Discussion and Results Sample Clauses

Discussion and Results. List all parties responsible for, or who had in role in undertaking this project. Include agencies, contractors, etc.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Discussion and Results. 43 species of rare plants were recorded as present of the preserve areas during the survey period. A list of these including the locations at which they occurred can be seen in Table 2.0. Acanthomintha illicifolia San Xxxxx xxxxx-mint CE, CNPS 1 X X Aldolphia californica California adolphia CNPS 2 X X X X Xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx San Diego Sagewort CNPS 2 X Artostapylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia Del Mar Manzinita FE, CNPS 1B X Atriplex coulteri Xxxxxxx’x saltbrush CNPS 1B X Brodiaea orcutti Xxxxxx’x brodiaea CNPS 1B X Carex spissa San Diego sedge Common X Caulanthus heterophyllus Buck's Jewelflower Locally rare X Ceanothus cyaneus Lakeside ceanothus CNPS 1 X Ceanothus verrucosus wart-stemmed ceanothus CNPS 2 X Chamaebatia australis Southern Mountain Misery CNPS 4 X Chorizanthe procumbens ssp. albiflora Prostate spineflower CNPS 4 X Clarkia delicata Delicate Clarkia CNPS 2 X Comarostaphylis d. ssp. diversifolia summer xxxxx CNPS 1B X X Convolvulus simulans small-flowering morning glory CNPS 4 X X Cupressus forbesii Tecate cypress CNPS 1B X Dichondra occidentalis western dichondra CNPS 4 X X X X X Dudleya variegata variegated duleya CNPS 1B X X X Ferrocactus viridescens San Diego barrel cactus CNPS 2 X X X X X Fritillaria biflora chocolate lily Locally rare X X Haplopappus junceus [Machaeranthera juncea] Rush-like Bristleweed CNPS 4 X Harpagonella xxxxxxx Xxxxxx’x grappling hook CNPS 4 X Hesperevax sparsiflorus sparse-flowered evax Locally rare X Iva hayesiana San Xxxxx xxxxx-xxxxx CNPS 2 X X X Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii Spiny rush CNPS 4 X X X X Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii Xxxxxxxx’x peppergrass CNPS 1B X X X Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum Humbolt’s tiger lily CNPS 4 X Linanthus parviflorus [Cordylanthus parviflorus] Purple bird’s beak CNPS 2 X Microseris douglasii var. platycarpha small-flowered microseris CNPS 4 X Cont. Monardella hypoleuca ssp. lanata Felt-leaved monardella CNPS 1 X Monardella linoides ssp. viminea willowy monardella FE, CE, CNPS 1B X Muilla clevelandii Cleveland’s goldenstar CNPS 1B X X X Nolina interrata Dehesa beargrass CE, CNPS 1 X Ophioglossum californicum California Adder's Tongue Fern CNPS 4 X Pentachaeta xxxxx Xxxxxx-rayed pentachaeta CNPS 1B X X X X Polygala cornuta ssp. fishiae Fish's Milkwort CNPS 4 X Quercus dumosa Xxxxxx’x scrub oak CNPS 1B X Quercus engelmannii Xxxxxxxxx’x oak CNPS 4 X X X X X Salvia munzii Xxxx’x sage CNPS 2 X X Selaginella cinerascens ashy xxxxx xxxx Locally rare X X X X X X Senecio ganderi Xxxxxx'...
Sample 1Sample 2
Discussion and Results. A. State the project goals and objectives agreed to in the grant agreement: i. Describe tasks that were completed. ii. Compare the project goals and objectives with actual project results. Explain differences between project goals and objectives and actual project results. B. Summarize problems encountered and solutions adopted. What would you do differently?
Sample 1
Discussion and Results. A. List all parties responsible for, or who had in role in undertaking this project. Include agencies, contractors, etc. B. List the project goals and objectives identified in the grant agreement and the major tasks implemented to accomplish these goals and objectives. Describe whether and how the project accomplished its goals and objectives. If goals and objectives were not met, explain why. Indicate the methods or documentation used to measure project success. C. Describe any changes that occurred in the project scope and reasons that necessitated these. D. Summarize any problems encountered and the solutions adopted. What would you do differently? E. Offer comment / recommendations to others undertaking this type of project in the future.
Sample 1
