Inverse Probability Weighting Sample Clauses

Inverse Probability Weighting. Σ Most standard complete-data analyses treat all subjects as equally important. However, in some situations such as meta-analysis and survey sampling, it may be proper to vary the weights given to different subjects. Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx (1952) first bring the idea of weighting into the missing data research and named it inverse probability weighting (IPW). They argue that the bias of only using the complete cases can be corrected, in some circumstances, when weighting each respondent by the inverse of the probability of being a respondent. Consider a generalized linear model E(Y ) = g−1(X, θ) with missing covariate X, IPW method tries to solve the weighted estimating equation UIPW (θ) = √
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Inverse Probability Weighting

  • Adverse Weather Shall be only weather that satisfies all of the following conditions: (1) unusually severe precipitation, sleet, snow, hail, or extreme temperature or air conditions in excess of the norm for the location and time of year it occurred based on the closest weather station data averaged over the past five years, (2) that is unanticipated and would cause unsafe work conditions and/or is unsuitable for scheduled work that should not be performed during inclement weather (i.e., exterior finishes), and (3) at the Project.

  • Staffing Levels to deal with Potential Violence The Employer agrees that, where there is a risk of violence, an adequate level of trained employees should be present. The Employer recognizes that workloads can lead to fatigue and a diminished ability both to identify and to subsequently deal with potentially violent situations.

  • Expected Outcomes The educational goals and objectives for improving student achievement, including how much academic improvement students are expected to show each year, how student progress and performance will be evaluated and the specific results to be attained, as described in Section 5a of the application: Student Performance, Assessment and Evaluation.

  • Expected Outcome With this waiver, the school will be able to implement its program and evaluate its teachers in accordance with its Performance Appraisal System, which is designed to produce greater accountability and be consistent with the school’s goals and objectives. This will benefit staff members as well as students and the community. Non-Automatic Waivers: Statute Description and Rationale and Replacement Plan

  • STATEWIDE ACHIEVEMENT TESTING When CONTRACTOR is an NPS, per implementation of Senate Bill 484, CONTRACTOR shall administer all Statewide assessments within the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (“CAASP”), Desired Results Developmental Profile (“DRDP”), California Alternative Assessment (“CAA”), achievement and abilities tests (using LEA-authorized assessment instruments), the Fitness Gram with the exception of the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (“ELPAC”) to be completed by the LEA, and as appropriate to the student, and mandated by XXX xxxxxxxx to LEA and state and federal guidelines. CONTRACTOR is subject to the alternative accountability system developed pursuant to Education Code section 52052, in the same manner as public schools. Each LEA student placed with CONTRACTOR by the LEA shall be tested by qualified staff of CONTRACTOR in accordance with that accountability program. XXX shall provide test administration training to CONTRACTOR’S qualified staff. CONTRACTOR shall attend LEA test training and comply with completion of all coding requirements as required by XXX.

  • Aggravating and Mitigating Factors The penalties in this matter were determined in consideration of all relevant circumstances, including statutory factors as described in CARB’s Enforcement Policy. CARB considered whether the violator came into compliance quickly and cooperated with the investigation; the extent of harm to public health, safety and welfare; nature and persistence of the violation, including the magnitude of the excess emissions; compliance history; preventative efforts taken; innovative nature and the magnitude of the effort required to comply, and the accuracy, reproducibility, and repeatability of the available test methods; efforts to attain, or provide for, compliance prior to violation; action taken to mitigate the violation; financial burden to the violator; and voluntary disclosure. The penalties are set at levels sufficient to deter violations, to remove any economic benefit or unfair advantage from noncompliance, to obtain swift compliance, and the potential costs, risks, and uncertainty associated with litigation. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger depending on the unique circumstances of the case.

  • Mitigating Factors The Contractor had a Trafficking in Persons compliance plan or an awareness program at the time of the violation, was in compliance with the plan, and has taken appropriate remedial actions for the violation, that may include reparation to victims for such violations.

  • Offense Level Calculations i. The base offense level is 7, pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(a)(1).

  • CORRECTIVE MEASURE The contractor shall repair any deficiencies in excess of the performance guideline.

  • Workforce Adjustment (a) The Parties recognize that workforce adjustment may be necessary due to the elimination of positions resulting from a reduction in the amount of work required to be done by the Commission, reorganization or program termination.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.