Error Performance
Contents |
bit-rate error probability digital paths and connections Recommendation G.826 In force performance error linguistics components Number Title Status G.826 (12/02) End-to-end error performance parameters and objectives for performance error definition international, constant bit-rate digital paths and connections In force Superseded and Withdrawn components Number Title Status G.826 (11/93) Error performance parameters and objectives for international, constant
Performance Error In Language
bit rate digital paths at or above the primary rate Superseded G.826 (08/96) Error performance parameters and objectives for international, constant bit rate digital paths at or above the primary rate Superseded G.826 (02/99) Error performance parameters and objectives for international, constant bit-rate digital paths at or above the primary rate Superseded G.826 (1999) Corrigendum 1 (07/01) Superseded Top - Feedback - Contact us - Copyright © ITU 2008 All Rights ReservedContact for this page : ITU-T PublicationsUpdated : 2007/05/04
Experience Best Practices Best Practices Forms & Job Descriptions Church Forms Church Human Resource Forms Volunteer Forms Church Job Descriptions Volunteer Job Descriptions Management Training Login Mobile App Login Member Login 6 Errors Managers Make on Performance Appraisals
Halo Error In Performance Appraisal
October 14, 2015 by Patricia 3 Comments Since we are all human, leniency error in performance appraisal it is common for managers to make âerrorsâ when assessing employee behavior and writing performance appraisal documents. These errors are contrast error in performance appraisal reflective of our unconscious biases toward the employee. These biases can give an employee an unfair advantage or disadvantage over others in their peer group. The book, Human Resource Strategy, defines rater errors https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.826/en as being reflective of our imperfect judgment of others. It is for this reason that it is important to understand these biases and take them into consideration when preparing a performance appraisal document. According to Dreher/Dougherty, âA barrier to the accuracy and credibility of performance measures is posed by a number of rater errors, perceptual biases and other sources of distortion in performance ratingsâ. So http://smartchurchmanagement.com/performance-appraisal-rater-errors/ what are these rater errors? 1. Halo Effect Halo Effect is when a raterâs overall positive or negative impression of an individual employee leads to rating him or her the same across all rating dimensions. This is when a manager really likes or dislikes an employee and allows their personal feelings about this employee to influence their performance ratings of them. 2. Leniency Error Leniency error is when a ratersâ tendency is to rate all employees at the positive end of the scale (positive leniency) or at the low end of the scale (negative leniency). This can happen when a manager over-emphasizes either positive or negative behaviors. 3. Central Tendency Error Central tendency error is the ratersâ tendency to avoid making âextremeâ judgments of employee performance resulting in rating all employees in the middle part of a scale. This can happen either when a manager is not comfortable with conflict and avoids low marks to avoid dealing with behavioral issues or when a manager intentionally forces all employees to the middle of the scale. 4. Recency Error Recency error is the raterâs tendency to allow more recent incidents (either effective or ineffective)
of Rotated Phase Shift Keying Modulation over Fading ChannelsAuthorsAuthors and affiliationsSerdar ĂzyurtEmail authorOÄuz KucurÄ°brahim AltunbaĆArticleFirst Online: 29 June 2007Received: 09 May 2006Accepted: 26 April 2007DOI: 10.1007/s11277-007-9319-7Cite this article http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11277-007-9319-7 as: Ăzyurt, S., Kucur, O. & AltunbaĆ, Ä°. Wireless Pers Commun (2007) 43: 1453. doi:10.1007/s11277-007-9319-7 14 Citations 182 Views AbstractIn this paper, the modulation diversity is used to improve the performance of M-PSK modulation over fading channels. Modulation diversity can be achieved by rotating the signal constellation and using component interleaving. We derive symbol error probability expressions error in for rotated uncoded M-PSK over Ricean fading channels and obtain optimal rotation angles for M-PSK (M = 2, 4, 8). We show that rotated signal constellations with component interleaving improve the performance of M-PSK significantly as compared to the unrotated one over Rayleigh and Ricean fading channels. For example, when the ratio of the direct path power to the error in performance multipath signal power, K is 0 and 10, 8 and 1.5 dB gains are obtained, respectively, at a symbol error probability of 10â3 for 8PSK modulation. We also show that as K gets larger, the gain obtained by the rotation rapidly decreases. We develop a new asymmetric 8PSK signal constellation obtained from two QPSK signal constellations that are optimally rotated by different angles. This asymmetric 8PSK and also the rotated 8PSK signal constellation together with component interleaving are applied to four-state trellis-coded schemes. Simulation results show that these new schemes provide good performance improvements over the original TCM schemes and previous relevant works over Rayleigh and Ricean fading channels.KeywordsModulation diversityM-PSK modulationFading channelsTrellis-coded modulationReferencesTaricco G., Viterbo E. (1996). Performance of component interleaved signal sets for fading channels. IEE Electronics Letters 32(13): 1170â1172CrossRefGoogle ScholarBoullĂ©, K., & Belfiore, J. C. (1992). Modulation schemes designed for the Rayleigh channel. In Proceedings of the CISSâ92, Princeton, pp. 288â293.Giraud X., Belfiore J.C. (1996). Constellations matched to the Rayleigh fading channel. IEEE Transaction on Information Theory 42(