Research on the global evaluation method of complex curve contour

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen Yuhang ◽  
Shu Han ◽  
Zou Chunlong ◽  
Wang Shenghuai ◽  
Zhang Wei
Keyword(s):  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Global Evaluation ◽  
Complex Curve ◽  
Curve Contour

Talking Circles: A Culturally Responsive Evaluation Practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 367-383
Author(s):  
Martha A. Brown ◽  
Sherri Di Lallo
Keyword(s):  
Culturally Responsive ◽  
Program Design ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Global Evaluation ◽  
Responsive Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Practice ◽  
Safe Spaces ◽  
Evaluation Community ◽  
Norms And Values ◽  
Talking Circles

Talking Circles are safe spaces where relationships are built, nurtured, reinforced, and sometimes healed; where norms and values are established; and where people connect intellectually, spiritually, and emotionally with other members of the Circle. The Circle can also be an evaluation method that increases voice, decreases invisibility, and does not privilege one worldview or version of reality over another. The purpose of this article is to describe how the Circle can be a culturally responsive evaluation practice for those evaluators wishing to build relationships, share power, elicit stakeholder voice, solve problems, and increase participants’ capacity for program design, implementation, and evaluation. Circles can be used by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous evaluators. By offering the global evaluation community this concrete, practical, and culturally responsive approach, we open the door so that others can build on this work and offer additional insights as this practice is used, refined, and documented.

A comparison on the evaluation standards of sustainable campus between China and America

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bifeng Zhu ◽  
Gebing Liu ◽  
Jing Feng
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Hot Spots ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Evaluation Methods ◽  
Global Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Standards ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Evaluation Standard ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Green Campus

Purpose This paper aims to make a comparative study on the latest version of green campus evaluation standard between China and America: Green Campus Evaluation Standard (GB/T51356-2019) and the sustainability tracking, assessment and rating system (STARS 2.2). The differences of evaluation methods and contents are analyzed and their respective characteristics and advantages are sorted out, so as to promote the development of sustainable campus evaluation standards. Design/methodology/approach The research mainly adopts the method of comparative study, which is carried out from three dimensions, namely, the related policies development of campus construction and world university sustainable rankings; the content of evaluation standards (including evaluation methods and evaluation categories and scores); the characteristics and current application of standards. Findings There are great differences between the evaluation standards of China and America in organization and participation mode, evaluation method and content. Public engagement, energy and campus engagement are the hot spots. Buildings, energy, food and dining and investment and finance will become the focus of sustainable campus in the future. Specific optimization strategies of key points, evaluation method and content and organization and participation mode of Chinese standard are put forward. Practical implications This paper clarifies the advantages and disadvantages of the current global sustainable campus, and provides the basis for the next stage of construction policy. At the same time, it is helpful for all countries, especially China, to formulate construction guidelines that not only meet their own actual needs but also conform to the trend of global sustainable campus development. Social implications The connotation of sustainable campus is enriched, and the evaluation standards of sustainable campus are improved. The development of sustainable campus is promoted, so as to realize the sustainable development goals. Originality/value This research expands the scope of the study to the whole campus, rather than just one aspect of campus buildings. It compares the evaluation standard of green campus in China with STARS in the USA, and no longer compares leadership in energy and environmental design for schools. It discusses the campus building’s energy conservation while paying attention to the campus green consciousness, green management and green planning. Based on the relevant data currently used by STARS in the global evaluation, this paper analyzes the hot spots and shortcomings of the current global sustainable campus construction and puts forward some optimization suggestions for China’s green campus evaluation system.

scholarly journals THE ACCOUNTING REFLECTION OF MERGER OPERATIONS – THE GLOBAL EVALUATION METHOD

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mihai Deju
Keyword(s):  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Global Evaluation

Depending on the manner in which the evaluation of companies involved in merger operations is carried out, two methods are employed for the accounting reflection of merger operations: the net asset method and the global evaluation method. This article presents the characteristics of using the global evaluation method for the accounting reflection of merger operations.

