Evaluation of the Results Sample Clauses

Evaluation of the Results. The competitors must be physically present on March 13th – 15th, 2018 in Paris at the FED4FIRE+ Engineering Conference (FEC3) in order to be eligible for the prizes. More detailed information about the conference will be published later on the SoftFIRE website. Each team should prepare a demo to be presented at the event illustrating the strong points of the proposal in terms of the previous discussed evaluation criteria. Software modules, Network Services, virtual machine, in the form of software components, datasets, pseudocode have to be uploaded into a challenge Github repository immediately after the challenge as a proof of work. An international jury will evaluate the demos considering their execution at the event by applying the mentioned criteria and will determine the winners for the three streams. During the event, the jury will declare the winners for each stream.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Evaluation of the Results. For all microphone positions two measurements are taken. In order to compensate for inaccuracies of the measuring equipment, the metre reading is reduced by 1 dB(A), and the reduced value is taken as the result of measurement. The results are taken as valid if the difference between the measurements at one microphone position does not exceed 2 dB(A). The highest value measured is taken as the result. If this value exceeds the noise limit by 1 dB(A), two additional measurements are to be taken at the corresponding microphone position. In this case, three out of the four results of measurement obtained at this position have to comply with the noise limit.
Evaluation of the Results. 4.1. If the sound level of the vehicle tested pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 does not exceed by more than 1 dB(A) the limit value prescribed in paragraph 6.2.2. of this Regulation, for measurement according to paragraph 2.1. above, and in paragraph 3 of annex 6 to this Regulation, for measurement according to paragraph 2.2. above, the vehicle type shall be considered to conform to the requirements of this Regulation. 4.2. If the vehicle tested according to paragraph 4.1. does not satisfy the requirements laid down in that paragraph, two more vehicles of the same type have to be tested pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2. 4.3. If the sound level of the second and/or third vehicle of paragraph 4.2. exceeds by more than 1 dB(A) the limit values prescribed in
Evaluation of the Results. 4.1. If the sound levels of the exhaust system or component tested pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2, measured in accordance with paragraph 6.2. above, do not exceed by more than 1 dB(A) the level measured during the type-approval tests of this type of exhaust system or component, the exhaust system or component type shall be considered to conform to the requirements of this Regulation. 4.2. If the exhaust system or component tested according to paragraph 4.1. does not satisfy the requirements laid down in that paragraph, two more exhaust systems or components of the same type must be tested pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 above. 4.3. If the sound level of the second and/or third sample of paragraph 4.2. exceeds by more than 1 dB(A) the level measured during the type- approvel tests of this type of exhaust system or component, the exhaust system or component type shall be considered not to conform to the requirements of this Regulation and the manufacturer shall take the necessary measures to re-establish the conformity."

Related to Evaluation of the Results

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Evaluation of Students Acknowledging the District’s adopted grading system, the teacher shall maintain the right and responsibility to determine grades and other evaluation of a student. No grade or evaluation shall be changed except by the teacher with the approval of the building administrator.

  • Publication of Results The National Aeronautics and Space Act (51 U.S.C. § 20112) requires NASA to provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof. As such, NASA may publish unclassified and non-Proprietary Data resulting from work performed under this Agreement. The Parties will coordinate publication of results allowing a reasonable time to review and comment.

  • 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.

  • Results The five values obtained shall be arranged in order and the median value taken as the result of the measurement. This value shall be expressed in Newtons per centimetre of width of the tape.

  • Evaluation of Tenders 33.1 The Procuring Entity shall use the criteria and methodologies listed in this ITT and Section III, Evaluation and Qualification criteria. No other evaluation criteria or methodologies shall be permitted. By applying the criteria and methodologies, the Procuring Entity shall determine the Lowest Evaluated Tender. This is the Tender of the Tenderer that meets the qualification criteria and whose Tender has been determined to be: a) substantially responsive to the tender documents; and b) the lowest evaluated price. 33.2 Price evaluation will be done for Items or Lots (contracts), as specified in the TDS; and the Tender Price as quoted in accordance with ITT 14. To evaluate a Tender, the Procuring Entity shall consider the following: a) price adjustment due to unconditional discounts offered in accordance with ITT 13.4; b) converting the amount resulting from applying (a) and (b) above, if relevant, to a single currency in accordance with ITT 31; c) price adjustment due to quantifiable nonmaterial non-conformities in accordance with ITT 29.3; and d) any additional evaluation factors specified in the TDS and Section III, Evaluation and Qualification Criteria. 33.3 The estimated effect of the price adjustment provisions of the Conditions of Contract, applied over the period of execution of the Contract, shall not be considered in Tender evaluation. 33.4 Where the tender involves multiple lots or contracts, the tenderer will be allowed to tender for one or more lots (contracts). Each lot or contract will be evaluated in accordance with ITT 33.

  • Evaluation Process ‌ A. The immediate supervisor will meet with an employee at the start of their review period to discuss performance expectations. The employee will receive copies of their performance expectations as well as notification of any modifications made during the review period. Employee work performance will be evaluated during probationary, trial service and transition review periods and at least annually thereafter. Notification will be given to a probationary or trial service employee whose work performance is determined to be unsatisfactory. B. The supervisor will discuss the evaluation with the employee. The employee will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the evaluation. The discussion may include such topics as: 1. Reviewing the employee’s performance; 2. Identifying ways the employee may improve their performance; 3. Updating the employee’s position description, if necessary; 4. Identifying performance goals and expectations for the next appraisal period; and 5. Identifying employee training and development needs. C. The performance evaluation process will include, but not be limited to, a written performance evaluation on forms used by the Employer, the employee’s signature acknowledging receipt of the forms, and any comments by the employee. A copy of the performance evaluation will be provided to the employee at the time of the review. A copy of the final performance evaluation, including any employee or reviewer comments, will be provided to the employee. The original performance evaluation forms, including the employee’s comments, will be maintained in the employee’s personnel file. D. If an employee disagrees with their performance evaluation, the employee has the right to attach a rebuttal. E. The performance evaluation process is subject to the grievance procedure in Article 30. The specific content of a performance evaluation is not subject to the grievance procedure. F. Performance evaluations will not be used to initiate personnel actions such as transfer, promotion, or discipline.

  • Evaluation of Risks The Investor has such knowledge and experience in financial tax and business matters as to be capable of evaluating the merits and risks of, and bearing the economic risks entailed by, an investment in the Company and of protecting its interests in connection with this transaction. It recognizes that its investment in the Company involves a high degree of risk.

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

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