General Methodology Sample Clauses

General Methodology. Analyzing the potential oil and gas development impacts for LEPCs requires three basic components: 1) A defined plan area. 2) An estimate of the rate and extent of habitat loss related to the development and management activities. 3) An estimate of population density to define the effects of those direct impacts on LEPCs. The plan area for the RWP is defined by EOR+10 which encompasses 62,733 mi2 or 40,149,404 acres across parts of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. The buffer around the range accounts for shifts in the estimated occupied range over time due to changes in habitat, movements of birds, and detectability of birds in areas of low population density. The EOR+10 is broken into four ecoregions. These ecoregions broadly reflect the different ecotypes across the LEPC range. Existing infrastructure or developments were identified based on publicly available GIS data for Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. The sources and dates and for these data sources are described in detail on ages 131–134 of the RWP. These datasets represent the best available data on developments within the region, but in many cases, the spatial and attribute error rates of these datasets are undefined. It is expected that the mitigation framework under the RWP and this CCAA will incentivize industry to provide better data on existing developments and will improve the assessment of impacts over time. In addition to the infrastructure data sources, this analysis uses data from the 2013 CHAT, which includes the focal areas (CHAT 1), connectivity zones (CHAT 2) and the remainder of The EOR+10. The density estimate utilized in this analysis is based on a reconstruction of LEPC populations across the range by Xxxxxx (2012). This reconstruction used LEPC ground survey data and aerial survey data collected across all four ecoregions. Depending on the ecoregion, this collective long-term average population estimate represents a period of 13-22 years from 1990 to 2012. During this period, populations ranged from roughly 37,000 to 84,000 birds, and that population estimate is representative of past and future conditions, including the population goals within the RWP. The density estimate uses the Xxxxxx average population estimate divided by the area of suitable habitat as predicted by a Maximum Entropy lek habitat model developed by USGS (Xxxxxxxxx et al. unpublished data) (Table 3). It conservatively represents all potential take resulting from development...

General Methodology. Different set of stakeholders involved in the project can play an important role in the achievement of the projects objectives. This is the basic idea for establishing a network of common interest that will support the development of the project. Community building and stakeholders consultation activities are the organizational tools and methods that will be used for creating it. All of the project partners will identify key stakeholders in their own countries relevant for the CIVIC EPISTEMOLOGIES project as it is important to raise awareness of the project’s activities and the opportunities for using the Roadmap and Registry of Services. The steps towards establishing and nurturing the network are as follows:  Identify the stakeholders to contact and the projects to liaise with at national and international level, to establish a reliable framework that can be used as a starting point for the consultation activities.  Define the object of the consultation, depending on the needs of the different users and stakeholders and on the expected outcomes.  Find out how and where this consultation can take place, e.g. conferences and workshops, ad hoc meetings, online consultation, developing of advocacy papers, etc. This network will be the base for a sustainable network of common interest existing beyond the EU funded period and aims to encourage future use and development of CIVIC EPISTEMOLOGIES Roadmap and Registry of Services. A plan for the sustainability of the project will be developed, by investigating approaches and models from other similar initiatives in order to obtain concrete solutions that can be applied to CIVIC EPISTEMOLOGIES activities.

General Methodology. ‌ Depending on what type of communication medium Micro-ROS is set up with, the methodology may vary. Of course, the variations are small and related to the topology. In order to achieve benchmarking, the RTOS and the application were instrumented. Depending on the point of interest, different probes were placed in different part of the RTOS. The data format was following a standard called Common Trace Format (V1.8)[2]. This standard is even used in Zephyr (competitor of NuttX). As a matter of fact, the CTF core was ported from Zephyr to NuttX. Data are retrieved and analysed with babeltrace and the babeltrace python API [3]. Every events are timed using an internal free-running timer (in the case of NuttX running on the Olimex STM32-E407 TIM2). Thanks to this the device can have time clock with the resolution of nearly 10 nanoseconds. The current configuration of the resolution is 100 nanoseconds, which is more than enough to measure perforances of the communication, considering that the minimal Ethernet (64bytes) frame at 100Mbps. Using only the timestamped measurements allows to make delta calculation offline. The software configuration is likely to change. However the software role will be kept the same: • Agent running on a PC • Subscriber running on one Olimex STM32-E407, • Publisher running on one Olimex STM32-E407. At a hardware level the USB - CDC/ACM console is going to be used on the Olimex STM32-E407 boards for Ethernet and Serial benchmarkings. For 6LoWPAN the serial USART6 will be used as the console to reduce the memory footprint and execution impact. Hence the USB OTG1 of both Olimex STM32-E407 boards shall be connected to a computer. Additional hardware setup must performed but will depend on the type of topology (Ethernet / Serial / 6LoWPAN):

