General Methodology Clause Samples

General Methodology. Analyzing the potential oil and gas development impacts for LEPCs requires three basic components: 1) A defined plan area. 2) An estimate of the rate and extent of habitat loss related to the development and management activities. 3) An estimate of population density to define the effects of those direct impacts on LEPCs. The plan area for the RWP is defined by EOR+10 which encompasses 62,733 mi2 or 40,149,404 acres across parts of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. The buffer around the range accounts for shifts in the estimated occupied range over time due to changes in habitat, movements of birds, and detectability of birds in areas of low population density. The EOR+10 is broken into four ecoregions. These ecoregions broadly reflect the different ecotypes across the LEPC range. Existing infrastructure or developments were identified based on publicly available GIS data for Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. The sources and dates and for these data sources are described in detail on ages 131–134 of the RWP. These datasets represent the best available data on developments within the region, but in many cases, the spatial and attribute error rates of these datasets are undefined. It is expected that the mitigation framework under the RWP and this CCAA will incentivize industry to provide better data on existing developments and will improve the assessment of impacts over time. In addition to the infrastructure data sources, this analysis uses data from the 2013 CHAT, which includes the focal areas (CHAT 1), connectivity zones (CHAT 2) and the remainder of The EOR+10. The density estimate utilized in this analysis is based on a reconstruction of LEPC populations across the range by ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2012). This reconstruction used LEPC ground survey data and aerial survey data collected across all four ecoregions. Depending on the ecoregion, this collective long-term average population estimate represents a period of 13-22 years from 1990 to 2012. During this period, populations ranged from roughly 37,000 to 84,000 birds, and that population estimate is representative of past and future conditions, including the population goals within the RWP. The density estimate uses the ▇▇▇▇▇▇ average population estimate divided by the area of suitable habitat as predicted by a Maximum Entropy lek habitat model developed by USGS (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. unpublished data) (Table 3). It conservatively represents all potential take resulting from development...

General Methodology. A five-step Delphi forum process was used to develop understanding of foresight from experts active in the field of nanotechnology. This process was intended to permit an independent synthesis of information derived from leading experts. The steps were: 1) Core group formulation of initial questions A Core Group of experts from US, Canada and Europe (government, academia, industry) were recruited by the project team. The Core Group was provided with a scope statement for the desired outcome of the Delphi forum and an initial set of possible questions. Through web conferencing and document revisions, the Core Group advised on the development of the questions used in the first round of the Delphi forum. 2) Delphi forum Round 1 With advice from the Core Group and using the expert contact lists from multiple sources involved in commerce, regulation, or study of nanotechnology uses, the project team assembled an invitation list of approximately 2500 experts worldwide. Efforts were made (through contacting trade associations and considering commodity manufacturers as well as product manufacturers) to ensure that the invitation list would reach the full range of the value chain for MNM use in products. The questions developed with the Core Group were coded into a web-survey instrument (▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇) and sent to the expert invitation list. Round 1 was open for response for approximately 2 months in late 2015 (details discussed below). During this period the project team developed web and newsletter announcements. The project team also enlisted leading experts to stimulate participation as ambassadors using direct emails to their contact lists. 3) Expert review panel A panel of experts was convened to evaluate the collected information including the first Delphi round results and to help define the aims of the second Delphi round in light of the foresight objectives. Advice was sought using specific questions regarding content and meaning of the first round. The evaluation occurred in an expert roundtable and a nanomaterial specialty section meeting of the 2015 Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) Annual Meeting in Washington DC (details below). 4) Core group-advised development of Delphi Round 2 questions Round 2 questions were developed with guidance from the Core Group in consideration of their review of the Round 1 data, the expert panel reviews at the 2015 SRA meeting, and advice from ProSafe Partners. The resulting questions were intended to clarify issues ra...

General Methodology. In order to perform the prioritization exercise, the first step was to choose a methodology. With this objective, the WP7.1 team conducted the following activities: - a scoping literature review on Web of Science - a review of the grey literature (reports on previous experiences etc) - interviews with experts of research prioritization processes. A total of 40 articles were selected for in-depth review. It appeared from this review that use of robust health priority setting processes is recommended on ethical grounds and to assure transparency. Since 2010, the number of priority setting exercises in health research is increasing. Each exercise is performed in a different context and has its own specificities. Therefore, although there is no gold standard, good practices are emerging. Based on the above analysis, the WP7.1 team decided to use a multi-criteria decision analysis methodology inspired by the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI), as described below. The determination of priorities follows several steps. • Selection of managers of the process • Definition of the scope of the process • Identification of key health research questions • Consolidation of the list of research questions • Choice of criteria • Weighting of criteria • Final ranking of research questions during a face-to-face meeting In order to ensure that no bias is introduced in the prioritization process by the same experts participating in more than three of the last steps listed above, it was necessary to constitute three groups of independent experts with the right competencies.

