Table 4 definition
Table 4. Ending this Addendum when the Approved Addendum Changes
Table 4. Ending this Addendum when the Approved Addendum Changes Ending this Addendum when the Approved Addendum changes Which Parties may end this Addendum as set out in Section 19: Importer Exporter neither Party
Table 4. Ending this Addendum when the Approved Addendum Changes Ending this Addendum when the Approved Addendum changes
Examples of Table 4 in a sentence
An overview of the cumulative regression model of research self-efficacy is presented in Table 4.
More Definitions of Table 4
Table 4. Ending this UK Addendum when the Approved UK Addendum Changes
Table 4. Means of Native and Non-Native Delinquent Groups for Eight Risk/Need Factors and the Results of the Discriminant Function Analvsis Group Native (n = 134)Non-Native (n = 129) Univariate FCorrelations of predictor variables with discriminantVariables M SD M SD(1,261) dffunction OFF * f i < .05, Ds. * * f i < .01. * * * f i < .001 Note. Predictor variables (OFF - Prior and current offences/dispositions; FAM Family Circumstances/Parenting; EDUC - Education/Employment; PEER - Peer Relations; SUB - Substance Abuse; LEIS - Leisure/Recreation; PERS - Personality/Behaviour; ATT - Attitudes/Orientations).3 Values in brackets refer to the maximum score observed in the group. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Critical Evaluation
Table 4. Ending this Addendum when the Approved Addendum Changes Which Parties may end this Addendum as set out in Section 0: Importer Exporter neither Party Ending this Addendum when the Approved Addendum changes Part 2: Mandatory Clauses Entering into this Addendum Each Party agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions set out in this Addendum, in exchange for the other Party also agreeing to be bound by this Addendum. Although Annex 1A and Clause 7 of the Approved EU SCCs require signature by the Parties, for the purpose of making Restricted Transfers, the Parties may enter into this Addendum in any way that makes them legally binding on the Parties and allows data subjects to enforce their rights as set out in this Addendum. Entering into this Addendum will have the same effect as signing the Approved EU SCCs and any part of the Approved EU SCCs. Interpretation of this Addendum Where this Addendum uses terms that are defined in the Approved EU SCCs those terms shall have the same meaning as in the Approved EU SCCs. In addition, the following terms have the following meanings: Addendum This International Data Transfer Addendum which is made up of this Addendum incorporating the Addendum EU SCCs. Addendum EU SCCs The version(s) of the Approved EU SCCs which this Addendum is appended to, as set out in Table 2, including the Appendix Information. Appendix Information As set out in Table 3. Appropriate Safeguards The standard of protection over the personal data and of data subjects’ rights, which is required by UK Data Protection Laws when you are making a Restricted Transfer relying on standard data protection clauses under Article 46(2)(d) UK GDPR. Approved Addendum The template Addendum issued by the ICO and laid before Parliament in accordance with s119A of the Data Protection Act 2018 on 2 February 2022, as it is revised under Section 0. Approved EU SCCs The Standard Contractual Clauses set out in the Annex of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/914 of 4 June 2021. ICO The Information Commissioner. Restricted Transfer A transfer which is covered by Chapter V of the UK GDPR. UK The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. UK Data Protection Laws All laws relating to data protection, the processing of personal data, privacy and/or electronic communications in force from time to time in the UK, including the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. UK GDPR As defined in section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018. This Addendum must always b...
Table 4. The table entitled "Table 4" at Schedule 48 of this Deed.
Table 4. Distribution of agreement of Maternal Recall and Hospital Birth Records of Gestational Age Gestational age (weeks) GA error* (w) mean (SD) n 37-40 0.49 (1.03) 56 ≥41 0.93 (0.51) 11 Total 0.6 (1.82) 74 *Compared with hospital birth records Agreement between recall and medical records for five categorical variables and five dichotomous variables are shown in Table 5. Table 5. Agreement between Maternal Recall and Hospital Birth Records for Categorical and Dichotomous variables Categorical Variable Kappa Strength of agreement* p 95% CI for kappa Gestational age 0.563 Moderate 0.001 0.342, 0.784 Infant birth weight 0.830 Almost perfect 0.001 0.641, 0.989 Onset of labour 0.790 Substantial 0.001 0.601, 0.979 ** Any pain relief 0.618 Substantial 0.001 0.477, 0.759 Mode of delivery 0.919 Almost perfect 0.001 0.842, 0.995 Dichotomous Variable Kappa Strength of agreement* p 95% CI for kappa Length of labour ≤10hrs/>10 hrs 0.536 Moderate 0.001 0.305, 0.767 Gravidity 0.437 Moderate 0.001 0.176, 0.698 Induction 0.758 Substantial 0.001 0.556 - 0.960 Epidural 0.759 Substantial 0.001 0.632, 0.886 Pethidine 0.224 Fair 0.024 -0.035, 0.448 For categorical variables infant birthweight and mode of delivery almost perfect agreement was found with an exact match in 42% of women. For infant birthweight 30%, 15% and 7% of the women had up to 100g difference, between 101 to 300g difference and >300g difference respectively. Categorised GA had the lowest level of agreement. An exact match between recall and records was found for GA in 35% of women, with 29% and 6% of women reporting a one-week difference and two-week difference from their records respectively. Some 30% of women did not report on this parameter. For the majority of these, data were available in their records. For method of onset of labour and type of pain relief, an exact match was found in 61% and 57% of women respectively. Agreement results for dichotomous variables show moderate agreement for length of labour ≤10hrs/>10hrs, however, 43% of data for labour onset was missing from birth records. Agreement between women’s accounts and records for the number of previous pregnancies was 95%. Fifteen women recalled having had a previous pregnancy while birth records only reported on 9 women with a previous pregnancy. The nature of the pregnancy loss is not specified in the records. Having labour induced and having an epidural (yes/no) were both found to be substantially in agreement between recall and records. Of the 46 ...
Table 4. Substantive chapters: research objectives and method Chapters’ objective Method Ch1 To identify gaps in the literature and demonstrate the research question. To set up the initial hypothesis for empirical exploration Critical review of the pertinent literatures and formulation of hypotheses for empirical testing Ch.2 To trace the incentives structure derived from the extensive practice of clientelism Focused and structured historical narrative tracking macropolitical developments Ch.3 To trace the incentives structure derived from clientelism and present it with game theory (equilibrium argument backed by empirical evidence of micropolitical interactions) Focused and structured historical narrative tracking micropolitical interactions and their implications for party politics Ch.4 To track the reform record and see the input of clientelism (confirm clientelist bias) under changing ‘values’ of other pertinent variables Focused and structured narrative tracking structural change and agency interactions that challenge the equilibrium hypothesis Ch.5 Ch.6 Ch.7 Focused and structured narrative tracking structural change that reflect the equilibrium hypothesis Ch.8 To track within-party interactions in the periods covered by chapters 6 and 7 and substantiate clientelist bias as observed there Focused and structured narrative tracking agency interactions that reflect the equilibrium hypothesis Ch.9 To assess the resilience of patronage supply under new constraints and opportunities Focused and structured narrative of structural developments an agency reactions