network between the PI and Project modes), which shows that Kevin Webb translation - network between the PI and Project modes), which shows that Kevin Webb Indonesian how to say

network between the PI and Project

network between the PI and Project modes), which shows that Kevin Webb (a professor of electrical and computer engineering) has seven projects (Figure 9(a)). T2 does not have a definite answer, but participants found that they could sort the PIs mode by within-mode connections (sort by the degree within a specific mode) to find PIs who have high collaborations with others and check whether some of them were repeated collaborators using the within-network view (Figure 9(b)). In contrast, participants’ approaches varied when solving T3. Some
used brushing to see the relationship between PIs, Projects, and ProgramManager to see if there were any common occurrences over multiple projects. Others simply used ego-networks to see if the same pair of PI and program manager appeared at the same time.
Since T4 is a more open-ended task, the usages of PNLBs were more diverse. Initially, all the participants successfully used the open-sesame interaction to find the project awarded more than $70M (see Figure 9(c)). Subsequently, some used word clouds over projects; others moved all of the associated PIs and program managers to the top of the band to see their relationships. Some even investigated beyond the specific scope of T4 and searched for what other projects the PIs of
the 70 million-dollar project have worked on and explored that data.
All participants stated that they preferred the PNLBs view over the compound network visualization for virtually all mSNA tasks. In particular, they liked the idea of “dissecting complicated datasets into multiple bimodal sets,” so that they could focus on two adjacent bands
at a time. They noted that this tool was easy to use for first-time users, and that it took less than an hour to be proficient at using it. One participant also stated that “patterns and insights found in this view are more digestible due to its structure [than the compound network visualization].” However, several participants also stressed that having the mutually interlinked compound network visualization and the PNLBs view allowed for transferring details from multimodal networks to the network overview and vice versa.
Participants also felt that some functions in the PNLBs view were particularly helpful for mSNA tasks. For example, they all seemed to enjoy how interactions often brought about new hypotheses and easily supported exploring them. One participant used the open-sesame interaction to determine the project with the largest grant amount. She then used the word cloud to view the details of that project. This made her curious if other projects with similar keywords had been
awarded. She queried the keyword and found another project, and viewed the ego-network of that project. Several PIs were common to both projects, and the participant then viewed their within-network.
She wondered if these projects were granted by the same program manager, and so brought all their program managers within view. Such long sequences of actions were well-supported by our tool, something which the participants informed us that they appreciated.
0/5000
From: -
To: -
Results (Indonesian) 1: [Copy]
Copied!
network between the PI and Project modes), which shows that Kevin Webb (a professor of electrical and computer engineering) has seven projects (Figure 9(a)). T2 does not have a definite answer, but participants found that they could sort the PIs mode by within-mode connections (sort by the degree within a specific mode) to find PIs who have high collaborations with others and check whether some of them were repeated collaborators using the within-network view (Figure 9(b)). In contrast, participants’ approaches varied when solving T3. Someused brushing to see the relationship between PIs, Projects, and ProgramManager to see if there were any common occurrences over multiple projects. Others simply used ego-networks to see if the same pair of PI and program manager appeared at the same time.Since T4 is a more open-ended task, the usages of PNLBs were more diverse. Initially, all the participants successfully used the open-sesame interaction to find the project awarded more than $70M (see Figure 9(c)). Subsequently, some used word clouds over projects; others moved all of the associated PIs and program managers to the top of the band to see their relationships. Some even investigated beyond the specific scope of T4 and searched for what other projects the PIs ofthe 70 million-dollar project have worked on and explored that data.All participants stated that they preferred the PNLBs view over the compound network visualization for virtually all mSNA tasks. In particular, they liked the idea of “dissecting complicated datasets into multiple bimodal sets,” so that they could focus on two adjacent bandsat a time. They noted that this tool was easy to use for first-time users, and that it took less than an hour to be proficient at using it. One participant also stated that “patterns and insights found in this view are more digestible due to its structure [than the compound network visualization].” However, several participants also stressed that having the mutually interlinked compound network visualization and the PNLBs view allowed for transferring details from multimodal networks to the network overview and vice versa.Participants also felt that some