Table 9 definition

Table 9. Analysis 2a: metric selection results. Metric - stressor correlation was consistent (yes) if the sign of the correlation was as expected. Xxxxxxxx rank correlation between the EQR, calculated using the formula EQR2, and the stressor is reported. A metric was redundant (redundancy=yes) if correlated (r>0.
Table 9. Relation concepts between the different Aspects
Table 9. Change in Malaysia's Imports Post TPPA: Se ctor-spe cific Re sults of Tariff libe raliz ation Table 10: TPPA Partner countries Exporting to Malaysia Post TPPA: Top Sectors Imports increase Post TPPA- Share of TPPA partner countries in rising Imports of Malaysia Table 11: Main Products of Imports post TPPA from USA and Japan at HS 6-Digit HS code Product Description Trade Total Effect ( 1000 USD) New Imports or Trade Creation Effect (1000 USD ) Trade Diversion Effect ( 1000 USD) Main Items of Imports from Japan Main items of Imports from USA

Examples of Table 9 in a sentence

  • The government has established policies related to child labor (Table 9).

  • MEVS Accepted and Denial Codes listed in Table 1 (page 9.0.1) and Table 2 (page 10.0.1), Rx Denial codes listed in Table 7 (page 12.0.1), DVS codes listed in Table 9 (page 14.0.1), and Pend Reason Codes listed in Table 10 (page 15.0.1) will be returned in the Additional Message Info (526-FQ) field.

  • It is recommended to use the following templates in Table 9 and Table 10 to capture the secondary LLS performance metrics of SSB and PRACH performance.

  • Table 9 shows the number of jobs created because of efficiency gains in Standard 90.1-2019.Table 9.

  • Suggested Government Actions to Eliminate Child Labor, Including its Worst FormsAreaSuggested Action Table 9.


More Definitions of Table 9

Table 9. Current use of straw (rice and wheat) in the Indian case studies Rice straw Wheat straw Field burning 90% 10% Fodder <10% 40% Pulp and Paper industry <10% 25% Others <10% 25%* *others include storage for future requirement or export to neighbouring states. Source: Biocore WP1 Final Report, Aug. 2012
Table 9. Description of the questions and sub-questions (criteria) proposed for the self-assessment of the impacts (benefits, barriers, costs) of the uptake of RRI actions Main questions (Q) Criteria (C) Impact of RRI action (s)
Table 9. Design capacity and average daily flows for Maryland’s major wastewater treatment plants. WWTP Approved Design Capacity (MGD) Average Flow (MGD)* Total Volume 753.465 613.476 Strategies Accounting for Growth Strategy in the Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan
Table 9. Global mean temperature rise and global average sea level rise according to the different RCPs of the 5th IPCC Assessment Report Expected change according to IPCC 5th Assessment Report relative to 1986-2005 2046 – 2065 2081 - 2100 Scenario Mean value Possible range Mean value Possible range Global mean temperature change (oC) RCP2.6 1.0 Between 0.4 and 1.6 1.0 Between 0.3 and 1.7 RCP8.5 2.0 Between 1.4 and 2.6 3.7 Between 2.6 and 4.8 Global average sea level rise (m) RCP2.6 0.24 Between 0.17 and 0.32 0.40 Between 0.26 and 0.55
Table 9. Mean IOP with the Four Instruments in the Normotensive Group INSTRUMENT Mean (SD) 95% Confidence Interval GAT 14.66(3.63) (13.96,15.36) TONOPEN 11.99(4.2) (11.18,12.8) NCT 13.92(4.08) (13.13,14.71) DCT 16.29(2.79) (15.75,16.83) Between the high IOP group, the mean IOP was highest using GAT. The mean IOP using GAT was 29.4 (CI: 27.63-31.85) mm Hg and lowest with Tonopen, 24.44 (CI: 22.4- 26.48). In this group the DCT was similar to the other 3 tonometers in terms of measured IOP. The confidence intervals seem to overlap in DCT vs GAT, DCT vs Tonopen as well as DCT vs NCT. However, there was a statistically significant difference in IOP between GAT and tonopen with Tonopen underestimating IOP even in those with high IOP. These details are given in Table 10.
Table 9. Means and standard error (SE) of oyster shell height and wet mass by sampling time from the York River (YR), the moderate salinity site, for Year Two 50
Table 9. Methods of transportation (COMM1) Group University students 1 2 3 Lethbridge (n=15,248) (n=5,263) (n=7,365) (n=2,620) (n=387)