Evaluation Heuristics Sample Clauses

Evaluation Heuristics. The other aspect of the ASIL optimisation algorithm is the evaluation heuristics. These are used to evaluate each individual in a population to determine their “fitness” scores – high-scoring individuals are kept, poor-scoring ones are not. Typically the optimisation problem itself is defined in terms of objectives – e.g. minimise cost, maximise safety – and thus we need to be able to evaluate according to those objectives. In a single objective approach, multiple evaluation scores are combined into one value, which is then to be either maximised or minimised. In multiple objective approaches, the scores remain separate and can be maximised or minimised individually. In the case of the ASIL optimisation, there are two objectives to consider. The first is cost: how expensive a particular ASIL allocation might be to actually implement. This need not be particularly accurate or realistic – it only matters that it helps the algorithm to differentiate between different solutions. In our case, we chose a simple heuristic that scores each ASIL in an allocation like so:  QM = 0 points  ASIL A = 1 point  ASIL B = 10 points  ASIL C = 100 points  ASIL D = 1000 points Other schemes are also possible, including linear scales (e.g. A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, D = 4) and powers of two (2, 4, 8, 16 etc.). The ASIL values in an SRA are then summed together to find a total cost for that particular SRA. Thus an SRA of AABD will get a cost of 1012, whereas AACC would have a cost of 202. The other heuristic to consider is the number of invalid (failed) allocations. Each cut set in the FTA results is subject to one or more DSR – derived safety requirement – that indicates the minimum ASIL that has to apply to that cut set in order to meet the overall system safety requirements. Unlike the exhaustive ASIL decomposition algorithm, which guarantees that all SRAs will be valid, the optimisation makes no such guarantees (and in fact doing so could hamper the algorithm’s performance and success). Thus we award 1 penalty point for every cut set that does not meet its DSRs; the goal is obviously to obtain an SRA with 0 penalty points.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Evaluation Heuristics

  • Evaluation 1. The purposes of evaluation provisions include providing employees with feedback, and employers and employees with the opportunity and responsibility to address concerns. Where a grievance proceeds to arbitration, the arbitrator must consider these purposes, and may relieve on just and reasonable terms against breaches of time limits or other procedural requirements.

  • Evaluators The success of a program of evaluation depends upon a high level of skill and training of all participants in the process. The District shall provide annual training on the Colorado State Educator Evaluation System and ongoing training on inter-rater reliability using approved materials from the Colorado Department of Education. As required by Colorado law, all performance evaluations must be conducted by an individual who has completed a training in evaluation skills that has been approved by the Department of Education.

  • Investment Analysis and Implementation In carrying out its obligations under Section 1 hereof, the Advisor shall: (a) supervise all aspects of the operations of the Funds; (b) obtain and evaluate pertinent information about significant developments and economic, statistical and financial data, domestic, foreign or otherwise, whether affecting the economy generally or the Funds, and whether concerning the individual issuers whose securities are included in the assets of the Funds or the activities in which such issuers engage, or with respect to securities which the Advisor considers desirable for inclusion in the Funds' assets; (c) determine which issuers and securities shall be represented in the Funds' investment portfolios and regularly report thereon to the Board of Trustees; (d) formulate and implement continuing programs for the purchases and sales of the securities of such issuers and regularly report thereon to the Board of Trustees; and (e) take, on behalf of the Trust and the Funds, all actions which appear to the Trust and the Funds necessary to carry into effect such purchase and sale programs and supervisory functions as aforesaid, including but not limited to the placing of orders for the purchase and sale of securities for the Funds.

  • Evaluations A. District management shall direct the evaluation of all permanent bargaining unit members no less than once every two years and probationary bargaining unit members no less than twice per year. Bargaining unit members who have been employed with VUSD for at least ten (10) years and whose previous evaluation rated the employee as meeting or exceeding standards, may be evaluated at least every five (5) years, if the administrative evaluator and certificated employee being evaluated agree. The certificated employee or the administrative evaluator may withdraw consent of this agreement at any time (EC 44664 (a) (3)). B. The written procedures for evaluations that are currently in effect shall be maintained by the District until the bargaining unit negotiates and ratifies new procedures. The present procedures are in Appendix A. They include: 1. The evaluator shall be an immediate supervisor or any other management or supervisory employee, who is designated by District management. 2. Bargaining unit members may utilize peer review in lieu of management evaluation with principal approval. 3. Those bargaining unit members who are regularly scheduled to be evaluated will be notified by the evaluator no later than October 1st of each school year. Such notice will contain a brief explanation as to the procedures for evaluations 4. One-half of the permanent staff will be formally evaluated each year. a. Pre-Conference Guidelines (for Temporary, Probationary and Permanent Bargaining Unit Members) 1. A pre-conference for bargaining unit members to be evaluated will be held by October 31. The purpose of the pre-conference is to review the Standards for Bargaining Unit Members assignment and to determine the evaluation focus. At that time the evaluator and the bargaining unit member may agree that some elements of the standards are not applicable (NA) to the employee’s assignment and may mark them NA at that time. 2. If there is disagreement about which of the elements is not applicable (NA), the parties may invite the Assistant Superintendent of Certificated Human Resources to assist in resolving the differences. The Assistant Superintendent shall recommend alternatives to the unit member and evaluator.

