Comparing Pooling Strategies Sample Clauses

Comparing Pooling Strategies. In the next simulation, we compare regression results based on pooling by k-means clustering versus random pooling, when x-homogeneous pools cannot be formed due to a small number of pools (n = 112). k-means clustering was performed using the kmeans function in R, where pool sizes ranged from 1 to 49, with an average size of 6. Each of the pooled strategies was analyzed under the MCEM algorithm, since the heterogeneity of the pools and large pool sizes precluded defensible application of the Approximate Model and Convolution Method.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Comparing Pooling Strategies

  • Additional Information for Product Development Projects Outcome of product development efforts, such copyrights and license agreements. • Units sold or projected to be sold in California and outside of California. • Total annual sales or projected annual sales (in dollars) of products developed under the Agreement. • Investment dollars/follow-on private funding as a result of Energy Commission funding. • Patent numbers and applications, along with dates and brief descriptions.  Additional Information for Product Demonstrations: • Outcome of demonstrations and status of technology. • Number of similar installations. • Jobs created/retained as a result of the Agreement.

  • Program Narrative All restricted xxxxxx courses which are taught for the purpose of qualifying an individual for restricted xxxxxx license to practice barbering shall consist of a minimum of 1200 hours of training to prepare each restricted xxxxxx to service their communities.

  • Class Specifications The Human Resources Division shall determine:

  • Technical Characteristics The Participating Generator has provided to the CAISO in Schedule 1 the required information regarding the capacity and operating characteristics of each of the Generating Units listed in that schedule. Pursuant to Sections 8.9 and 8.10 of the CAISO Tariff, the CAISO may verify, inspect and test the capacity and operating characteristics provided in Schedule 1.

  • For Product Development Projects and Project Demonstrations  Published documents, including date, title, and periodical name.  Estimated or actual energy and cost savings, and estimated statewide energy savings once market potential has been realized. Identify all assumptions used in the estimates.  Greenhouse gas and criteria emissions reductions.  Other non-energy benefits such as reliability, public safety, lower operational cost, environmental improvement, indoor environmental quality, and societal benefits.  Data on potential job creation, market potential, economic development, and increased state revenue as a result of the project.  A discussion of project product downloads from websites, and publications in technical journals.  A comparison of project expectations and performance. Discuss whether the goals and objectives of the Agreement have been met and what improvements are needed, if any.

  • PRODUCTIVITY The Productivity Scheme which was agreed to is: Contained in Annexure B.

  • Outputs 11. The objectives and outcomes of this Agreement will be achieved by:

  • Budgeting The budget set out in the Consortium Plan shall be valued in accordance with the usual accounting and management principles and practices of the respective Parties.

  • Metrics The DISTRICT and PARTNER will partake in monthly coordination meetings at mutually agreed upon times and dates to discuss the progress of the program Scope of Work. DISTRICT and PARTNER will also mutually establish criteria and process for ongoing program assessment/evaluation such as, but not limited to the DISTRICT’s assessment metrics and other state metrics [(Measures of Academic Progress – English, SBAC – 11th grade, Redesignation Rates, mutually developed rubric score/s, student attendance, and Social Emotional Learning (SEL) data)]. The DISTRICT and PARTNER will also engage in annual review of program content to ensure standards alignment that comply with DISTRICT approved coursework. The PARTNER will provide their impact data based upon these metrics.

  • Benchmarks for Measuring Accessibility For the purposes of this Agreement, the accessibility of online content and functionality will be measured according to the W3C’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA and the Web Accessibility Initiative Accessible Rich Internet Applications Suite (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 for web content, which are incorporated by reference. Adherence to these accessible technology standards is one way to ensure compliance with the College’s underlying legal obligations to ensure that people with disabilities are able to acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same benefits and services within the same timeframe as their nondisabled peers, with substantially equivalent ease of use; that they are not excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination in any College programs, services, and activities delivered online, as required by Section 504 and the ADA and their implementing regulations; and that they receive effective communication of the College’s programs, services, and activities delivered online.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.