General Methodology. In order to perform the prioritization exercise, the first step was to choose a methodology. With this objective, the WP7.1 team conducted the following activities: - a scoping literature review on Web of Science - a review of the grey literature (reports on previous experiences etc) - interviews with experts of research prioritization processes. A total of 40 articles were selected for in-depth review. It appeared from this review that use of robust health priority setting processes is recommended on ethical grounds and to assure transparency. Since 2010, the number of priority setting exercises in health research is increasing. Each exercise is performed in a different context and has its own specificities. Therefore, although there is no gold standard, good practices are emerging. Based on the above analysis, the WP7.1 team decided to use a multi-criteria decision analysis methodology inspired by the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI), as described below. The determination of priorities follows several steps. • Selection of managers of the process • Definition of the scope of the process • Identification of key health research questions • Consolidation of the list of research questions • Choice of criteria • Weighting of criteria • Final ranking of research questions during a face-to-face meeting In order to ensure that no bias is introduced in the prioritization process by the same experts participating in more than three of the last steps listed above, it was necessary to constitute three groups of independent experts with the right competencies.

General Methodology. All procedures were approved by the Emory University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Midsagittally-hemisected spinal cords were isolated from Xxxxxxx–Xxxxxx rats aged from postnatal days 6-12 and were prepared for in vitro experiments as described previously (Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx, 0000;Xxxx et al., 2005) or from mice of the same age from the either the FVB or balb/c background. Recordings were made in oxygenated artificial cerebrospinal fluid (aCSF) containing (in mM): NaCl 128; KCl 1.9; D-glucose 10; MgSO41.3; CaCl2

General Methodology. 5.1 Proposal submissions should outline the resources to be committed to this work by the Proponent. 5.2 Proponents are to provide a description of the services proposed, including the details of the services. 5.3 In the submission, the Proponent should provide a description of the methods to be employed to perform and co-ordinate the work.

General Methodology. The terms referred to in this Annex are those used by UK companies in their financial statements. Where the entity is not a UK company, the corresponding items should be used even if the terminology is slightly different (for example a charity would refer to a surplus or deficit rather than a profit or loss).

General Methodology. 3 1.1 General methodology (internal networking) 3 1.2 Minute writing 3 1.3 Calendar and reminders 3 1.4 Repository 4 1.4.1 Versioning of files and documents 4 1.5 Web site 4 1.5.1 Help desk 4 1.6 Problem solving on contents 5

General Methodology. This task will be carried out via all means of communication, as preferred by the people involved, including, mail, e-mail and telephone communication with relevant parties interested. The PREFORMA consortium will be kept informed at key stages via the xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx general mailing list. It is suggested that, in order to maintain a proper balance in the partnership, all partners should suggest as many contacts as possible. This is also in order to achieve the success indicators.

General Methodology. ‌ This task will be carried out via all means of communication, as preferred by the people involved, including, mail, e-mail and telephone communication with relevant parties interested. The BPN will be kept informed at key stages via: • Google Drive spreadsheets • The xxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx general mailing list It is suggested that, to maintain a proper balance in the partnership all partners suggest as many contacts as possible. This also in order to achieve the success indicators. 2.2.1 Success indicators (DOW p.63 of second part)‌ All partners should always work for the achievement of all success indicators. This task especially looks at: