CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY Sample Clauses

CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY. In the present report of the Deliverable D2.5 on “Uncertainty and Robustness”, current state of the art approaches in model validation and uncertainty estimation are reviewed and their limitations are briefly described. The focus of the report is on model use for regulatory purposes and therefore, the different uncertainty approaches in Air Quality Assessment, Health Impact Assessment and Integrated Assessment Modelling are considered, in view of the EU legislation requirements. Information for this review was derived from published scientific papers and from the answers received in response to the questionnaire distributed within the framework of APPRAISAL activities. Model quality assessment and evaluation methods are examined separately for model use in relation to Air Quality Planning and for model use in relation to other purposes, e.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY. The economic function of patents is to protect inventors from being imitated, and hence to provide them with an incentive to perform research and development, and to commercialize the inventions that stem from it. Patents are one particular way of solving the problem of market failure that arises because technological knowledge is, to a certain extent, a so-called public good. Patents grant their holder a monopoly right to apply or sell a product or process for a limited period of time. Besides the positive impact of this monopoly on the incentive for invention, there are also certain negative aspects of such a monopoly. These are mainly related to the fact that, from a societal point of view, a monopolist producer charges too high prices for its product, and this causes welfare loss for consumers. Patents also have an impact on the future rate of invention, because they generate so-called spillovers as a by-product of the invention process. Examples of spillovers are when an invention generates an idea (possibly in somebody else’s brain) for a new invention. Such spillover effects are especially valuable from an economic point of view, because they are an important impetus to economic growth. Microeconomic models analyze the beneficial aspects of patents and compare them to the welfare losses implied by the monopoly. In this way, an ‘optimal’ design of the patent system, in terms of the duration (length) of a patent and the scope of protection (breadth) can be determined. However, these models have two main advantages. First, they do not generally consider the dynamic aspects of patents, i.e., they do not take into account the impact of technology spillovers on the future rate of invention (exceptions to this tendency have been mentioned above). Second, the models are usually so abstract that their practical implications are weak. Reviewing some of the recent more qualitative literature on patent breadth, the paper arrived at the conclusion that when technological spillovers are strong, broad patents may be potentially hampering for the future rate of invention. In some fields of new technology, such as genetics, the danger of too broad patents seems to be very real. The final, admittedly somewhat paradoxical, message of the paper is therefore that patents are of crucial importance to economic growth, but that, especially in fields where spillovers are strong, patents should not be very broad. Xxxxxxx, X. and X. Xxx xx Xxxx (1995). Innovation Strategies o...
Sample 1
CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY. The second Decision Support System (DSS) Service Level Agreement (SLA) has been in operation for approximately eight months. During this time CMR personnel, with assistance of BRS, developed time-series models for six new ports, life-cycle models for eight target species, constructed a world ports database and made significant amendments to the data held in the port infection database and the vessel infection database. These deliverables complete the first four objectives that were outstanding at the end of the first DSS SLA. In addition new recipient port survival models have been developed for all ports that CMR hold suitable data for, and extended to all Australian ports via the development of a quasi-likelihood model. These new models facilitated the development of the new risk assessment tables. Three iterations of these tables have been completed since the second SLA commenced, and these will be finalized once the on-going consultation with stakeholders is complete. These deliverables complete the fifth objective of this SLA, and represent substantial progress towards the completion of the sixth. In addition CMR personnel have attended two NIMPCG meetings, two NIMPCG organised workshops and responded to numerous information requests from NIMPCG representatives, as required under objectives 12, 13 and 14. Agressi A. (2002), Categorical Data Analysis. Xxxx Xxxxx & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA, 710 pp. Anon (2003), The Report of the High Level Officials Working Group on Governance, Legislative and Funding arrangements for a National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions, Australian Government Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra, Australia, 82 pp. Xxxxx X. X. and Xxxx A. L. (2002), Assessment of Options for the Ballast Water Decision Support System. Fisheries and Aquaculture Branch, Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Australia, Canberra, Australia, 65 pp. Fairplay (2002), Ports Guide 2001 – 2002. Fairplay Publications Ltd., London, England. Xxxxx X. X. (2003), Ballast Water Decision Support System (DSS) Service Level Agreement (SLA) – Part II , Project Proposal. CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart, Australia, 11pp. Xxxxx X. X and Xxxxx C. (2003), DSS Service Level Agreement – Final Report. Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests, CSRIO Marine Research, Hobart, Australia, 91 pp. Xxxxx X. X. and XxXxxxxxx F. (2002), DSS Service Level Agreement – Interim Report. Centre for Research on Introduced Mari...
Sample 1