scholarly journals La evaluacion docente en Anatomía Humana en enseñanzas remotas de emergencia

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto García Barrios ◽  
Ana Isabel Cisneros Gimeno ◽  
Itziar Lamiquiz Moneo ◽  
Jaime Whyte Orozco
Keyword(s):  
Student Satisfaction ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Digital Tools ◽  
Online Assessment ◽  
Global Evaluation ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Online Evaluation ◽  
Nuevas Tecnologías ◽  
Evaluación Docente

El objetivo planteado en este estudio fue doble, evaluar la satisfacción del alumnado a realizar evaluación online, y las diferencias en esta según se realizase en casa o en el aula. El diseño y metodología se planteó mediante encuestas de satisfacción del tipo de evaluación y un análisis estadístico para valorar las diferencias en los resultados de esta según lugar de realización. La valoración del alumnado no muestra unanimidad (53%) en considerar la evaluación online como un buen método de evaluación, aunque el 67% y el 90% (según curso y asignatura) usaría herramientas digitales para evaluar presencialmente. La reducción del tiempo y la conexión, son los principales inconvenientes valorados. Los resultados de la evaluación global no muestran cambios según sea presencial o a distancia. Por lo tanto, consideramos que la utilización de nuevas tecnologías para evaluar ha sido bien aceptada por los alumnos y por el profesorado, y no se observan resultados dispares realizándose presencial o a distancia. The objective of the study was twofold: to evaluate student satisfaction with the online assessment, and the differences in this assessment according to whether it was carried out at home or in the classroom. The design and methodology were based on satisfaction surveys of the type of evaluation and a statistical analysis to assess the differences in the results according to the place where the evaluation was carried out. The students' evaluation does not show unanimity (53%) in considering online evaluation as a good evaluation method, although 67% and 90% (depending on the course and subject) would use digital tools to evaluate face-to-face. The reduction of time and connection are the main disadvantages valued. The results of the global evaluation do not show changes depending on whether it is face-to-face or distance. Therefore, we consider that the use of new technologies for evaluation has been well accepted by students and teachers, and no different results are observed for face-to-face or distance learning.

scholarly journals An improved multivariable integrated evaluation method and NCL code for multimodel intercomparison (MVIETool version 1.0)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meng-Zhuo Zhang ◽  
Zhongfeng Xu ◽  
Ying Han ◽  
Weidong Guo
Keyword(s):  
Vector Fields ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Comprehensive Evaluation ◽  
Model Performance ◽  
Field Evaluation ◽  
Scalar Fields ◽  
Skill Score ◽  
Global Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Tool ◽  
Multiple Variables

Abstract. An evaluation of a model's overall performance in simulating multiple fields is fundamental to model intercomparison and development. A multivariable integrated evaluation (MVIE) method was proposed previously based on a vector field evaluation (VFE) diagram, which can provide quantitative and comprehensive evaluation on multiple fields. In this study, we make further improvements to this method from the following aspects. (1) We take area weighting into account in the definition of statistics in the VFE diagram and MVIE method, which is particularly important for a global evaluation. (2) We consider the combination of multiple scalar fields and vector fields against multiple scalar fields alone in the previous MVIE method. (3) A multivariable integrated skill score (MISS) is proposed as a flexible index to measure a model’s ability to simulate multiple fields. Compared with the MIEI proposed in the previous study, MISS is a normalized index that can adjust the relative importance of different aspects of model performance. (4) A simple-to-use and straightforward tool, the Multivariable Integrated Evaluation Tool (MVIETool), is developed to facilitate an intercomparison of the performance of various models. The tool is coded with the open-source NCAR Command Language (NCL), which provides a calculation of MVIE statistics and plotting. With the support of this tool, one can easily evaluate model performance in terms of each individual variable and/or multiple variables.

scholarly journals An improved multivariable integrated evaluation method and tool (MVIETool) v1.0 for multimodel intercomparison

