Quantitative Evaluation Sample Clauses

Quantitative Evaluation. To quantitatively evaluate the performance of the system, we simulated contract gen- eration with varying (i) modes of operation (TCP/TLS/HTTP/HTTPS), (ii) number of facts per contract, and (iii) certificate chain lengths of both peers. We quantitatively evaluate the (a) total duration of the handshake, (b) the number of bytes transferred, as well as (c) the size of the generated contract in its default JSON representation. We employ a TCP proxy to investigate the impact of varying network latency on the proto- col’s performance and measure the amount of data transferred. Overhead for TLS and HTTP are included in the results. We split the evaluation into two orthogonal parameter combinations to facilitate visualization and discussion, which we show in Table 1. Contract Size & Communication Overhead. In Fig. 3, we show how the number of facts in one contract influences contract bytes and communication overhead per fact, split by handshake mode. A per-fact plot brings better comparability to other approaches than per-contract, as contracts are a concept that is specific to our approach. Thus, metrics are plotted on a per-fact (i.e., per-resource) basis. The total contract size and communication overhead per handshake increase linearly with the number of facts, as fact data is of constant size, consisting of a RID and a checksum. Thus, if m models one of the per-contract metrics, this gives m(n) = sn + c, where s is the slope of the curve, i.e., the bytes by which the metric increases if one fact is added per contract, n is the number of facts per contract, and c is the constant overhead which is not influenced by the number of facts. Then, we can model the per-fact metric Table 1. Overview of the evaluated parameter combinations. Protocol Mode Facts/DTC Proxy delay [ms] Cert. Chain Len. Iterations 1 TCP, TLS, HTTP, HTTPS 1, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 20 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 2 TCP, TLS, HTTP, HTTPS 10 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 1 50 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 Contract Bytes HTTP TCP HTTPS TCP+TLS Theoretical limit: 127 Contract B/fact 10K Bytes per fact 1K 100 1 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Facts per contract
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Quantitative Evaluation. The Matlab based tool uses log-files generated by Hermes for calculation of quantita- tive measures for specified key performance indicators (i.e. journey time, resilience, punctuality, energy consumption, resource usage ). The result can also be visualized in form of a number of diagrams. See examples below and in the document D4.3 from the ON-TIME project.

Related to Quantitative Evaluation

  • Summative Evaluation An evaluation used to arrive at a rating on each standard, an overall rating, and as a basis to make personnel decisions. The summative evaluation includes the Evaluator’s judgments of the Educator’s performance against Performance Standards and the Educator’s attainment of goals set forth in the Educator’s Plan.

  • Administrative Evaluation It is the intent of the SCD administration to conduct evaluations of non-priority- hire faculty as early as possible in a faculty member's employment in an SCD instructional unit. Administrative evaluation should occur before the beginning of the fifth quarter within the nine (9) out of twelve (12) quarter sequence outlined in Article 10.7.a.

  • Performance Evaluations 34.1. The Contractor is subject to an annual performance evaluation to be conducted by NYCDOT pursuant to the PPB Rules.

  • Performance Evaluation The Department may conduct a performance evaluation of Contractor’s Services, including Contractor’s Subcontractors. Results of any evaluation may be made available to Contractor upon request.

  • JOC EVALUATION If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and xxxx them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials. No response TIPS/ESC Region 8 is required by Texas Government Code § 791 to be compensated for its work and thus, failure to agree shall render your response void and it will not be considered. Yes - No Vendor agrees to remit to TIPS the required administration fee or, if resellers are named, guarantee the fee remittance by or for the reseller named by the vendor?

  • Re-evaluation a) When a job has moved to a higher group as a result of re-evaluation, the resulting rate shall be retroactive from the date that Management or the employee has applied to the Plant Job Review Committee for re-evaluation.

  • Annual Performance Evaluation On either a fiscal year or calendar year basis, (consistently applied from year to year), the Bank shall conduct an annual evaluation of Executive’s performance. The annual performance evaluation proceedings shall be included in the minutes of the Board meeting that next follows such annual performance review.

  • Focused Evaluation The Focused Evaluation is used when a teacher is not evaluated using the Comprehensive Evaluation process, and will include evaluation of one of the eight state criteria (student growth impact required). If a non-provisional teacher has scored at Proficient or higher the previous year, they may be moved to Focused Evaluation. The teacher may remain on the Focused Evaluation for five (5) years before returning to the Comprehensive Evaluation. The teacher or the evaluator can initiate a move from the Focused to the Comprehensive Evaluation. A decision to move a teacher from a Focused to a Comprehensive Evaluation must occur by December 15.

  • 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.

  • Self-Evaluation Each regular faculty member shall provide a self-evaluation. It shall address, among other items, the faculty member's fulfillment of professional responsibilities as referenced in Section 18.2.3 and an assessment of his or her own performance. The faculty member will share the self-evaluation with the Faculty Evaluation Committee and the first-level manager or designee. The self-evaluation will become part of the evaluation report.

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