Related to CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY

  • General Provisions Applicable to Loans Section 6.1 Minimum Amounts for Committed Borrowings, Conversions or Continuations and Prepayments.

  • Conclusions and Recommendations Based on our country-by-country analysis, 197 of the AEWA populations are already well-monitored both for population size and trend. Our prioritisation method allowed focusing on the AEWA conservation and management priorities (Priorities 1-2) and to consider cost effectiveness and feasibility (Priorities 3-6). Theoretically, the two- third target of the AEWA Strategic Plan can be just attained by focusing on the development of monitoring activities for Priority 1-5 populations (i.e. leaving out the 168 more widespread Priority 6 populations that would require more species-specific monitoring methods. Most of the Priority 1-5 populations would require improvement of the IWC though regional schemes focusing on the West Asian / East African flyway with possibly three subregional components in the Central Asia, Arabia and Eastern and Southern Africa. In the latter region, improvements in Tanzania and Mozambique are particularly important. In the Black Sea - Mediterranean - Sahelian flyway the focus should be primarily on the Sahel countries and especially on increasing the consistency of annual counts. The quality of monitoring is already better in the Black Sea and Mediterranean regions. In the East Atlantic, the ongoing capacity-building activities should continue and the consistency and representativity of site coverage should be further strengthened in most countries. Angola would require a major capacity improvement but primarily for the intra-African migrants on inland wetlands. It is also clear that the targets of the AEWA Strategic Plan cannot be achieved without complementing the IWC with periodic aerial surveys both in Western Africa as well as in Eastern and Southern Africa, by setting up a periodic offshore waterbird monitoring scheme in the Caspian Sea and by focusing in each country on a relatively small number of breeding bird species strategically selected in this report.

  • Notices; Standards for Decisions and Determinations The Administrative Agent will promptly notify the Borrower and the Lenders of (A) the implementation of any Benchmark Replacement and (B) the effectiveness of any Conforming Changes. For the avoidance of doubt, any notice required to be delivered by the Administrative Agent as set forth in this Section 12.01(c) may be provided, at the option of the Administrative Agent (in its sole discretion), in one or more notices and may be delivered together with, or as part of any amendment which implements any Benchmark Replacement or Conforming Changes. Any determination, decision or election that may be made by the Administrative Agent or, if applicable, any Lender (or group of Lenders) pursuant to this Section 12.01(c), including any determination with respect to a tenor, rate or adjustment or of the occurrence or non-occurrence of an event, circumstance or date and any decision to take or refrain from taking any action, will be conclusive and binding absent manifest error and may be made in its or their sole discretion and without consent from any other party hereto, except, in each case, as expressly required pursuant to this Section 12.01(c).

  • Confirmations and Statements The Transfer Agent shall confirm each transaction either at the time of the transaction or through periodic reports as may be legally permitted.