functions in the PNLBs view were particularly helpful for mSNA tasks. For example, they all seemed to enjoy how interactions often brought about new hypotheses and easily supported exploring them. One participant used the open-sesame interaction to determine the project with the largest grant amount. She then used the word cloud to view the details of that project. This made her curious if other projects with similar keywords had beenawarded. She queried the keyword and found another project, and viewed the ego-network of that project. Several PIs were common to both projects, and the participant then viewed their within-network.She wondered if these projects were granted by the same program manager, and so brought all their program managers within view. Such long sequences of actions were well-supported by our tool, something which the participants informed us that they appreciated.
Being translated, please wait..
Results (Indonesian) 2:[Copy]
Copied!
jaringan antara PI dan mode Project), yang menunjukkan bahwa Kevin Webb (seorang profesor teknik listrik dan komputer) memiliki tujuh proyek (Gambar 9 (a)). T2 tidak memiliki jawaban de fi nite, tapi peserta menemukan bahwa mereka bisa memilah mode PI oleh koneksi dalam-mode (urutkan berdasarkan tingkat dalam modus c spesifisitas) untuk fi nd PI yang memiliki kolaborasi yang tinggi dengan orang lain dan memeriksa apakah beberapa dari mereka yang diulang kolaborator menggunakan dalam-jaringan view (Gambar 9 (b)). Sebaliknya, pendekatan peserta bervariasi ketika memecahkan T3. Beberapa
digunakan menyikat untuk melihat hubungan antara PI, Proyek, dan Program manager untuk melihat apakah ada kejadian umum selama beberapa proyek. Lainnya hanya digunakan ego-jaringan untuk melihat apakah pasangan yang sama dari PI dan manajer program muncul pada waktu yang sama.
Karena T4 adalah tugas yang lebih terbuka, penggunaan dari PNLBs yang lebih beragam. Awalnya, semua peserta berhasil digunakan interaksi terbuka wijen untuk mendapati proyek memberikan lebih dari $ 70 juta (lihat Gambar 9 (c)). Selanjutnya, beberapa digunakan awan kata lebih dari proyek; lain pindah semua PI dan manajer program terkait ke puncak band untuk melihat hubungan mereka. Beberapa bahkan diselidiki luar spesifik lingkup T4 dan mencari apa proyek-proyek lain yang PI dari
proyek 70 juta dolar telah bekerja dan dieksplorasi data.
Semua peserta menyatakan bahwa mereka lebih suka PNLBs melihat selama visualisasi jaringan senyawa untuk hampir semua msna tugas. Secara khusus, mereka menyukai gagasan "membedah dataset yang rumit menjadi beberapa set bimodal," sehingga mereka bisa fokus pada dua band yang berdekatan
pada suatu waktu. Mereka mencatat bahwa alat ini mudah digunakan bagi pengguna pertama kali fi, dan butuh waktu kurang dari satu jam untuk menjadi pro fi sien di menggunakannya. Salah satu peserta juga menyatakan bahwa "pola dan wawasan yang ditemukan dalam pandangan ini lebih mudah dicerna karena strukturnya [dari visualisasi jaringan senyawa]." Namun, beberapa peserta juga menekankan bahwa memiliki saling saling visualisasi jaringan kompleks dan PNLBs Lihat diperbolehkan untuk mentransfer rincian dari jaringan multimoda ke jaringan gambaran dan sebaliknya.
Peserta juga merasa bahwa beberapa fungsi di PNLBs tampilan yang sangat membantu untuk tugas-tugas msna. Misalnya, mereka semua tampak menikmati bagaimana interaksi sering membawa hipotesis baru dan mudah didukung menjelajahi mereka. Salah satu peserta yang digunakan interaksi terbuka wijen untuk menentukan proyek dengan jumlah hibah terbesar. Dia kemudian menggunakan cloud kata untuk melihat rincian proyek itu. Hal ini membuat dia penasaran jika proyek lain dengan kata kunci yang serupa telah
diberikan. Dia bertanya kata kunci dan menemukan proyek lain, dan melihat ego-jaringan proyek itu. Beberapa PI yang umum untuk kedua proyek, dan peserta kemudian melihat mereka dalam-jaringan.
Dia bertanya-tanya apakah proyek ini diberikan oleh manajer program yang sama, dan membawa semua manajer program mereka dalam pandangan. Urutan panjang seperti tindakan yang didukung dengan baik oleh alat kami, sesuatu yang peserta memberitahu kami bahwa mereka dihargai.
Being translated, please wait..
 
Other languages
The translation tool support: Afrikaans, Albanian, Amharic, Arabic, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Basque, Belarusian, Bengali, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Catalan, Cebuano, Chichewa, Chinese, Chinese Traditional, Corsican, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Detect language, Dutch, English, Esperanto, Estonian, Filipino, Finnish, French, Frisian, Galician, Georgian, German, Greek, Gujarati, Haitian Creole, Hausa, Hawaiian, Hebrew, Hindi, Hmong, Hungarian, Icelandic, Igbo, Indonesian, Irish, Italian, Japanese, Javanese, Kannada, Kazakh, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Klingon, Korean, Kurdish (Kurmanji), Kyrgyz, Lao, Latin, Latvian, Lithuanian, Luxembourgish, Macedonian, Malagasy, Malay, Malayalam, Maltese, Maori, Marathi, Mongolian, Myanmar (Burmese), Nepali, Norwegian, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Samoan, Scots Gaelic, Serbian, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovak, Slovenian, Somali, Spanish, Sundanese, Swahili, Swedish, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turkish, Turkmen, Ukrainian, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Welsh, Xhosa, Yiddish, Yoruba, Zulu, Language translation.

Copyright ©2025 I Love Translation. All reserved.

E-mail: