Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Every non-systematic linear code can be transformed into a systematic code with essentially the same properties (i.e., minimum distance). [1] [2] Because of the advantages cited above, linear error-correcting codes are therefore generally implemented as systematic codes.
Non-sampling errors are much harder to quantify than sampling errors. [2] Non-sampling errors in survey estimates can arise from: [3] Coverage errors, such as failure to accurately represent all population units in the sample, or the inability to obtain information about all sample cases; Response errors by respondents due for example to ...
This page was last edited on 19 December 2024, at 01:32 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply.
The original information may or may not appear literally in the encoded output; codes that include the unmodified input in the output are systematic, while those that do not are non-systematic. A simplistic example of ECC is to transmit each data bit three times, which is known as a (3,1) repetition code .
Convolutional codes can be systematic and non-systematic: systematic repeats the structure of the message before encoding; non-systematic changes the initial structure; Non-systematic convolutional codes are more popular due to better noise immunity. It relates to the free distance of the convolutional code. [6]
In educational measurement, bias is defined as "Systematic errors in test content, test administration, and/or scoring procedures that can cause some test takers to get either lower or higher scores than their true ability would merit." [16] The source of the bias is irrelevant to the trait the test is intended to measure.
For example, if the mean height in a population of 21-year-old men is 1.75 meters, and one randomly chosen man is 1.80 meters tall, then the "error" is 0.05 meters; if the randomly chosen man is 1.70 meters tall, then the "error" is −0.05 meters.
If the users know the amount of the systematic error, they may decide to adjust for it manually rather than having the instrument expensively adjusted to eliminate the error: e.g. in the above example they might manually reduce all the values read by about 4.8%.