8 Matching Annotations
  1. Aug 2025
    1. Formal learning captures skills and knowledgeacquired through a structured set of learning experiences leading to credentials orqualifications that are recognized beyond the workplace or local industry (Misko 2008), andare thus more easily transferable across local, regional, and national labor markets. Skillsacquired in non-formal social contexts refer to those developed by workplaces for purposesof skill development, such as on-the-job training programs or formal demonstrationsby experienced co-workers (Misko 2008)

      Schooling and the like

  2. Dec 2024
    1. Describe how youcould incorporate this information into your analysis.

      Flag: suggested answer (don't read if don't want to see a (possibly incorrect) attempt:

      Update - realise some bi-modal continuous distribution may be better (but potentially difficult to perform the update)

      Attempt: we model the parameter pi in a Bayesian way: we put a distribution on pi (0.7 w.p 1/2, 0.2 w.p 1/2) then we weight the 1/2 with the likelihood of the observations, given that parameter (i.e. what is the likleihood when pi = 0.7, multiply that by 1/2 then divide by the normalizing constant to get our new probability for pi = 0.7 (do the same for pi = 0.2, the normalizing constant is the sum of the 'scores' for 0.7 and 0.2 i.e. 1/2 * likelihood so we can't 'divide by the normalising constant until we have the score for both 0.2 and 0.7)

    2. xplain your answers

      Flag - suggested answer (don't read if don't want to see a (possibly incorrect) attempt:

      Grateful for comments here as I am not very certain on the situations that the MLE approach is better vs situations where Bayesian approach is better

      Suggested answer:

      c(i) Is frequentist approach where we have one parameter estimate (the MLE) c(ii) bayesian approach - distribution over parameters and we update our prior belief based on observations If we have no prior belief - c(i) may be a better estimate (i.e. in (my version of) c(ii) we are constraining the parameters to be 0.7 or 0.2 and updating our relative convictions about these - which is a strong prior asssumption (we can never have 0.5 for instance) If we do have prior belief and also want to incorporate uncertainty estimations in our parameters, I think c(ii) is better If the MLE is 0.7 then we will have c(i) giving 0.7 and c(ii) giving 0.7 with a very high probability and 0/2 with a very low probability to the methods will perform similarly

    3. If you thought that this assumption was unrealistic, howwould you relax this assumption

      Flag: Don't read if don't want to see a (possibly incorrect) attempt of an answer: (Grateful for any comments/disagreements, further points to add)

      Attempted answer: Assumption is that, given a class, features are independent. We could relax this by using 2-d gaussians for our class distributions that have non-zero covariance (off-diagonal) terms so that we have dependencies between features (currently we have these set to zero for independence)

  3. Sep 2024
    1. 1- Do you like to play games? why or why not? I love playing all kinds of games, whether they are board games or video games. Sometimes I take the games a bit seriously because I'm a bit competitive. But they usually represent a sense of calm, focus, and fun for me at the same time.

      2- What kind of games do you like to play? Now, I am a fan of starcraft 2 or any RTS game. But now I have become a fan of dota 2 and I think I'm going to give it a try. also when I get together with my friends, we play card games like Uno.

      3- always i have a mate with play duo and is the same mate with i play the cards games always i have a mate to play duo and is the same mate witch i play the cards games, his name is bruno. But once a week we are playing with a most than 5 friends more.

  4. Feb 2024
  5. Apr 2022