Recommendations and dissemination. Based on such existing and identified meas- ures, the Secretary shall publish an initial core set of child health quality measures that includes (but is not limited to) the following:
Recommendations and dissemination Sample Clauses
Related to Recommendations and dissemination
Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:
UPDATING AND DISCLOSING FINANCIAL INFORMATION You will provide facts to update information contained in Your original Account application or other financial information related to You, at Our request. You also agree that We may, from time to time, as We deem necessary, make inquiries pertaining to Your employment, credit standing and financial responsibility in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. You further agree that We may give information about the status and payment history of Your Account to consumer credit reporting agencies, a prospective employer or insurer, or a state or federal licensing agency having any apparent legitimate business need for such information.
NOTICES AND DISCLOSURES Behavioral HealthCare Parity This plan provides parity in benefits for behavioral health services. This means that coverage of benefits for mental health and substance use disorders is generally comparable to, and not more restrictive than, the benefits for physical health. Financial requirements, such as deductibles, copayments, or benefit limits that may apply to a behavioral health service benefit category, such as inpatient services, are not more restrictive than those that apply to most medical benefits within the same category. Different levels of financial requirements to different tiers of prescription drugs are applied without regard to whether a prescription drug is generally prescribed for physical, mental health, or substance use disorders. Other requirements are imposed that are not expressed numerically, such as preauthorization, concurrent utilization review, and retrospective utilization review. These are applied to behavioral health services in comparable ways as medical benefits.
Lead Disclosure If the property was built before 1978, the landlord must disclose whether or not there are known lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards on the property. A “Disclosure of Information on Lead-Based Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards” is included at the end of this agreement for your reference. Step 21 – Enter Notices Information 30.
Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users? Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain. Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function. The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation? Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator? Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions? Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour. Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project? It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.
AGREEMENTS AND DISCLOSURES The Agreements and Disclosures provided to You at the time You opened Your Account and referred to throughout this Agreement, contain: (a) a list of fees and charges applicable to Your Account;
Representations and Recommendations Unless otherwise stated in writing, neither Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc, nor its brokers or licensees have made, on their own behalf, any representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to any element of the Property including but not limited to, the legal sufficiency, legal effect, or tax consequences of this transaction. Any information furnished by either party should be independently verified before that party relies on such information. Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc. recommends that Buyer consult its attorneys and accountants before signing this Agreement regarding the terms and conditions herein and that Seller satisfy itself as to the financial ability of Buyer to perform.
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.
Use and Disclosure All Confidential Information of a party will be held in confidence by the other party with at least the same degree of care as such party protects its own confidential or proprietary information of like kind and import, but not less than a reasonable degree of care. Neither party will disclose in any manner Confidential Information of the other party in any form to any person or entity without the other party’s prior consent. However, each party may disclose relevant aspects of the other party’s Confidential Information to its officers, affiliates, agents, subcontractors and employees to the extent reasonably necessary to perform its duties and obligations under this Agreement and such disclosure is not prohibited by applicable law. Without limiting the foregoing, each party will implement physical and other security measures and controls designed to protect (a) the security and confidentiality of Confidential Information; (b) against any threats or hazards to the security and integrity of Confidential Information; and (c) against any unauthorized access to or use of Confidential Information. To the extent that a party delegates any duties and responsibilities under this Agreement to an agent or other subcontractor, the party ensures that such agent and subcontractor are contractually bound to confidentiality terms consistent with the terms of this Section 11.
Special Formalities and Disclosure of Information 1. Nothing in Articles 5 (National Treatment) or 6 (Most Favoured-Nation Treatment) shall be construed to prevent a Member State from adopting or maintaining a measure that prescribes special formalities in connection with investments, including a requirement that investments be legally constituted or assume a certain legal form under the laws or regulations of the Member State and compliance with registration requirements, provided that such formalities do not materially impair the rights afforded by a Member State to investors of another Member State and investments pursuant to this Agreement.
