Automated decisions and profiling. 14.6.1. As part of the processing of your information, decisions may be made by automated means.
Automated decisions and profiling Sample Clauses
Related to Automated decisions and profiling
Automated decisions For purposes hereof “automated decision” shall mean a decision by the data exporter or the data importer which produces legal effects concerning a data subject or significantly affects a data subject and which is based solely on automated processing of personal data intended to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to him, such as his performance at work, creditworthiness, reliability, conduct, etc. The data importer shall not make any automated decisions concerning data subjects, except when:
How to Request an External Appeal If you remain dissatisfied with our medical appeal determination, you may request an external review by an outside review agency. In accordance with §27-18.9-8, your external appeal will be reviewed by one of the external independent review organizations (IRO) approved by the Office of the Health Insurance Commissioner. The IRO is selected using a rotational method. Your claim does not have to meet a minimum dollar threshold in order for you to be able to request an external appeal. To request an external appeal, submit a written request to us within four (4) months of your receipt of the medical appeal denial letter. We will forward your request to the outside review agency within five (5) business days, unless it is an urgent appeal, and then we will send it within two (2) business days. We may charge you a filing fee up to $25.00 per external appeal, not to exceed $75.00 per plan year. We will refund you if the denial is reversed and will waive the fee if it imposes an undue hardship for you. Upon receipt of the information, the outside review agency will notify you of its determination within ten (10) calendar days, unless it is an urgent appeal, and then you will be notified within seventy-two (72) hours. The determination by the outside review agency is binding on us. Filing an external appeal is voluntary. You may choose to participate in this level of appeal or you may file suit in an appropriate court of law (see Legal Action, below). Once a member or provider receives a decision at one of the several levels of appeals noted above, (reconsideration, appeal, external), the member or provider may not ask for an appeal at the same level again, unless additional information that could affect such decisions can be provided.
Introduction and Statement of Policy The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has established NIH-designated data repositories (e.g., database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP), Sequence Read Archive (SRA), NIH Established Trusted Partnerships) for securely storing and sharing controlled-access human data submitted to NIH under the NIH Genomic Data Sharing (GDS)
Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users? Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain. Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function. The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation? Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator? Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions? Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour. Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project? It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.
Investment Promotion and Protection 1. Bearing in mind the respective powers and competences of the Community and the Member States, cooperation shall aim to establish a favourable climate for private investment, both domestic and foreign, especially through better conditions for investment protection, the transfer of capital and the exchange of information on investment opportunities.
Hiring Decisions Contractor shall make the final determination of whether an Economically Disadvantaged Individual referred by the System is "qualified" for the position.
Annexes and Protocols The Annexes and the Protocols to this Agreement are an integral part of it. The Joint Committee may decide to amend the Annexes and Protocols.
Annexes, Appendices and Footnotes The annexes, appendices and footnotes to this Agreement constitute an integral part of this Agreement.
NOTIFICATIONS AND SUBMISSION OF REPORTS Unless otherwise stated in writing after the Effective Date, all notifications and reports required under this IA shall be submitted to the following entities: OIG: Administrative and Civil Remedies Branch Office of Counsel to the Inspector General Office of Inspector General U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Xxxxx Building, Room 5527 000 Xxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx, XX Xxxxxxxxxx, XX 00000 Telephone: (000) 000-0000 Facsimile: (000) 000-0000 LFAC: Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxx, DPM 0000 Xxxxxxxxxxx Xx. X-000 Xxxxxxxxx, XX 00000 Telephone: (000) 000-0000 Email: xx.xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx Unless otherwise specified, all notifications and reports required by this IA may be made by electronic mail, overnight mail, hand delivery, or other means, provided that there is proof that such notification was received. Upon request by OIG, LFAC may be required to provide OIG with an additional copy of each notification or report required by this IA in OIG’s requested format (electronic or paper).
Effect of Addenda, Bulletins, and Change Orders No special implication, interpretation, construction, connotation, denotation, import, or meaning shall be assigned to any provision of the Contract Documents because of changes created by the issuance of any (1) Addendum, (2) Bulletin, or (3) Change Order other than the precise meaning that the Contract Documents would have had if the provision thus created had read originally as it reads subsequent to the (1) Addendum, (2) Bulletin, or (3) Change Order by which it was created.
