Table A1. Exceptional changes to Table A (to be approved by e-mail or signature by the student, the responsible person in the Sending Institution and the responsible person in the Receiving Institution) Table B1: Exceptional changes to Table B (if applicable) (to be approved by e-mail or signature by the student and the responsible person in the Sending Institution) Component code (if any) Component title at the Receiving Institution (as indicated in the course catalogue) Component without changes [tick if applicable] Deleted component [tick if applicable] Added component [tick if applicable] Reason for changexiii Semester Number of ECTS credits (or equivalent) Component code (if any) Component title at the Sending Institution (as indicated in the course catalogue) Component without changes [tick if applicable] Deleted component [tick if applicable] Added component [tick if applicable] Semester Number of ECTS credits (or equivalent) Others: Total – in original LA (Table A): Total – in original LA (Table B): Total – deleted components: Total – deleted components: Total – added components: Total – added components: Total after changes: Total after changes: Commitment Name Email Position Date Signature Student Student Responsible person at the Sending Institution Responsible person at the Receiving Institution Commitment By signing this document, the student, the Sending Institution and the Receiving Institution confirm that they approve the Learning Agreement and that they will comply with all the arrangements agreed by all parties. Sending and Receiving Institutions undertake to apply all the principles of the Erasmus Charter for Higher Education relating to mobility for studies (or the principles agreed in the Inter-Institutional Agreement for institutions located in Partner Countries). The Beneficiary Institution and the student should also commit to what is set out in the Erasmus+ grant agreement. The Receiving Institution confirms that the educational components listed in Table A are in line with its course catalogue and should be available to the student. The Sending Institution commits to recognise all the credits or equivalent units gained at the Receiving Institution for the successfully completed educational components and to count them towards the student's degree as described in Table B. Any exceptions to this rule are documented in an annex of this Learning Agreement and agreed by all parties. The student and the Receiving Institution will communicate to ...
Table A1. 1 “Subset A of Licensed Patents”, Table A1.2 “Subset B of Licensed Patents”, and Table 1.3 “Background Patents” are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced as follows: Xxxxxx ID New UW ID Previous UW ID Appl Number Patent No. Filing [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *]
Table A1. Results of a random-effects probit regression of the probability of success, round number (Round), treatments (FULL_ALL, STF, ST, FULL_SCRAMBLE, VEC_SCRABMLE), and interactions between round number and treatment (FULL_Round, STF_Round, ST_Round). Standard errors in brackets; * indicates significant at the 10% level, ** at the 5% level, and *** at the 1% level. Covariate Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Round -0.159*** -0.0202 -0.0113 (0.0476) (0.0452) (0.0495) FULL_ALL -3.585*** -2.710*** -0.931 (0.586) (0.678) (0.642) STF 0.0949 0.474 0.768 (0.726) (0.784) (0.818) ST -1.189* -1.199 -0.241 (0.658) (0.808) (0.879) FULL_SCRAMBLE 0.870 0.312 1.328* (0.689) (0.852) (0.784) VEC_SCRAMBLE -1.406** -0.275 1.292* (0.619) (0.711) (0.779) FULL_ALL_Round 0.461*** 0.421*** 0.341*** (0.0771) (0.0875) (0.0802) STF_Round 0.0411 0.00820 0.0309 (0.0928) (0.0890) (0.0881) ST_Round 0.135 0.249*** 0.101 (0.0844) (0.0962) (0.0995) FULL_SCRAMBLE_Round -0.160* -0.0224 -0.0960 (0.0901) (0.114) (0.102) VEC_SCRAMBLE_Round 0.161** 0.0523 0.0434 (0.0800) (0.0800) (0.0863) Constant 1.320*** 0.178 -0.730 (0.365) (0.396) (0.446) No. Obs. 000 000 000
Table A1. Summary Statistics for Data Used for Econometric Results on Institutional Gaps and Income Gaps (Figures 4 and 7) Samplea Variable No. observations Mean Standard deviation Minimum Maximum Group 1 ICRG variablesb Log (country’s GDP per capita/USA GDP 414 923 –0.4069638 –1.715673 0.558766 0.579324 –1.75361 –3.65967 0.6972296 –0.3095284 per capita) Group 2 ICRG variablesb Log (country’s GDP per capita/USA GDP 162 378 –0.1312372 –1.328616 0.4356544 0.3673385 –1.00386 –2.19757 0.6972296 –0.3095284 per capita, PPP adjusted)
Table A1. 1 This table reflects the proposals and reasoning for how the comments and open issues from HOD 57-2019 and the intersessional commenting by XXX was dealt with by the Group of WG Chairs. Consideration by HOD Proposals and reflections by the online meeting of WG Chairs para 3.21: Management objectives on underwater noise: to keep the objective ‘Ensure noise levels do not adversely affect [noise sensitive species and do not injure] sea life’, noting the general support for deleting the words in brackets and the proposals to consider replacing the word ‘ensure’. Revise to: ‘Minimize noise to levels that do not adversely affect marine life’ - The objectives should adhere to the guidance to be formulated in an aspirational way (HOD 57-2019, document 3.3 Add.1). - However, in order to harmonize with other management objectives the revised objective is proposed to use the initial word ‘Minimize’ instead of ‘Ensure’.