General Methodology. 1.1 General methodology (internal network- ing)‌ The document describing general norms and methodologies for networking and best practices of work into the BPN is D 1.1 where also methodologies for quality assurance and monitoring are found. This section instead will include some specifications of those methodologies, for the internal work of WP to WP communication and WG internally specific methodologies (see WG sections).

General Methodology. All procedures were approved by the Emory University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Midsagittally-hemisected spinal cords were isolated from ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇–▇▇▇▇▇▇ rats aged from postnatal days 6-12 and were prepared for in vitro experiments as described previously (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇;▇▇▇▇ et al., 2005) or from mice of the same age from the either the FVB or balb/c background. Recordings were made in oxygenated artificial cerebrospinal fluid (aCSF) containing (in mM): NaCl 128; KCl 1.9; D-glucose 10; MgSO41.3; CaCl2

General Methodology. A Base Year is established (usually the most recent fiscal year). These base patient revenues will be adjusted for price variance from approved rates, for volume variances, changes in differential due to changes in payer mix and any other approved One-Time adjustments. This base year revenue is then adjusted for any special transitional revenue provision to facilitate conversion of the hospital from an 85% variable cost system to a 100% fixed cost system (as is applicable under the TPR constraint system).1 This provision is described in subsection C. In year three of this agreement, the hospital is also eligible for a population adjustment to its overall TPR constraint. The hospital then must provide appropriate and necessary hospital services to its patient population and operate within the TPR constraint afforded it by the HSCRC for all years this agreement remains in effect.

General Methodology. This task will be carried out via all means of communication, as preferred by the people involved, including, mail, e-mail and telephone communication with relevant parties interested. The PREFORMA consortium will be kept informed at key stages via the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇@▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇ general mailing list. It is suggested that, in order to maintain a proper balance in the partnership, all partners should suggest as many contacts as possible. This is also in order to achieve the success indicators.

General Methodology. ‌ Depending on what type of communication medium Micro-ROS is set up with, the methodology may vary. Of course, the variations are small and related to the topology. In order to achieve benchmarking, the RTOS and the application were instrumented. Depending on the point of interest, different probes were placed in different part of the RTOS. The data format was following a standard called Common Trace Format (V1.8)[2]. This standard is even used in Zephyr (competitor of NuttX). As a matter of fact, the CTF core was ported from Zephyr to NuttX. Data are retrieved and analysed with babeltrace and the babeltrace python API [3]. Every events are timed using an internal free-running timer (in the case of NuttX running on the Olimex STM32-E407 TIM2). Thanks to this the device can have time clock with the resolution of nearly 10 nanoseconds. The current configuration of the resolution is 100 nanoseconds, which is more than enough to measure perforances of the communication, considering that the minimal Ethernet (64bytes) frame at 100Mbps. Using only the timestamped measurements allows to make delta calculation offline. The software configuration is likely to change. However the software role will be kept the same: • Agent running on a PC • Subscriber running on one Olimex STM32-E407, • Publisher running on one Olimex STM32-E407. At a hardware level the USB - CDC/ACM console is going to be used on the Olimex STM32-E407 boards for Ethernet and Serial benchmarkings. For 6LoWPAN the serial USART6 will be used as the console to reduce the memory footprint and execution impact. Hence the USB OTG1 of both Olimex STM32-E407 boards shall be connected to a computer. Additional hardware setup must performed but will depend on the type of topology (Ethernet / Serial / 6LoWPAN):

General Methodology. For purposes of calculating the components of Working Capital the following hierarchy is to be used for all balances: (a) The accounting principles, policies, procedures, categorizations, definitions, methods, practices and techniques specifically listed in Section 2 below. (b) To the extent not addressed in (a), GAAP as of the Closing Date applied consistently with the accounting principles, policies, procedures, categorizations, assets recognition bases, definitions, methods, practices and techniques (including in respect of the exercise of management judgment) adopted in the Financial Statements .