Details on Person Weight Construction Sample Clauses

Details on Person Weight Construction. The person-level weight PERWT12F was developed in several stages. First, person-level weights for Panel 16 and Panel 17 were created separately. The weighting process for each panel included adjustments for nonresponse over time and calibration to independent population totals. The calibration was initially accomplished separately for each panel by raking the corresponding sample weights for those in-scope at the end of the calendar year to Current Population Survey (CPS) population estimates based on five variables. The five variables used in the establishment of the initial person-level control figures were: census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West); MSA status (MSA, non-MSA); race/ethnicity (Hispanic; Black, non-Hispanic; Asian, non- Hispanic; and other); sex; and age. A 2012 composite weight was then formed by multiplying each weight from Panel 16 by the factor .49 and each weight from Panel 17 by the factor .51. The choice of factors reflected the relative sample sizes of the two panels, helping to limit the variance of estimates obtained from pooling the two samples. The composite weight was raked to the same set of CPS-based control totals. When the poverty status information derived from income variables became available, a final raking was undertaken on the previously established weight variable. Control totals were established using poverty status (five categories: below poverty, from 100 to 125 percent of poverty, from 125 to 200 percent of poverty, from 200 to 400 percent of poverty, at least 400 percent of poverty), the other five variables previously used in the weight calibration, as well as age categories cross-classified with categories associated with numbers of office-based visits and age categories cross-classified with categories reflecting the number of prescribed medicines purchased.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (33)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Details on Person Weight Construction. The person-level weight PERWT08F was developed in several stages. Person-level weights for Panels 12 and 13 were created separately. The weighting process for each panel included an adjustment for nonresponse over time and calibration to independent population figures. The calibration was initially accomplished separately for each panel by raking the corresponding sample weights to Current Population Survey (CPS) population estimates based on five variables. The five variables used in the establishment of the initial person-level control figures were: census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West); MSA status (MSA, non-MSA); race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic with black as sole reported race, non-Hispanic with Asian as sole reported race, and other); sex; and age. A 2008 composite weight was then formed by multiplying each weight from Panel 12 by the factor .39 and each weight from Panel 13 by the factor .61. The choice of factors reflected the relative sample sizes of the two panels, helping to limit the variance of estimates obtained from pooling the two samples. The composite weight was again raked to the same set of CPS-based control totals. When poverty status information derived from income variables became available, a final raking was undertaken on the previously established weight variable. Control totals were established using poverty status (five categories: below poverty, from 100 to 125 percent of poverty, from 125 to 200 percent of poverty, from 200 to 400 percent of poverty, at least 400 percent of poverty) as well as the original five variables used in the previous calibrations.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (31)
Details on Person Weight Construction. The person-level weight PERWT15F was developed in several stages. First, person-level weights for Panel 19 and Panel 20 were created separately. The weighting process for each panel included adjustments for nonresponse over time and calibration to independent population totals. The calibration was initially accomplished separately for each panel by raking the corresponding sample weights to Current Population Survey (CPS) population estimates based on five variables. The five variables used in the establishment of the initial person-level control figures were: census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West); MSA status (MSA, non-MSA); race/ethnicity (Hispanic; Black, non-Hispanic; Asian, non-Hispanic; and other); sex; and age. A 2015 composite weight was then formed by multiplying each weight from Panel 19 by the factor .460 and each weight from Panel 20 by the factor .540. Using such factors to form composite weights serves to limit the variance of estimates obtained from pooling the two samples. The resulting composite weight was raked to the same set of CPS-based control totals. Then, when the poverty status information (derived from the MEPS income variables) became available, another raking was undertaken, using dimensions reflecting poverty status in addition to the previously mentioned five variables. Control totals were established using poverty status (five categories: below poverty, from 100 to 125 percent of poverty, from 125 to 200 percent of poverty, from 200 to 400 percent of poverty, at least 400 percent of poverty) as well as the other five variables previously used in the weight calibration. Thus, the raking for the final weight reflected poverty status as well as the other five variables previously used in the weight calibration.
Sample 1
Details on Person Weight Construction. The person-level weight PERWT14F was developed in several stages. First, person-level weights for Panel 18 and Panel 19 were created separately. The weighting process for each panel included adjustments for nonresponse over time and calibration to independent population totals. The calibration was initially accomplished separately for each panel by raking the corresponding sample weights to Current Population Survey (CPS) population estimates based on five variables. The five variables used in the establishment of the initial person-level control figures were: census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West); MSA status (MSA, non-MSA); race/ethnicity (Hispanic; Black, non-Hispanic; Asian, non-Hispanic; and other); sex; and age. A 2014 composite weight was then formed by multiplying each weight from Panel 18 by the factor .50 and each weight from Panel 19 by the factor .50. Control totals were established using poverty status (five categories: below poverty, from 100 to 125 percent of poverty, from 125 to 200 percent of poverty, from 200 to 400 percent of poverty, at least 400 percent of poverty) as well as the other five variables previously used in the weight calibration.