  • EVALUATION AND MONITORING The ORGANIZATION agrees to maintain books, records and other documents and evidence, and to use accounting procedures and practices that sufficiently and properly support the complete performance of and the full compliance with this Agreement. The ORGANIZATION will retain these supporting books, records, documents and other materials for at least three (3) calendar years following the year in which the Agreement expires. The COUNTY and/or the State Auditor and any of their representatives shall have full and complete access to these books, records and other documents and evidence retained by the ORGANIZATION respecting all matters covered in and under this Agreement, and shall have the right to examine such during normal business hours as often as the COUNTY and/or the State Auditor may deem necessary. Such representatives shall be permitted to audit, examine and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, and records of matters covered by this Agreement. These access and examination rights shall last for three calendar years following the year in which the Agreement expires. The COUNTY intends without guarantee for its agents to use reasonable security procedures and protections to assure that related records and documents provided by the ORGANIZATION are not erroneously disclosed to third parties. The COUNTY will, however, disclose or make this material available to those authorized by/in the above paragraph or permitted under the provisions of Chapter 42.56 RCW without notice to the ORGANIZATION. The ORGANIZATION shall cooperate with and freely participate in any other monitoring or evaluation activities pertinent to this Agreement that the COUNTY finds needing to be conducted.

  • Reliability Reliability targets (Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF)) are defined in the technical specifications as set out in the Contract. Notwithstanding any possible application of penalties relating to reliability defined in the Contract, Goods shall remain covered by the warranty defined in this Article 16 as long as the reliability commitments have not been reached.

  • Electronic and Information Resources Accessibility and Security Standards a. Applicability: The following Electronic and Information Resources (“EIR”) requirements apply to the Contract because the Grantee performs services that include EIR that the System Agency's employees are required or permitted to access or members of the public are required or permitted to access. This Section does not apply to incidental uses of EIR in the performance of the Agreement, unless the Parties agree that the EIR will become property of the State of Texas or will be used by HHSC’s clients or recipients after completion of the Agreement. Nothing in this section is intended to prescribe the use of particular designs or technologies or to prevent the use of alternative technologies, provided they result in substantially equivalent or greater access to and use of a Product.

  • Evaluation Cycle Goal Setting and Development of the Educator Plan A) Every Educator has an Educator Plan that includes, but is not limited to, one goal related to the improvement of practice; one goal for the improvement of student learning. The Plan also outlines actions the Educator must take to attain the goals established in the Plan and benchmarks to assess progress. Goals may be developed by individual Educators, by the Evaluator, or by teams, departments, or groups of Educators who have the similar roles and/or responsibilities. See Sections 15-19 for more on Educator Plans. B) To determine the goals to be included in the Educator Plan, the Evaluator reviews the goals the Educator has proposed in the Self-Assessment, using evidence of Educator performance and impact on student learning, growth and achievement based on the Educator’s self-assessment and other sources that Evaluator shares with the Educator. The process for determining the Educator’s impact on student learning, growth and achievement will be determined after ESE issues guidance on this matter. See #22, below. C) Educator Plan Development Meetings shall be conducted as follows: i) Educators in the same school may meet with the Evaluator in teams and/or individually at the end of the previous evaluation cycle or by October 15th of the next academic year to develop their Educator Plan. Educators shall not be expected to meet during the summer hiatus. ii) For those Educators new to the school, the meeting with the Evaluator to establish the Educator Plan must occur by October 15th or within six weeks of the start of their assignment in that school iii) The Evaluator shall meet individually with Educators with PTS and ratings of needs improvement or unsatisfactory to develop professional practice goal(s) that must address specific standards and indicators identified for improvement. In addition, the goals may address shared grade level or subject matter goals. D) The Evaluator completes the Educator Plan by November 1st. The Educator shall sign the Educator Plan within 5 school days of its receipt and may include a written response. The Educator’s signature indicates that the Educator received the plan in a timely fashion. The signature does not indicate agreement or disagreement with its contents. The Evaluator retains final authority over the content of the Educator’s Plan.

  • Skills and Abilities (i) Ability to communicate effectively both verbally and in writing. (ii) Ability to deal with others effectively. (iii) Physical ability to carry out the duties of the position. (iv) Ability to organize work. (v) Ability to operate related equipment.

  • Evaluation, Testing, and Monitoring 1. The System Agency may review, test, evaluate and monitor Grantee’s Products and services, as well as associated documentation and technical support for compliance with the Accessibility Standards. Review, testing, evaluation and monitoring may be conducted before and after the award of a contract. Testing and monitoring may include user acceptance testing. Neither the review, testing (including acceptance testing), evaluation or monitoring of any Product or service, nor the absence of review, testing, evaluation or monitoring, will result in a waiver of the State’s right to contest the Grantee’s assertion of compliance with the Accessibility Standards. 2. Grantee agrees to cooperate fully and provide the System Agency and its representatives timely access to Products, records, and other items and information needed to conduct such review, evaluation, testing, and monitoring.

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