References in periodicals archive ?
Caption: Figure 10: The observed and forecasted river flow by the LHLGSA, LMARS, LM5RT, and LCMLR models using DS4 data set: Astore catchment.
Caption: Figure 12: The observed and forecasted river flow by the LHLGSA, LMARS, LM5RT, and LCMLR models using DS3 data set: Shyok catchment.
Kernel functions Performance Catchment indexes RBF Polynomial Sigmoid Gaussian R[F.sub.RMSE] 40.09 70.55 67.12 66.88 Astore R[F.sub.MAE] 25.05 42.25 41.48 39.55 R[F.sub.DC] 0.916 0.878 0.892 0.889 R[F.sub.RMSE] 109.20 156.53 155.45 138.47 Shyok R[F.sub.MAE] 55.75 83.72 82.40 72.52 R[F.sub.DC] 0.947 0.873 0.875 0.901 Kernel functions Performance Catchment indexes Morlet Mexican hat Mayer R[F.sub.RMSE] 66.51 65.57 57.90 Astore R[F.sub.MAE] 39.53 39.38 34.27 R[F.sub.DC] 0.887 0.901 0.903 R[F.sub.RMSE] 137.72 137.95 144.92 Shyok R[F.sub.MAE] 70.93 76.30 83.21 R[F.sub.DC] 0.901 0.908 0.903 Table 5: Comparison of the LHLGSA, LMARS, LM5RT, and LCMLR methods: Astore catchment.
Consistent with other research, wage alone was not a significant predictor of the LMAR (p = .
As expected, due to the substantial differences in the LMAR between individuals with disabilities and non-disabled individuals, disability status was significant with a high F value, F(1,836)=1192.851, (p<.0001).
% LMAR = Ao + A1 DISABLED STATUS A2 WAGE GRP + A3 TIME-PERIOD+ A4 DISABILITY STATUS x WAGE GRP + A5 DISABILITY STATUS x TIME-PERIOD+ ERROR
For non-disabled individuals, the LMAR was significantly higher in the fourth time-period, 19951999, than in the 1980-1984 time-periods for all wage groups.
While wage groupings were non-significant for non-disabled individuals, individuals with disabilities had significantly higher LMAR in states that had minimum wages above the federal minimum wage.
There were no statistically significant differences between the LMAR of states below and states at the federal minimum wage, suggesting that the number of individuals paid less than the federal minimum wage is too small to effect the employment in those states.
This second time-period, 19851989, evidenced a non-significant increase over the previous time-period, but was significantly higher than two time-periods that followed, 1990-1994 and 1995-1999, which evidenced a decline in the LMAR consecutively and was associated with consecutive 90 cent increases to the federal minimum wage.
Therefore, LMAR for individuals with disabilities may not be associated with a specific wage level; rather the evidence suggests that increases in minimum wages are associated with a reduction in the employment rate for individuals with disabilities.
First, the finding that the highest LMAR for individuals with disabilities occurred during the time-period of 1985-1989 was even more surprising when the drop in the denial rates by the Social Security Administration, starting in 1988 (Beegle & Stock, 2003), is taken into consideration.
Acronyms browser ?
Full browser ?
- LMB battery