Table A1. Comparison between the different studies of China’s export-embodied carbon emissions based on MRIO model. Author /s Data Year Methods Research Topic Main Results Qi et 2007 MRIO The impact of Increasing export taxes could al., 2014 and CGE economic restructuring on decrease 44 MtCO2 embodied emissions, equivalent to a 3.7% export-embodied decrease. emissions Xxx et 2007 IO The assessment of Ignoring firm heterogeneity caused al., export embodied China’s export-embodied CO2 2016a emissions using firm emissions in 2007 to be heterogeneity overestimated by 20% . information Xxxx et 2012 IO and The impact of trade Trade restructuring could reduce al., multi- restructuring on China’s net export-embodied 2017 objective export-embodied emissions by 3.26%, 9.33% and program emissions 14.58% under low, moderate and ming high scenarios, respectively. Xxxx et 2000 MRIO The carbon impact of During 2000-2006, the expansion of al., - trade between China China’s intermediate exports with 2017b 2014 and major trading major trade partners in the Asia- partners in the Asia- Pacific increased China’s carbon Pacific emissions, with annual growth rates of 20%. After 2006, the impacted carbon emissions fluctuated around 400 MtCO2. Xxxxx 1987 IO The trend of export- In 2005, almost one-third of China’s et al., 2008 - 2005 embodied emissions emissions (1700 Mt CO2) were due to the production of exports. Xx et 2002 IO and Driving factors of During 2002-2008, the increase of al., - SDA export-embodied export-embodied emissions was 2011 2008 emissions (emission attributable to the change of export intensity, economic composition. The decline in emission structure, export intensity counterweighed the growth composition and of embodied emissions. export volume ) Xxx et 2007 IO Estimation of export- Using a non-competitive import IO al., 2017 embodied emissions using a non- approach, the net CO2 emissions embodied in China's trade in 2007 competitive import IO (400 Mt) were much lower than approach previous estimations. Xxxx 2002 Hybrid The impact of green The total emissions embodied in and - IO productivity growth China’s industrial exports increased Xxx, 2012 on emissions more than 100% during 2002-2007, 2017 embodied in China’s with small variation during 2007- industrial exports 2012. Technological improvement could reduce embodied emissions. Xx et 2011 MRIO The estimation of The result based on traditional al., export-embodied methods caused a substantial 2017 emissions overestim...
