Conclusions of the chapter. 1. For images with strong structural noise, SNR1 and SNR4 give better assessment of the signal to noise ratio
Conclusions of the chapter Sample Clauses
Related to Conclusions of the chapter
Decisions of the Board The decision of the majority shall be the decision of the Board. Where there is no majority decision, the decision of the Chairperson shall be the decision of the Board. The decision of the Board of Arbitration shall be final and binding and enforceable on all parties, but in no event shall the Board of Arbitration have the power to change this Agreement or to alter, modify or amend any of its provisions. However, the Board shall have the power to dispose of any discharge or a discipline grievance by any arrangement which in its opinion it deems just and equitable.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 4 1. The conduct described in the Findings of Fact constitute grounds for disciplinary 5 action pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-3552(A)(1) and (3) and violate the provisions of A.R.S. § 32- 6 3501(9)(i) which states, “Any conduct or practice which is contrary to recognized standards of 7 ethics of the respiratory therapy profession or any conduct or practice which does or might 8 constitute a danger to the health, welfare or safety of the patient or the public.”
Determinations of Director Pursuant to the Act and Section II of the Agreement and subject to the remaining terms and provisions of the Agreement and all Appendices thereto, the Director hereby determines that the financial assistance to be provided by the OPWC to the Recipient is in compliance with the Act and is provided to the Recipient for the sole and express purpose of financing the Eligible Project Cost and/or reimbursing the Recipient for such Eligible Project Cost.
Exclusions of liability 11.1 In respect of Limited Liability, we will not be liable for loss of or damage to your goods as a result of fire or explosion howsoever that fire or explosion was caused, unless we have been negligent or in breach of contract.
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.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE LISTING RULES As one or more of the applicable percentage ratios (as defined in the Listing Rules) of the transactions under the Finance Lease Agreement are more than 5% but less than 25%, the transactions under the Finance Lease Agreement constitute discloseable transactions of the Company under Chapter 14 of the Listing Rules, and are subject to the announcement and reporting requirements under the Listing Rules.
Limitations and exclusions of liability 16.1 Nothing in this Agreement will:
Exclusions and Limitations of Liability TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED UNDER APPLICABLE LAW, (a) NONE OF THE 8x8 PARTIES SHALL BE LIABLE UNDER THE AGREEMENT FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY, OR COVER DAMAGES; LOSS OF PROFITS, REVENUES, OR GOODWILL; OR LOSS OR INTERRUPTION OF BUSINESS, WHETHER FROM BREACH OR REPUDIATION OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF WARRANTY, NEGLIGENCE, TORT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE AND (b) THE MAXIMUM LIABILITY OF THE 8x8 PARTIES UNDER THE AGREEMENT, WHETHER ARISING FROM A THEORY OR CLAIM OF BREACH OR REPUDIATION OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF WARRANTY, NEGLIGENCE, TORT, STATUTORY DUTY, OR OTHERWISE, SHALL IN NO CASE EXCEED THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SERVICE FEES PAYABLE UNDER THE AGREEMENT FOR THE TWELVE- (12-) MONTH PERIOD PRECEDING THE FIRST INCIDENT OUT OF WHICH THE LIABILITY AROSE. THE FOREGOING EXCLUSION AND LIMITATION SHALL APPLY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER EITHER PARTY WAS ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES OR THE FAILURE OF THE ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF ANY LIMITED REMEDY, AND ON A CUMULATIVE (RATHER THAN PER-INCIDENT) BASIS. CUSTOMER ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT THE PRICING AND OTHER TERMS UNDER THE AGREEMENT ARE BASED ON THE FOREGOING EXCLUSION AND LIMITATION.
General Obligations of the Parties 33.2.1 The Parties must, at all times:
Obligations of the City A. The City agrees to give the Contractor access to the Project area and other City- owned properties as required to perform the necessary Services under this Agreement.
