Quality of data. Ancillary Provider hereby represents and warrants that to the best of its knowledge all Data shall be accurate and complete, meaning all Data will represent the information received from the ordering physician and results reported by Ancillary Provider, as appropriate to the Data request. To the extent required by United, Ancillary Provider agrees to certify in writing at the time of submission to United, Data Agency, or other Data recipients designated by United, that all Data is to the best of its knowledge accurate and complete as defined above. Ancillary Provider further agrees to hold harmless and indemnify United and Data Agency or other designees to the extent any fines, penalties, damages, claims, liabilities or judgments result from Ancillary Provider’s negligence, misconduct or breach of the warranty set forth in the preceding sentence. United acknowledges, however, that Ancillary Provider is not responsible for inaccurate or incomplete information or Data received or obtained from the ordering physician or any third party, or for any party’s (other than Ancillary Provider’s) improper use of the Data. Moreover, Ancillary Provider shall not be responsible for inaccurate or incomplete Customer eligibility information provided to it. United or its designees shall have the right to audit Ancillary Provider with regard to the accurateness and completeness of the Data pursuant to Section 4.10 of the Agreement.
Quality of data. The Parties agree that the quality of statistics of national accounts of general government sector shall be based on the 15 principles of the European Statistics Code of Practice. In this regard, the Parties agree that the Office shall be independent in carrying out international guidelines on national accounts and in charge of the introduction, implementation, and methodological interpretation of ESA 2010, and associated legal acts and methodological manuals. The Parties agree to the application of the confidentiality provisions of the European Statistics Code of Practice, Regulation (EU) No 2015/759, and the Law on Official Statistics, and System of Official Statistics on individual data of statistical units, if they can be linked to the statistical units (confidential data), providing their use solely for statistical purposes. The Parties should ensure all the prerequisites for the respect of the principle of statistical confidentiality in the compilation and transmission of data, and ensure the protection of the integrity of statistical databases. The provisions of the Agreement do not affect in any way the availability of data, confidentiality or secrecy of which is prescribed by the provisions of other special laws and regulations. To reduce data inconsistencies, the Parties shall observe the provisions of common principles in the field of audit policy in the domain of data revision as well as the principles of data quality management.
Quality of data. (a) Except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, Quest Diagnostics makes no representation or warranty with respect to the quality of any Data provided to SmithKline Xxxxxxx pursuant to this Agreement and shall provide such Data on an "as is" basis including, without limitation, (i) any representation or warranty regarding Year 2000 Compliance or (ii) any warranty of merchantability or fitness of use; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that Quest Diagnostics will use reasonable commercial efforts to maximize the accuracy of Data and to cause Laboratory Data relating to Clinical Laboratory Services performed by Quest Diagnostics or its Affiliates after the Effective Date to be in Year 2000 Compliance. Any efforts made by Quest Diagnostics or its Affiliates in the normal course of the Quest Diagnostics Informatics Business to improve the accuracy of the Data also shall be made for SmithKline Xxxxxxx and its Affiliates pursuant to this Agreement.
(b) Quest Diagnostics makes no commitment to continue in the Quest Diagnostics Informatics Business. If Quest Diagnostics and its Affiliates exit the Quest Diagnostics Informatics Business and no longer maintain the Quest Informatics Database and/or the SBCL Informatics Database, then Quest Diagnostics shall provide the Laboratory Data on a "where is" as well as "as is" basis with SmithKline Xxxxxxx to pay for all reasonable costs associated with extracting Data from the laboratory information and billing information systems of Quest Diagnostics and its Affiliates and transmitting such Data to SmithKline Xxxxxxx; PROVIDED that Quest Diagnostics shall only be obligated to provide SmithKline Xxxxxxx with Data relating to the data fields set forth on Appendix A as of the date hereof plus Data relating to any data fields added to Appendix A after the date hereof, but, subject to Section 7.04, only to the extent that Quest Diagnostics and its Affiliates collect such Laboratory Data in the course of performing Clinical Laboratory Services. In furtherance of this Section 7.01(b) and Section 7.01(e), Quest Diagnostics agrees to use commercially reasonable efforts to accommodate, at SmithKline Xxxxxxx'x expense, reasonable requests for any cleaning, collecting and/or transmitting of Laboratory Data, including to facilitate encoding pursuant to Article VI.
(c) Unless (i) Quest Diagnostics or its Affiliates no longer maintain the Quest Informatics Database and/or the SBCL Informatics Database or (ii) Quest Diagnostics is in breach of its o...
Quality of data. The variability of appropriate metadata to contextualise in situ data has been identified as a cross cutting issue, in that this varies in formats and definitions across different data types, nations and regions. A number of the Copernicus Services have indicated that international standardisation or harmonisation is required to ensure that data is appropriately understood and contextualised across the Services. This is an issue that restricts the effective use of some data and leads to products and services having a reduced level of confidence and assurance. Within the European Union the directive, Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) is currently being implemented. This addresses spatial data themes for environmental applications and includes legislation regarding the harmonisation of metadata describing environmental observational data. Adoption of this is not complete, with adherence to this being inconsistent across the member nations at present, however over time this should lead to improvement in commonality of metadata standards and practices across the EU. In the case of atmospheric composition and meteorological observations the metadata issue is handled on the global scale by WMO XXX and the WIGOS system. For meteorological observations this system is well developed and followed by the data providers, but for atmospheric composition the system is still under development and adherence to the system needs to be improved. Within the framework of WMO-IOC Joint Technical Commission for Oceanography and Marine Meteorology (JCOMM), IODE has been cooperating with WMO on the agreement on standards (OceanDataStandards project). The scope of this project was expanded by IODE in 2013 when it established the “Ocean Data Standards and Best Practices” project which also disseminate and promote “best practices” in addition to “standards”. The CMEMS In-Situ Thematic Assembly Center (INS TAC) makes a considerable effort implementing these practices.