Table A1. Context analysis – Study-related stakeholders and their expectations. Stakeholder Role Expectations Impact Sponsor Contracting owner Legal responsibility Answer to the research question Respect of quality, cost, delay Reputation Funding Principal Investigator Study launching Legal and scientifical responsibility Answer to the research question Respect of quality, delay Reputation Career Subjects Participant undergoing study procedures Strengthened follow-up Chance of a better treatment Improve scientific knowledge Oblige the investigator Modification of health condition (positive or negative) Investigators Prescription Data collection Answer to the research question Respect of quality, delay Chance of a better treatment for their patients Publication Continuing good peer-to-peer relations Financial compensation Wish for simplification or lightening of workload Continuing contact with CTU/CRC/CRO Increased workload Author in publications Career CTU/CRC/ CRO Project management Collaboration with motivated and efficient partners Satisfaction of partners Reputation Career Funding Durability Steering Committee Validation of inputs, outputs and major decisions Availability of relevant and reliable data for decision making Reputation Competent authority Ethics Committee Authority in charge of data protection Health Ministry … Study authorisation on ethical, scientific and legal aspects Definition of Health politics based on study results Availability of relevant and reliable data for decision making on scientific relevance, benefice/risk ratio, rights, target population, safety of participants Reputation Target population Final beneficiaries Improved care Modification of health condition (positive or negative) Medical journals Publication of study results Availability of relevant, reliable and original results Respect of Consort Statement Reputation Public media Vulgarisation of study results Controversy Inform and alert Create emotion Reputation Increased income Table A2. Three examples of risk formulation. Risk area Risk formulation Validity of Study results The proportion of missing data on the main outcome is higher than the one used for sample size calculation. Study Participants The investigator does not notify all SAEs. Study Organisation While configuring the randomisation result page (the randomisation list is stratified by sex), the IT specialist uses the variable Sex instead of the variable Intervention and decodes it with the labels of the variable In...
Table A1. Evaporation methods further explained
Table A1. Exceptional changes to Table A (to be approved by e-mail or signature by the student, the responsible person in the Sending Institution and the responsible person in the Receiving Institution) Table B1: Exceptional changes to Table B (if applicable) (to be approved by e-mail or signature by the student and the responsible person in the Sending Institution) Component code (if any) Component title at the Receiving Institution (as indicated in the course catalogue) Component without changes [tick if applicable] Deleted component [tick if applicable] Added component [tick if applicable] Reason for changev Semester Number of ECTS credits (or equivalent) Component code (if any) Component title at the Sending Institution (as indicated in the course catalogue) Component without changes [tick if applicable] Deleted component [tick if applicable] Added component [tick if applicable] Semester Number of ECTS credits (or equivalent) Others: Total – in original LA (Table A): Total – in original LA (Table B): Total – deleted components: Total – deleted components: Total – added components: Total – added components: Total after changes: Total after changes: Commitment Name Email Position Date Signature Student Student
Table A1. Key Deliverables – (August 15, 2018 – August 14, 2019) Del. # Key Del. Deliverable Name Deliverable Update Frequency Estimated Deliverable Update Schedule Deliverable Value Incremental Payment Sum (based on Update Deliverable Frequency) 1.K01 Yes Project Management Plan annually D-01.3 – 11/01/2018 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 1.K02 Yes Disaster Recovery Plan annually D-02.3 – 11/01/2018 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 1.K03 Yes M&O Manual quarterly D-03.9 – 10/01/2018 D-03.10 – 01/01/2019 D-03.11 – 04/01/2019 D-03.12 – 07/01/2019 $150,000.00 $37,500.00 1.K04 Yes M&O Schedule monthly D-04.25 – 09/01/2018 D-04.26 – 10/01/2018 D-04.27 – 11/01/2018 D-04.28 – 12/01/2018 D-04.29 – 01/01/2019 D-04.30 – 02/01/2019 D-04.31 – 03/01/2019 D-04.32 – 04/01/2019 D-04.33 – 05/01/2019 D-04.34 – 06/01/2019 D-04.35 – 07/01/2019 D-04.36 – 08/01/2019 $150,000.00 $12,500.00 1.K05 Yes Architecture Document every 6 months D-05.5 – 12/01/2018 D-05.6 – 06/01/2019 $150,000.00 $75,000.00 1.K06 Yes Availability Plan quarterly D-06.9 – 10/01/2018 D-06.10 – 01/01/2019 D-06.11 – 04/01/2019 D-06.12 – 07/01/2019 $150,000.00 $37,500.00 1.K07 Yes Configuration Management Plan quarterly D-07.9 – 10/01/2018 D-07.10 – 01/01/2019 D-07.11 – 04/01/2019 $150,000.00 $37,500.00 D-07.12 – 07/01/2019 1.K08 Yes SSP (State Security Plan) quarterly D-08.9 – 11/01/2018 D-08.10 – 02/01/2019 D-08.11 – 05/01/2019 D-08.12 – 08/01/2019 $150,000.00 $37,500.00
