Search alternatives:
algorithm python » algorithms within (Expand Search), algorithm both (Expand Search)
within function » fibrin function (Expand Search), protein function (Expand Search), catenin function (Expand Search)
python function » protein function (Expand Search)
algorithm i » algorithm ai (Expand Search), algorithm _ (Expand Search), algorithm b (Expand Search)
i function » _ function (Expand Search), a function (Expand Search), link function (Expand Search)
algorithm python » algorithms within (Expand Search), algorithm both (Expand Search)
within function » fibrin function (Expand Search), protein function (Expand Search), catenin function (Expand Search)
python function » protein function (Expand Search)
algorithm i » algorithm ai (Expand Search), algorithm _ (Expand Search), algorithm b (Expand Search)
i function » _ function (Expand Search), a function (Expand Search), link function (Expand Search)
-
1761
-
1762
Order parameters versus temperature for amylase tasks:
Published 2025“…Markers come from BADASS runs, and lines are fits using Eqs 5–7 in <a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013119#pcbi.1013119.s001" target="_blank">S1 Text</a>. These were obtained from cooling then heating runs of our algorithm for the amylase task: on the left using the ESM2 mutant marginal score, and on the right using the machine learning model that predicts fitness for stain removal and dp3 function. …”
-
1763
Simulation conditions.
Published 2025“…Previous studies often applied only one or several traditional algorithms to control the performance of EPAS systems and ignored the influence of external disturbances. …”
-
1764
System models.
Published 2025“…Previous studies often applied only one or several traditional algorithms to control the performance of EPAS systems and ignored the influence of external disturbances. …”
-
1765
Proposed control scheme.
Published 2025“…Previous studies often applied only one or several traditional algorithms to control the performance of EPAS systems and ignored the influence of external disturbances. …”
-
1766
Ideal assisted torque.
Published 2025“…Previous studies often applied only one or several traditional algorithms to control the performance of EPAS systems and ignored the influence of external disturbances. …”
-
1767
-
1768
-
1769
-
1770
-
1771
-
1772
-
1773
Grid search process.
Published 2025“…During the prediction phase, the model performs excellently across different sample types in the test set, achieving a precision (P) of 84%, a recall (R) of 86%, and an F1 score of 85%. Through the model’s interpretability analysis, we find that quality, functionality, and price are key features affecting perceived risk for electronic products. …”
-
1774
Research framework.
Published 2025“…During the prediction phase, the model performs excellently across different sample types in the test set, achieving a precision (P) of 84%, a recall (R) of 86%, and an F1 score of 85%. Through the model’s interpretability analysis, we find that quality, functionality, and price are key features affecting perceived risk for electronic products. …”
-
1775
Parameter configuration for TextCNN model.
Published 2025“…During the prediction phase, the model performs excellently across different sample types in the test set, achieving a precision (P) of 84%, a recall (R) of 86%, and an F1 score of 85%. Through the model’s interpretability analysis, we find that quality, functionality, and price are key features affecting perceived risk for electronic products. …”
-
1776
Model performance on the validation set.
Published 2025“…During the prediction phase, the model performs excellently across different sample types in the test set, achieving a precision (P) of 84%, a recall (R) of 86%, and an F1 score of 85%. Through the model’s interpretability analysis, we find that quality, functionality, and price are key features affecting perceived risk for electronic products. …”
-
1777
Performance comparison of different models.
Published 2025“…During the prediction phase, the model performs excellently across different sample types in the test set, achieving a precision (P) of 84%, a recall (R) of 86%, and an F1 score of 85%. Through the model’s interpretability analysis, we find that quality, functionality, and price are key features affecting perceived risk for electronic products. …”
-
1778
Performance evaluation of models on test dataset.
Published 2025“…During the prediction phase, the model performs excellently across different sample types in the test set, achieving a precision (P) of 84%, a recall (R) of 86%, and an F1 score of 85%. Through the model’s interpretability analysis, we find that quality, functionality, and price are key features affecting perceived risk for electronic products. …”
-
1779
Topic classification based on KeyBERT-TextCNN.
Published 2025“…During the prediction phase, the model performs excellently across different sample types in the test set, achieving a precision (P) of 84%, a recall (R) of 86%, and an F1 score of 85%. Through the model’s interpretability analysis, we find that quality, functionality, and price are key features affecting perceived risk for electronic products. …”
-
1780
Summary of perceived risk dimensions.
Published 2025“…During the prediction phase, the model performs excellently across different sample types in the test set, achieving a precision (P) of 84%, a recall (R) of 86%, and an F1 score of 85%. Through the model’s interpretability analysis, we find that quality, functionality, and price are key features affecting perceived risk for electronic products. …”