Ambiguities and Discrepancies. In case of ambiguities or discrepancies within this Agreement, the following shall apply:
Ambiguities and Discrepancies Sample Clauses
Related to Ambiguities and Discrepancies
Complaints and Disputes 28.1. If the Client wishes to report a complaint, he must send an email to the Company with the completed “Complaints Form” found on the Website. The Company will try to resolve it without undue delay and according to the Company’s Complaints Procedure for Clients.
Complaints and Dispute Resolution 16.1 Where a dispute arises in connection with any aspect of this Agreement, the parties acting with good faith, will use all reasonable endeavours to bring any such issue to the attention of the other party in a timely fashion and in any event within 60 days of any such dispute coming to their attention.
Uses and Disclosures Pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, Contractor may receive from the Exchange Protected Health Information and/or Personally Identifiable Information in connection with Contractor Exchange Functions that is protected under applicable Federal and State laws and regulations. Contractor shall not use or disclose such Protected Health Information or Personally Identifiable Information obtained in connection with Contractor Exchange Functions other than as is expressly permitted under the Exchange Requirements and only to the extent necessary to perform the functions called for within this Agreement.
Claims and Disputes A. Claims by CONTRACTOR shall be made in writing to the COUNTY within two (2) business days after the commencement of the event giving rise to such claim or CONTRACTOR shall be deemed to have waived the claim. All claims shall be priced in accordance with the section in this document entitled “Changes in Work”.
Notice and Disclaimer 2.1. The Data is the property of Xxx Xxxxxxxx and is protected by applicable copyright law. In no event shall User publish, retransmit, display, redistribute, or otherwise reproduce any or all of the Data in any format to anyone, except as allowed in Section 1 of this agreement.
Prohibited Uses and Disclosures BA shall not use or disclose PHI other than as permitted or required by the Contract and Addendum, or as required by law. BA shall not use or disclose Protected Information for fundraising or marketing purposes. BA shall not disclose Protected Information to a health plan for payment or health care operation purposes if the patient has requested this special restriction, and has paid out of pocket in full for the health care item or service to which the PHI solely relates [42 U.S.C. Section 17935(a) and 45 C.F.R. Section 164.522(a)(vi)]. BA shall not directly or indirectly receive remuneration in exchange for Protected Information, except with the prior written consent of CE and as permitted by the HITECH Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 17935(d)(2), and the HIPAA regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section 164.502(a)(5)(ii); however, this prohibition shall not affect payment by CE to BA for services provided pursuant to the Contract.
Results and Discussion Table 1 (top) shows the root mean square error (RMSE) between the three tests for different numbers of topics. These results show that all three tests largely agree with each other but as the sample size (number of topics) decreases, the agreement decreases. In line with the results found for 50 topics, the randomization and bootstrap tests agree more with the t-test than with each other. We looked at pairwise scatterplots of the three tests at the different topic sizes. While there is some disagreement among the tests at large p-values, i.e. those greater than 0.5, none of the tests would predict such a run pair to have a significant difference. More interesting to us is the behavior of the tests for run pairs with lower p-values. ≥ Table 1 (bottom) shows the RMSE among the three tests for run pairs that all three tests agreed had a p-value greater than 0.0001 and less than 0.5. In contrast to all pairs with p-values 0.0001 (Table 1 top), these run pairs are of more importance to the IR researcher since they are the runs that require a statistical test to judge the significance of the per- formance difference. For these run pairs, the randomization and t tests are much more in agreement with each other than the bootstrap is with either of the other two tests. Looking at scatterplots, we found that the bootstrap tracks the t-test very well but shows a systematic bias to produce p-values smaller than the t-test. As the number of topics de- creases, this bias becomes more pronounced. Figure 1 shows a pairwise scatterplot of the three tests when the number of topics is 10. The randomization test also tends to produce smaller p-values than the t-test for run pairs where the t- test estimated a p-value smaller than 0.1, but at the same time, produces some p-values greater than the t-test’s. As Figure 1 shows, the bootstrap consistently gives smaller p- values than the t-test for these smaller p-values. While the bootstrap and the randomization test disagree with each other more than with the t-test, Figure 1 shows that for a low number of topics, the randomization test shows less noise in its agreement with the bootstrap com- Figure 1: A pairwise comparison of the p-values less than 0.25 produced by the randomization, t-test, and the bootstrap tests for pairs of TREC runs with only 10 topics. The small number of topics high- lights the differences between the three tests. pared to the t-test for small p-values.
MEET AND DISCUSS A. Upon request of either party, the Chancellor and/or designees of the Chancellor shall during the term of this Agreement meet with a committee appointed by the Association for the purpose of discussing matters necessary to the implementation of this Agreement.
