Under Rahimi et al.'s framework, SGC reports higher within-161-mile accuracy and lower training time than GCN+H on GEOTEXT, TWITTER-US, and TWITTER-WORLD, saving more than 30 hours on TWITTER-WORLD.

Under Rahimi et al.'s framework, SGC reports higher within-161-mile accuracy and lower training time than GCN+H on GEOTEXT, TWITTER-US, and TWITTER-WORLD, saving more than 30 hours on TWITTER-WORLD. · CiteArk

测量结果

已评估 0/12 项

获得支持 0有争议或冲突 0尚未评估 12

保留同一结论下的完整结果组。已有评估排在前面；单项判断不替代整组结论。展开行查看条件、来源与历次证据。

每行是一项测量，分别显示论文报告、最近可用实测和累计证据状态。
指标与条件	论文报告	最近可用实测	证据判断
reportedPlusMinus: 0.2	60.6%	—	尚未评估
	153 seconds	—	尚未评估
reportedPlusMinus: 0.1	61.1%	—	尚未评估
	5.6 seconds	—	尚未评估
reportedPlusMinus: 0.2	61.9%	—	尚未评估
printed: 9h 54m · additionalMinutes: 54	594 minutes	—	尚未评估
reportedPlusMinus: 0.1	62.5%	—	尚未评估
printed: 4h 33m · additionalMinutes: 33	273 minutes	—	尚未评估
reportedPlusMinus: 0.2	53.6%	—	尚未评估
printed: 2d 05h 17m · additionalHours: 5 · additionalMinutes: 17	3,197 minutes	—	尚未评估
reportedPlusMinus: 0.2	54.1%	—	尚未评估
printed: 22h 53m · additionalMinutes: 53	1,373 minutes	—	尚未评估

Under Rahimi et al.'s framework, SGC reports higher within-161-mile accuracy and lower training time than GCN+H on GEOTEXT, TWITTER-US, and TWITTER-WORLD, saving more than 30 hours on TWITTER-WORLD.

报告指标与观测值

Assessment（0）

关联运行（0）

测量结果