  • Certain Calculations and Tests (a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, but subject to Sections 1.10(b) and (c) and Section 1.11, all financial ratios and tests (including the Total Leverage Ratio, the First Lien Leverage Ratio, the Secured Leverage Ratio, the Interest Coverage Ratio and the amount of Consolidated Total Assets and Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA) contained in this Agreement that are calculated with respect to any Test Period during which any Subject Transaction occurs shall be calculated with respect to such Test Period and each such Subject Transaction on a Pro Forma Basis. Further, if since the beginning of any such Test Period and on or prior to the date of any required calculation of any financial ratio or test (i) any Subject Transaction has occurred or (ii) any Person that subsequently became a Restricted Subsidiary or was merged, amalgamated or consolidated with or into the Borrower or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries or any joint venture since the beginning of such Test Period has consummated any Subject Transaction, then, in each case, any applicable financial ratio or test shall be calculated on a Pro Forma Basis for such Test Period as if such Subject Transaction had occurred at the beginning of the applicable Test Period (it being understood, for the avoidance of doubt, that solely for purposes of (x) calculating compliance with Section 6.12(a) and (y) calculating the First Lien Leverage Ratio for purposes of the definitions of “Applicable Rate” and “Commitment Fee Rate”, in each case, no Subject Transaction occurring after the end of the relevant Test Period shall be taken into account). (b) For purposes of determining the permissibility of any action, change, transaction or event that requires a calculation of any financial ratio or test (including, without limitation, Section 6.12(a), any First Lien Leverage Ratio test, any Secured Leverage Ratio test, any Total Leverage Ratio test and/or any Interest Coverage Ratio test, the amount of Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA and/or Consolidated Total Assets), such financial ratio or test shall be calculated at the time such action is taken (subject to Section 1.11), such change is made, such transaction is consummated or such event occurs, as the case may be, and no Default or Event of Default shall be deemed to have occurred solely as a result of a change in such financial ratio or test occurring after the time such action is taken, such change is made, such transaction is consummated or such event occurs, as the case may be. (c) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, with respect to any amounts incurred or transactions entered into (or consummated) in reliance on a provision of this Agreement (including any covenant or the definition of “Incremental Cap”) that does not require compliance with a financial ratio or test (including, without limitation, Section 6.12(a), any First Lien Leverage Ratio test, any Secured Leverage Ratio test, any Total Leverage Ratio test and/or any Interest Coverage Ratio test) (any such amounts, the “Fixed Amounts”) substantially concurrently with any amounts incurred or transactions entered into (or consummated) in reliance on a provision of this Agreement (including any covenant or the definition of “Incremental Cap”) that requires compliance with a financial ratio or test (including, without limitation, Section 6.12(a), any First Lien Leverage Ratio test, any Secured Leverage Ratio test, any Total Leverage Ratio test and/or any Interest Coverage Ratio test) (any such amounts, the “Incurrence-Based Amounts”), it is understood and agreed that the Fixed Amounts shall be disregarded in the calculation of the financial ratio or test applicable to the Incurrence-Based Amounts.

  • 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: 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).

  • Exceptions to Informal Negotiations and Arbitration The Parties agree that the following Disputes are not subject to the above provisions concerning informal negotiations and binding arbitration: (a) any Disputes seeking to enforce or protect, or concerning the validity of, any of the intellectual property rights of a Party; (b) any Dispute related to, or arising from, allegations of theft, piracy, invasion of privacy, or unauthorized use; and (c) any claim for injunctive relief. If this provision is found to be illegal or unenforceable, then neither Party will elect to arbitrate any Dispute falling within that portion of this provision found to be illegal or unenforceable and such Dispute shall be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction within the courts listed for jurisdiction above, and the Parties agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of that court. There may be information on the Site that contains typographical errors, inaccuracies, or omissions, including descriptions, pricing, availability, and various other information. We reserve the right to correct any errors, inaccuracies, or omissions and to change or update the information on the Site at any time, without prior notice.

  • General Provisions Applicable to Loans and Letters of Credit 4.1. Interest Rates and Payment Dates 4.2. Conversion and Continuation Options 4.3. Minimum Amounts of Sets

  • General Conditions Applicable to Insurance All policies of insurance required by this section shall comply with the following requirements:

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!