Discussion and Results. The Montana Natural Heritage Program was responsible for the completion of digital wetland and riparian mapping of 43 U.S.G.S topographic quads, internal quality control, and field verification. Xxxxxxx and riparian mapping was completed by trained wetland photointerpreters. Quality control and project management was completed by the Ecologist/Project Manager. To meet national wetland and riparian mapping standards, all digital mapping was sent to the Regional Coordinator of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) for quality assurance/quality control. The Regional Coordinator is also responsible for final approval of all wetland mapping as well as inclusion of the digital data into the national Master Wetland Database.
Sample 1
Discussion and Results. A. Describe how project goals and tasks identified in the Agreement were completed: • Describe the planning process (for example: discuss project design, independent review, coordination with agencies, permits required and other activities). • Describe how each task listed in the scope of work was accomplished. Provide details on each task (for example: if trees were planted as an erosion control measure, state how many, the tree species, the age or size of the trees, and location of the plantings). • List the goals and/or objectives of the project as stated in the scope of work and briefly describe how they were met by the activities described in the tasks above. Discuss any differences between project goals and objectives and actual project results. • Provide an explanation for tasks that were not completed or any out-of-scope work. • Include a project map, data, and/or photos that document the project. B. Summarize any problems encountered and solutions adopted. What would you do differently?
Sample 1
Discussion and Results. Document that project goals, objectives, and tasks identified in the Subaward have been completed. Copy the project goals, objectives, and tasks verbatim. After listing each goal, object, and task, document that they were completed. If any were not completed, explain why. It is very important that you provide evidence that the agreement was completed as agreed to in Section 4 of the Subaward, Project Scope.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Discussion and Results. The last two years have been a learning process for the three stakeholders. The process has been improved and a strong network has been established. More specifically, the collaboration has given each stakeholder different benefits. The industry of the region has had the opportunity to develop improvements in their processes and operations and give applied education to their employees in collaboration with experts. Furthermore, the actions and improvements made in the industry give results in short term but also a long term impact is expected. The coaching and education is continuous over time, this collaboration is not a point input action, instead it helps industry to follow the improvement process supporting time and again. Giving IDC´s experts the opportunity to monitor and guide the process together with the company. Additionally, the industry is part of a network where they can share their projects and problems with other companies in the region. This is part of IDC mission, to help the industry of the region and increase their competitiveness. From the University point of view the lecturers are in direct contact with industry so they can easily explain theories with recent example from the real world. All lecturers at the university have also had the opportunity to assist IDC in the process of analysing the companies and by doing so they got a snap shot view of the production situation and knowledge level at SME’s today. Another benefit of this collaboration is that the industry is providing new students for the University of Skövde and new research areas and projects. And this collaboration is allowing that some of the students of the University can do their thesis in the companies so they are gaining experience and enriching their Curriculum Vitae. More than 140 company analyses have been performed, more than 2.500 employees have been trained from 120 companies, and a coaching process has been developed in more than 80 companies. The following table present the total number of companies, participants etc. within the different categories starting from fall 2009 until august 2011. Although over the past two years an intensive effort has been done to improve the process, the authors believe that the analysis as well as the improvement program steps can be made even more efficient, leading to a potentially higher number of companies reaching level 3.2 on the process, with IDC’s same level of funding. The lessons learned from this work are mainly the f...
Sample 1

