Levels of agreement

Look up the experimental values of the first ionization potential for these atoms and calculate the average difference between experiment and the computed values. Depending on the source of your experimental data, the arithmetic mean difference should be within 0.010 hartrees. Serious departrues from this level of agreement may indicate that you have one or more of your spin multiplicities wrong. 

In 1993, eomparisons between the results of the simulation and the measurement data from the test bed revealed an exeellent level of agreement. Sueh a dynamie simulation model makes it possible to examine the dynamie behavior of the entire system even before the maehines and eomponents have been manufaetured. It allows the system behavior to be investigated under operating eonditions that are... 

According to these data, which structural features provide stabilization of radial centers Determine the level of agreement between these data and the radical stabilization energies given in Table 12.7 if the standard C—H bond dissociation energy is taken to be 98.8 kcal/mol. (Compare the calculated and observed bond dissociation energies for the benzyl, allyl, and vinyl systems.)... 

A neuroradiologist with stroke expertise reviewed the hrst 15 of these scans. An asterisk denotes when the use of an adjusted k score changed the level of agreement. Staff-NRAD, staff neuroradiologist K, kappa SN, stroke neurologist Stroke-NRAD, neuroradiologist with stroke expertise. 

Compared with the experimental values for which was noted a high level of measurement error, a level of agreement was found that is not worse than the disparities found for a lot of compounds, which were the subject of independent measurement. Note in particular the good estimates obtained with two compounds that have relatively complex structures, such as styrene oxide and glycidyl acrylate. Nevertheless, there are two estimates that seem sufficiently different from the experimental values to require explanation. 

The methods It is advised that, prior to the certification measurements, the participants discuss their methods so that all participants have confidence in each others methods and there is a good level of agreement between laboratories. As it is preferred to certify on the basis of the agreement between different methods applied in different laboratories, a proposal should indude, where relevant and possible, a group of laboratories offering a range of widely different measurement methods. Each laboratory should use well established method(s), with which it can demonstrate adequate performance in terms of trueness and in terms of reproducibility. 

The true value being measured by the two methods is assumed to be the average of their readings. This is then plotted against the difference between the two readings at that point. The level of agreement or disagreement at every value is, therefore, obtained and a mean and SD can be calculated. 

The test does not indicate which method is superior, only the level of agreement between them. It is entirely possible that a method which shows no agreement with a current standard is, in fact, superior to it, although other tests would have to be used to determine its suitability. 

Termination of the algorithm can be based on several conditions, such as a prespecilied number of iterations, or a prespecified level of agreement between the different selected subsets. Details on the GA method can be found in several references [99-101],... 

There is good agreement between observations and the predictions of Big Bang synthesis. The abundances of H, 4He, 3He, and deuterium, match the predictions very well. For 7Li, observations and predictions match within about a factor of two. It is likely that the main uncertainty for 7Li is in the nuclear physics of its synthesis. This level of agreement represents an impressive success of modem cosmology. 

The typical user of an SRM performs a measurement of the certified property using the apparatus in his laboratory. He compares his result with the certificate value and, if his measurement fails to reproduce the certified value within acceptable limits of precision he investigates his measurement system to remove sources of bias. There are numerous examples of measurement systems in which the level of agreement among measured results by employing SRM s in this way, and the statistical assessment of the performance of measurement systems employing SRM s is a well-established science (3). 

The main purpose of our work is to provide a material that is easily available to anyone who wishes to evaluate the performance of a permeation measuring system. Users whose equipment can accept any of the gases we used can cover a 350-fold range of transmission rates with the values on the SRM certificate. Interlaboratory comparisons that have been conducted to date (22) reveal that the repeatability (level of agreement for results obtained within individual laboratories) is much better than the re-... 

---