Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
To improve accuracy of the final model, users can select the prediction servers from which to aggregate results. [1] The authors of 3D-Jury designed the system as a meta-predictor because earlier results concluded that the average low-energy protein conformation (by way of aggregation) fit the true conformation better than simply the lowest ...
The competition was part of the Alan Turing Centenary Conference in 2012, with total prizes of 9000 GBP given by Google. The SUMO prize is an annual prize for the best open source ontology extension of the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO), a formal theory of terms and logical definitions describing the world. [15] The prize is $3000.
I-TASSER (Iterative Threading ASSEmbly Refinement) is a bioinformatics method for predicting three-dimensional structure model of protein molecules from amino acid sequences. [1] It detects structure templates from the Protein Data Bank by a technique called fold recognition (or threading ).
A unified interface for: Tertiary structure prediction/3D modelling, 3D model quality assessment, Intrinsic disorder prediction, Domain prediction, Prediction of protein-ligand binding residues Automated webserver and some downloadable programs RaptorX: remote homology detection, protein 3D modeling, binding site prediction
Structured prediction or structured output learning is an umbrella term for supervised machine learning techniques that involves predicting structured objects, rather than discrete or real values. [ 1 ]
Another model used in predicting cash-flows was developed in 1998 and is known as the Dechow, Kothari, and Watts model, or DKW (1998). DKW (1998) uses regression analysis in order to determine the relationship between multiple variables and cash flows.
Prizes have a modest cash value, primarily aimed at helping the winners to attend the conference, where the prizes are awarded and the judges make the following declarations: First prize [Language 1] is the programming tool of choice for discriminating hackers.
The second is that only the difference between the winning and the losing prize matters to the two contestants, not the absolute size of their winnings. [5] These two testable predictions of tournament theory have been supported by empirical research over the years, especially in the fields of labour economics [ 6 ] and sports.