posting, professors, good to read. Thank you.

Kind Regards,

Dear Mohanad Kamaleldin Mahmoud Ibrahim, where is this magazine survey link? My Regards

The ideology of communist and socialist countries differs from the one prevailing in the capitalist ideology, for every ideology is completely reflected not only on the economic system but also on the cultural system as a whole, including the moral aspect. Lawyer, education, are noble professions, and that those in charge of them have a special respect, but they also have to stand with the poor segments of society, in contrast to the capitalist ideology that views these professions as means of collecting money.

Have a look at this article (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105368). You can estimate the precise values of crop coefficients for your study regions.

Kulacha Sirikhan this is a very interesting spatial analysis question that certainly would be impacted by the aggregation size of hexagonal units. Additionally, determining your search radius (kernel size) would also have an impact on your LISA results. These are both relatively subjective so do support these two aforementioned issues with as much support as possible. My two cents-

Best of luck-

R.

Dear Mostafa and Colleagues,

Did you find the paper (Zhang, Rao, & Lio, 1996)? Is it in Chinese?

I wonder whether the formula for IAVI in [1] is correct: it is very similar to ARVI and [1] does not contain sufficient details about the IAVI formula.

[1]

check this link maybe help you

@ Wilmer Antonio Díaz

This plant is Basella alba L. of family Basellaceae.

Thanks!

Hi Sylvain,

to interpret the output, it would be helpful to know the package used, the design coding (dummy coding or contrast or...). It looks like dummy coding, because you have an output for TemporalitePasse which might be one of the two levels of Temporalite.

And if this is dummy coding, you can not interpret the output as it is, but you need to reconstruct the marginal means of the model.

Because you see, with dummy coding, (and the formula ~ temporalite*distance) the cell means are estimated like:

estimate_cellmean_future&distant <- intercept

estimate_cellmean_future&near <- intercept + DistanceProche

estimate_cellmean_past&distant <- intercept + TemporalitePasse

estimate_cellmean_past&near <- intercept + TemporalitePasse + DistanceProche + TemporalitePasse:DistanceProche

And as you can see, the effect of TemporalitePasse:DistanceProche is basically not very informative on its own. So you have to reconstruct the cell estimates.

Usually, the outputs of the Bayesian or mixed models in R that I am familiar with (brm and lme4, afex) can be passed to 'emmeans' (estimated marginal means), which does exactly this, and also provide HDIs (for brm-outputs). After doing this, you can interpret your effects. However, looking at these outputs you provide, does not allow telling whether an overall effect is 'significant' or not, because this would require a model comparison, between the full model, and a model in which you remove the fixed effect that should be tested. This however is tricky in Bayesian models (if not impossible) because the change in the priors (do not ask me were I got this from :)) but the suggestions to solve this, are provided by the brm-package as well (e.g. LOO procedure, check it out).

Best, René

Hi! Take a look at this:

very good

Dharmendra Arya Thank you very much

Hi,

you can CNN it's a powerful Depp Neural Network also RBM, DBN can be used.

Best

You have to perform a Confirmatory Factor Analysis first and then to validate the instrument.

Nephron Clin Pract. 2009;113(3):c125-31. doi: 10.1159/000232592. Epub 2009 Aug 12.

Tamimi NA1, Ellis P.

Author information

Drug development is an expensive, long and high-risk business taking 10-15 years and is associated with a high attrition rate. It is driven by medical need, disease prevalence and the likelihood of success. Drug candidate selection is an iterative process between chemistry and biology, refining the molecular properties until a compound suitable for advancing to man is found. Typically, about one in a thousand synthesised compounds is ever selected for progression to the clinic. Prior to administration to humans, the pharmacology and biochemistry of the drug is established using an extensive range of in vitro and in vivo test procedures. It is also a regulatory requirement that the drug is administered to animals to assess its safety. Later-stage animal testing is also required to assess carcinogenicity and effects on the reproductive system. Clinical phases of drug development include phase I in healthy volunteers to assess primarily pharmacokinetics, safety and toleration, phase II in a cohort of patients with the target disease to establish efficacy and dose-response relationship and large-scale phase III studies to confirm safety and efficacy. Experience tells us that approximately only 1 in 10 drugs that start the clinical phase will make it to the market. Each drug must demonstrate safety and efficacy in the intended patient population and its benefits must outweigh its risks before it will be approved by the regulatory agencies. Strict regulatory standards govern the conduct of pre-clinical and clinical trials as well as the manufacturing of pharmaceutical products. The assessment of the new medicinal product's safety continues beyond the initial drug approval through post-marketing monitoring of adverse events.

PMID: 19729922 DOI: 10.1159/000232592[Indexed for MEDLINE] Free full text

languages can be categorized based on any characteristic the researcher opts for such as tonal non tonal , prodrop non-pro drop, agglutinating,  inflectional derivational; ,,,,

Dear Robertus:

For the study of Mesoamerican languages, the standard technique was developed by Morris Swadesh in the mid-20th century. It is a lexicostatistical method based on a list of 100 lexical items considered to be basic and thus relatively stable. The percentage of cognates found in two related languages yields a quantity of years that indicate the approximate number of minimum centuries elapsed since these languages began to diverge.

The main criticism of this method is that it is not accurate, and it would be naive to use these glottochronological dates as if they represented real time rather than lexical similarity. Swadesh thought a reasonable margin of error was 10%, but I think he was overly optimistic about the accuracy of his method. In my ethnohistorical work I am more cautious, using a margin of error of 25% when comparing glottochronological dates with archaeological or historical evidence.

Recently an international team of linguists created an automated system to compute the similarity between two languages based on Levenshtein distances, mentioned by Bettina on this thread yesterday.

I compared the dates computed with this new method and the old glottochronological dates for languages in the Yutonahuan and Otopamean families of North and Central America, and found that with one exception all of the new dates fall within the range of glottochronological dates, considering a margin of error of 25%. To do this I had to dig into the online database, because there wasn't enough information in the published article (Holman, 2011) to understand exactly which languages had been compared within each family.

Here are some references:

The Automated Similarity Judgment Program (http://email.eva.mpg.de/~wichmann/ASJPHomePage.htm, access: March 18, 2013).

“Earlier versions of the ASJP database,” in The Automated Similarity Judgment Program (http://email.eva.mpg.de/~wichmann/EarlierWorldTree.htm, access: March 18, 2013).

Holman, Eric W.; Brown, Cecil H.; Wichmann, Søren; Müller, André; Velupillai, Viveka; Hammarström, Harald; Sauppe, Sebastian; Jung, Hagen; Bakker, Dik; Brown, Pamela; Belyaev, Oleg; Urban, Matthias; Mailhammer, Robert; List, Johann-Mattis; Egorov, Dmitry, “Automated dating of the world’s language families based on lexical similarity,” in Current Anthropology (University of Chicago Press), vol. 52, no. 6, December 2011, pp. 841-875 (a preliminary version is available on ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/202321178_Automated_Dating_of_the_Worlds_Language_Families_Based_on_Lexical_Similarity, access: March 18, 2013).

Levenshtein, Vladimir I., “Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals,” in Soviet Physics–Doklady, vol. 10, no. 8, February 1966, pp. 707-710 (http://profs.sci.univr.it/~liptak/ALBioinfo/files/levenshtein66.pdf, access: June 24, 2014).