Sample 1
Details on Person Weight Construction. The person-level weight PERWT00F was developed in several stages. Person-level weights for Panels 4 and 5 were created separately. The weighting process for each panel included an adjustment for nonresponse over time and poststratification. Poststratification was achieved by controlling to Current Population Survey (CPS) population estimates based on five variables. Variables used in the establishment of person-level poststratification control figures included: census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West); MSA status (MSA, non-MSA); race/ethnicity (Hispanic, black but non-Hispanic, and other); sex; and age. A 2000 composite weight was then formed by multiplying each panel weight by .5 and then poststratifying the resulting weight to the same set of CPS-based control totals. When poverty status information derived from income variables became available, a final poststratification was done on the resulting weight variable, including poverty status (below poverty, from 100 to 125 percent of poverty, from 125 to 200 percent of poverty, from 200 to 400 percent of poverty, at least 400 percent of poverty) as well as the original five poststratification variables in the establishment of control totals.
Sample 1
Details on Person Weight Construction. The person-level weight PERWT07F was developed in several stages. Person-level weights for Panels 11 and 12 were created separately. The weighting process for each panel included an adjustment for nonresponse over time and calibration to independent population figures. The calibration was initially accomplished separately for each panel by raking the corresponding sample weights to Current Population Survey (CPS) population estimates based on five variables. The five variables used in the establishment of the initial person-level control figures were: census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West); MSA status (MSA, non-MSA); race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic with black as sole reported race, non-Hispanic with Asian as sole reported race, and other); sex; and age. A 2007 composite weight was then formed by multiplying each weight from Panel 11 by the factor .56 and each weight from Panel 12 by the
Sample 1
Details on Person Weight Construction. The person-level weight PERWT13F was developed in several stages. Person-level weights for Panel 17 and Panel 18 were created separately. The weighting process for each panel included an adjustment for nonresponse over time and calibration to independent population figures. The calibration was initially accomplished separately for each panel by raking the corresponding sample weights for those in-scope at the end of the calendar year to Current Population Survey (CPS) population estimates based on five variables. The five variables used in the establishment of the initial person-level control figures were: census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West); MSA status (MSA, non-MSA); race/ethnicity (Hispanic; Black, non-Hispanic; Asian, non- Hispanic; and other); sex; and age. A 2013 composite weight was then formed by multiplying each weight from Panel 17 by the factor .506 and each weight from Panel 18 by the factor .494. The choice of factors reflected the relative sample sizes of the two panels, helping to limit the variance of estimates obtained from pooling the two samples. The composite weight was raked to the same set of CPS-based control totals. Control totals were established using poverty status (five categories: below poverty, from 100 to 125 percent of poverty, from 125 to 200 percent of poverty, from 200 to 400 percent of poverty, at least 400 percent of poverty) the other five variables previously used in the weight calibration, and a variable associated with number of hospital stays for those under the age of 65.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Details on Person Weight Construction. The person-level weight PERWT13F was developed in several stages. Person-level weights for Panel 17 and Panel 18 were created separately. The weighting process for each panel included an adjustment for nonresponse over time and calibration to independent population figures. The calibration was initially accomplished separately for each panel by raking the corresponding sample weights for those in-scope at the end of the calendar year to Current Population Survey (CPS) population estimates based on five variables. The five variables used in the establishment of the initial person-level control figures were: census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West); MSA status (MSA, non-MSA); race/ethnicity (Hispanic; Black, non-Hispanic; Asian, non-Hispanic; and other); sex; and age. A 2013 composite weight was then formed by multiplying each weight from Panel 17 by the factor .506 and each weight from Panel 18 by the factor .494. Control totals were established using poverty status (five categories: below poverty, from 100 to 125 percent of poverty, from 125 to 200 percent of poverty, from 200 to 400 percent of poverty, at least 400 percent of poverty) the other five variables previously used in the weight calibration, and a variable associated with number of hospital stays for those under the age of 65.
Sample 1

Related to Details on Person Weight Construction

  • Interconnection Facilities Engineering Procurement and Construction Interconnection Facilities, Network Upgrades, and Distribution Upgrades shall be studied, designed, and constructed pursuant to Good Utility Practice. Such studies, design and construction shall be based on the assumed accuracy and completeness of all technical information received by the Participating TO and the CAISO from the Interconnection Customer associated with interconnecting the Large Generating Facility.