Related to Discussion and Results

  • BID TABULATION AND RESULTS Bid tabulations shall be available thirty (30) days after opening on the Orange County website at: xxxx://xxxx.xxxx.xxx/orangebids/bidresults/results.asp or upon notice of intended action, whichever is sooner.

  • Discussion Staff has reviewed the proposal relative to all relevant policies and advise that it is reasonably consistent with the intent of the MPS. Attachment B provides an evaluation of the proposed development agreement in relation to the relevant MPS policies.

  • Statement of Operations Statement of Changes in Net Assets.

  • Continuity of Operations Engage in any business activities substantially different than those in which Borrower is presently engaged, (2) cease operations, liquidate, merge, transfer, acquire or consolidate with any other entity, change its name, dissolve or transfer or sell Collateral out of the ordinary course of business, or (3) pay any dividends on Borrower's stock (other than dividends payable in its stock), provided, however that notwithstanding the foregoing, but only so long as no Event of Default has occurred and is continuing or would result from the payment of dividends, if Borrower is a "Subchapter S Corporation" (as defined in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended), Borrower may pay cash dividends on its stock to its shareholders from time to time in amounts necessary to enable the shareholders to pay income taxes and make estimated income tax payments to satisfy their liabilities under federal and state law which arise solely from their status as Shareholders of a Subchapter S Corporation because of their ownership of shares of Borrower's stock, or purchase or retire any of Borrower's outstanding shares or alter or amend Borrower's capital structure.

  • Mutual Discussions The Employer and the Union acknowledge the mutual benefits to be derived from dialogue between the parties and are prepared to discuss matters of common interest.

  • Discussions Within 14 days of the date of the notice under Clause 23.2 (Advance Notice) of this article, the Union and the Employer will commence discussions for the purpose of reaching agreement as to the effects of the technological change and in what way, if any, this agreement should be amended.

  • CONTINUITY OF OPERATION Section 1: No Strikes, Work Stoppages or Lockouts

  • Audit Results If an audit by a Party determines that an overpayment or an underpayment has occurred, a notice of such overpayment or underpayment shall be given to the other Party together with those records from the audit which support such determination.

  • Test Results The employer, upon request from an employee or former employee, will provide the confidential written report issued pursuant to 4.9 of the Canadian Model in respect to that employee or former employee.

  • Results and Discussion Table 1 (top) shows the root mean square error (RMSE) between the three tests for different numbers of topics. These results show that all three tests largely agree with each other but as the sample size (number of topics) decreases, the agreement decreases. In line with the results found for 50 topics, the randomization and bootstrap tests agree more with the t-test than with each other. We looked at pairwise scatterplots of the three tests at the different topic sizes. While there is some disagreement among the tests at large p-values, i.e. those greater than 0.5, none of the tests would predict such a run pair to have a significant difference. More interesting to us is the behavior of the tests for run pairs with lower p-values. Table 1 (bottom) shows the RMSE among the three tests for run pairs that all three tests agreed had a p-value greater than 0.0001 and less than 0.5. In contrast to all pairs with p-values 0.0001 (Table 1 top), these run pairs are of more importance to the IR researcher since they are the runs that require a statistical test to judge the significance of the per- formance difference. For these run pairs, the randomization and t tests are much more in agreement with each other than the bootstrap is with either of the other two tests. Looking at scatterplots, we found that the bootstrap tracks the t-test very well but shows a systematic bias to produce p-values smaller than the t-test. As the number of topics de- creases, this bias becomes more pronounced. Figure 1 shows a pairwise scatterplot of the three tests when the number of topics is 10. The randomization test also tends to produce smaller p-values than the t-test for run pairs where the t- test estimated a p-value smaller than 0.1, but at the same time, produces some p-values greater than the t-test’s. As Figure 1 shows, the bootstrap consistently gives smaller p- values than the t-test for these smaller p-values. While the bootstrap and the randomization test disagree with each other more than with the t-test, Figure 1 shows that for a low number of topics, the randomization test shows less noise in its agreement with the bootstrap com- pared to the t-test for small p-values.

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