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 3079-3094
Author(s):  
Meng-Zhuo Zhang ◽  
Zhongfeng Xu ◽  
Ying Han ◽  
Weidong Guo
Keyword(s):  
Vector Fields ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Comprehensive Evaluation ◽  
Model Performance ◽  
Field Evaluation ◽  
Scalar Fields ◽  
Skill Score ◽  
Global Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Tool ◽  
Multiple Variables

Abstract. An evaluation of a model's overall performance in simulating multiple fields is fundamental to model intercomparison and development. A multivariable integrated evaluation (MVIE) method was proposed previously based on a vector field evaluation (VFE) diagram, which can provide quantitative and comprehensive evaluation on multiple fields. In this study, we make further improvements to this method from the following aspects. (1) We take area weighting into account in the definition of statistics in the VFE diagram and MVIE method, which is particularly important for a global evaluation. (2) We consider the combination of multiple scalar fields and vector fields against multiple scalar fields alone in the previous MVIE method. (3) A multivariable integrated skill score (MISS) is proposed as a flexible index to measure a model's ability to simulate multiple fields. Compared with the multivariable integrated evaluation index (MIEI) proposed in the previous study, MISS is a normalized index that can adjust the relative importance of different aspects of model performance. (4) A simple-to-use and straightforward tool, the Multivariable Integrated Evaluation Tool (MVIETool version 1.0), is developed to facilitate an intercomparison of the performance of various models. Users can use the tool coded either with the open-source NCAR Command Language (NCL) or Python3 to calculate the MVIE statistics and plotting. With the support of this tool, one can easily evaluate model performance in terms of each individual variable and/or multiple variables.

Evaluation method for imaging plate resolution by means of phase contrast transfer function

1995 ◽  
Vol 53 ◽  
pp. 662-663 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Oikawa ◽  
H. Kosugi ◽  
F. Hosokawa ◽  
D. Shindo ◽  
M. Kersker
Keyword(s):  
Transfer Function ◽  
Phase Contrast ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Amorphous Film ◽  
Imaging Plate ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Special Shape ◽  
Contrast Transfer Function ◽  
Contrast Image ◽  
Specimen Shape

Evaluation of the resolution of the Imaging Plate (IP) has been attempted by some methods. An evaluation method for IP resolution, which is not influenced by hard X-rays at higher accelerating voltages, was proposed previously by the present authors. This method, however, requires truoblesome experimental preperations partly because specially synthesized hematite was used as a specimen, and partly because a special shape of the specimen was used as a standard image. In this paper, a convenient evaluation method which is not infuenced by the specimen shape and image direction, is newly proposed. In this method, phase contrast images of thin amorphous film are used.Several diffraction rings are obtained by the Fourier transformation of a phase contrast image of thin amorphous film, taken at a large under focus. The rings show the spatial-frequency spectrum corresponding to the phase contrast transfer function (PCTF). The envelope function is obtained by connecting the peak intensities of the rings. The evelope function is offten used for evaluation of the instrument, because the function shows the performance of the electron microscope (EM).

Combining Values

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-4, 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Proximal Phalanx ◽  
Common Error ◽  
The Third ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Upper Extremity Impairment ◽  
The Individual

Abstract To account for the effects of multiple impairments, evaluating physicians must provide a summary value that combines multiple impairments so the whole person impairment is equal to or less than the sum of all the individual impairment values. A common error is to add values that should be combined and typically results in an inflated rating. The Combined Values Chart in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition, includes instructions that guide physicians about combining impairment ratings. For example, impairment values within a region generally are combined and converted to a whole person permanent impairment before combination with the results from other regions (exceptions include certain impairments of the spine and extremities). When they combine three or more values, physicians should select and combine the two lowest values; this value is combined with the third value to yield the total value. Upper extremity impairment ratings are combined based on the principle that a second and each succeeding impairment applies not to the whole unit (eg, whole finger) but only to the part that remains (eg, proximal phalanx). Physicians who combine lower extremity impairments usually use only one evaluation method, but, if more than one method is used, the physician should use the Combined Values Chart.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document