  • ICIF Construction The ICIF shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Good Utility Practice. Within one hundred twenty (120) Calendar Days after the Commercial Operation Date, unless the Parties agree on another mutually acceptable deadline, Interconnection Customer shall deliver to Transmission Provider and Transmission Owner “as-built” drawings, information and documents for the ICIF, such as: a one-line diagram, a site plan showing the Generating Facility and the ICIF, plan and elevation drawings showing the layout of the ICIF, a relay functional diagram, relaying AC and DC schematic wiring diagrams and relay settings for all facilities associated with the Interconnection Customer’s step-up transformers, the facilities connecting the Generating Facility to the step-up transformers and the ICIF, and the impedances (determined by factory tests) for the associated step-up transformers and the Generating Facility. Interconnection Customer shall provide Transmission Provider and Transmission Owner with Interconnection Customer’s specifications for the excitation system, automatic voltage regulator, Generating Facility control and protection settings, transformer tap settings, and communications, if applicable.

  • DAF Construction The DAF shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Good Utility Practice. Within one hundred twenty (120) Calendar Days after the Commercial Operation Date, unless the Developer and Connecting Transmission Owner agree on another mutually acceptable deadline, the Developer shall deliver to the Connecting Transmission Owner and NYISO “as- built” drawings, information and documents for the DAF, such as: a one-line diagram, a site plan showing the Large Generating Facility and the DAF, plan and elevation drawings showing the layout of the DAF, a relay functional diagram, relaying AC and DC schematic wiring diagrams and relay settings for all facilities associated with the Developer’s step-up transformers, the facilities connecting the Large Generating Facility to the step-up transformers and the DAF, and the impedances (determined by factory tests) for the associated step-up transformers and the Large Generating Facility. The Developer shall provide to, and coordinate with, Connecting Transmission Owner and NYISO with respect to proposed specifications for the excitation system, automatic voltage regulator, Large Generating Facility control and protection settings, transformer tap settings, and communications, if applicable.

  • Participating TO's Interconnection Facilities Construction The Participating TO's Interconnection Facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Good Utility Practice. Upon request, within one hundred twenty (120) Calendar Days after the Commercial Operation Date, unless the Participating TO and Interconnection Customer agree on another mutually acceptable deadline, the Participating TO shall deliver to the Interconnection Customer and the CAISO the following “as-built” drawings, information and documents for the Participating TO's Interconnection Facilities [include appropriate drawings and relay diagrams]. The Participating TO will obtain control for operating and maintenance purposes of the Participating TO's Interconnection Facilities and Stand Alone Network Upgrades upon completion of such facilities. Pursuant to Article 5.2, the CAISO will obtain Operational Control of the Stand Alone Network Upgrades prior to the Commercial Operation Date.

  • Definitions and Construction 1 1.1 Definitions.....................................................................................1 1.2

  • Design and Construction In complying with the requirements of the specification both with respect to arrangement and detail, design is to conform to the best current engineering practice. Each of the several parts of the material is to be of the maker’s standard design provided that this design is in general accordance with the specification. The essence of design should be simplicity and reliability in order to give long continuous service with high economy and low maintenance cost. Particular attention should be paid to internal and external access in order to facilitate inspection, cleaning and maintenance. The design dimensions and materials of all parts are to be such that they will not suffer damage as a result of stresses under the most severe conditions. Fully detailed specifications of the several parts of the material are to be submitted describing particularly the materials to be used. The materials used in the construction of the material are to be of the highest quality and selected particularly to meet the duties required of them. Mechanisms are to be constructed to avoid sticking due to rust or corrosion. Workmanship and general finish are to be of the highest class throughout. All similar parts of the material are to be interchangeable. All equipment is to operate without undue vibration and with the least possible amount of noise and is not to cause a nuisance. All equipment is to be designed to minimize the risk of fire and any damage, which may be caused in the event of fire. The equipment is also to be designed to prevent ingress of all vermin, accidental contact with live parts and to minimize the ingress of dust and dirt. The use of materials, which may be liable to attack by termites or other insects, is to be avoided.

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