Reduction and Disconnection NYISO or Transmission Owner may reduce Network Access Interconnection Service or disconnect the Large Generating Facility or the Developer Attachment Facilities, when such, reduction or disconnection is necessary under Good Utility Practice due to an Emergency State. These rights are separate and distinct from any right of Curtailment of NYISO pursuant to the NYISO OATT. When NYISO or Transmission Owner can schedule the reduction or disconnection in advance, NYISO or Transmission Owner shall notify Developer of the reasons, timing and expected duration of the reduction or disconnection. NYISO or Transmission Owner shall coordinate with the Developer using Good Utility Practice to schedule the reduction or disconnection during periods of least impact to the Developer and the New York State Transmission System. Any reduction or disconnection shall continue only for so long as reasonably necessary under Good Utility Practice. The Parties shall cooperate with each other to restore the Large Generating Facility, the Attachment Facilities, and the New York State Transmission System to their normal operating state as soon as practicable consistent with Good Utility Practice.
Effective Date Term Termination and Disconnection 3.1 Effective Date 3.2 Term of Agreement 3.3 Termination
Records Audit and Disclosure 5.01 Access to records, books, and documents In addition to any right of access arising by operation of law, Performing Agency and any of Performing Agency’s affiliate or subsidiary organizations, or Subcontractors shall permit the System Agency or any of its duly authorized representatives, as well as duly authorized federal, state or local authorities, unrestricted access to and the right to examine any site where business is conducted or Services are performed, and all records, which includes but is not limited to financial, client and patient records, books, papers or documents related to this Contract. If the Contract includes federal funds, federal agencies that shall have a right of access to records as described in this section include: the federal agency providing the funds, the Comptroller General of the United States, the General Accounting Office, the Office of the Inspector General, and any of their authorized representatives. In addition, agencies of the State of Texas that shall have a right of access to records as described in this section include: the System Agency, HHSC, HHSC's contracted examiners, the State Auditor’s Office, the Texas Attorney General's Office, and any successor agencies. Each of these entities may be a duly authorized authority. If deemed necessary by the System Agency or any duly authorized authority, for the purpose of investigation or hearing, Performing Agency shall produce original documents related to this Contract. The System Agency and any duly authorized authority shall have the right to audit xxxxxxxx both before and after payment, and all documentation that substantiates the xxxxxxxx. Performing Agency shall include this provision concerning the right of access to, and examination of, sites and information related to this Contract in any Subcontract it awards.
Permitted Uses and Disclosures of PHI 2.1 Unless otherwise limited herein, Business Associate may:
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- Figure 1: A pairwise comparison of the p-values less than 0.25 produced by the randomization, t-test, and the bootstrap tests for pairs of TREC runs with only 10 topics. The small number of topics high- lights the differences between the three tests. pared to the t-test for small p-values.