Quality of data. Across the EU INSPIRE will increasingly be fundamental to the harmonisation of metadata associated with all environmental in situ data, whilst WMO XXX plays a key role in the global standardisation of metadata associated with atmospheric composition observations from research infrastructures. Out of these there is potential for a common approach to be extended to the national networks of air pollution in EIONET, where improvement of measurement metadata on data quality is required. Alongside this, the WMO could potentially assist more widely with the harmonisation and standardisation of metadata associated with meteorological, hydrological and atmospheric observations. This could benefit CAMS, C3S, CLMS and other services where there is a remit beyond the boundaries of Europe or where incorporation of accurate observational data beyond the European domain would help improve the quality of products for Europe. It is recommended that this be investigated, together with the potential benefit of utilising EUMETNET to help broker this. This could help define benchmarks which could be applied more broadly and championed for adoption by operators of research infrastructure and private industry observations leveraged and supported by the Copernicus Services and EEA. Considerable work on data quality has been conducted by the marine community. The EuroGOOS working group on Data Management and Quality (DATA-MEQ) has coordinated work on data quality across CMEMS INSTAC, EMODnet and SeaDataNet (xxxx://xxxxxxxx.xx/data-management- exchange-quality-working-group-data-meq/). As part of the ongoing AtlantOS project, partners have produced a deliverable entitled “Recommendations for an automatic RT or NRT QC for selected EOVs (T&S, Current, Oxygen, Chl-a, Nitrate, Carbon, Sea level)” (xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxx- x0000.xx/xxxxxxxx/0.0-XX-Xxxxxx.xxx) It is recommended that Xxxxxxxxxx play an active role in the definition of quality requirements for ocean data to meet the needs of the Copernicus Services. 1 xxxx://xxx.xxxx- xxxxx.xx/xxxxxxxx/xxxxxxxxxxx_xxxxxxxxx/XXXX_XxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxx_00.00.0000.xxx
Quality of data. Overall the data is fairly consistent and as much of the in situ data is used for validation purposes, this allows more time to resolve any problems than would be the case for operational products. The main direct impact on operational CAMS products comes from the EIONET air quality data, where there have been problems and discussion with the EEA to improve the situation is on-going.
Quality of data. The CMEMS In-Situ Thematic Assembly Center (INS TAC) includes a strong component of quality assurance and control (QA/QC) based on internationally agreed “Ocean standards and best practices” formulated within the framework of IOC-IODE, WMO-IOC Joint Technical Commission for Oceanography and Marine Meteorology (JCOMM) and the EuroGOOS working group on Data Management and Quality (DATA-MEQ).
Quality of data. The range of data formats, with different standards, varying projection systems or not consistent time stamps has been highlighted as a quality issue, particularly with respect to hydrological data, but also for certain meteorological variables. CEMS highlighted harmonisation of hydrological data and in particular data definitions as an area that needs to be addressed. For example run-off data is defined in different ways in various nations and organisations. Sometimes this can be instantaneous run-off, sometimes over a defined period and there is great variability in the way in which the data itself is collected. CEMS have been invited to WMO region 6 meetings on hydrology, but don’t have official status within this. Therefore, there could be some value in establishing a formal status for Copernicus within the WMO hydrological community.
Quality of data. Quality of converted data is a joint responsibility, with identifiable duties for both Client and ALLTEL:
(a) ALLTEL is responsible for the automation of jointly-defined conversion program rules (algorithms) to take electronically available Source System data and convert it to identified Target System data structures.
(b) Client will cooperate by providing documentation of relevant Client business practices, defining data translation rules, populating user tables, and verifying resulting data quality.
(c) ALLTEL will provide control data and audit reports as defined in the Conversion project plan to support the verification.
(d) As early as practical, ALLTEL and Client will cooperate to set data quality and quantity targets, including mutual agreement on Measurement Component Percentages for the Conversion SLA as set forth in Section 6.4 of this Exhibit, if applicable.
(e) During testing, Client and ALLTEL will cooperate to identify and correct defects (e.g., software or tables errors) and refine algorithms.
Quality of data. Ethical conduct of research. The DSMC is empowered with the authority to recommend a trial be suspended or terminated based upon concerns in any of the above areas of review. The DSMC reviews all serious adverse events and ensures that these events have been correctly reported to all institutional review boards, and that adverse events have been correctly classified as serious or not serious. The Board assesses the impact of these events upon the conduct of the clinical trial. The Board is empowered with the authority to suspend or terminate any trials for which there are concerns of toxicity that endanger human participants. Monitoring also considers factors external to the study, such as scientific or therapeutic developments that may have an impact on the safety of the participants or the ethics of the study. Recommendations that emanate from monitoring activities are reviewed by the principal investigator and addressed.
