Robustness Check Clause Samples

Robustness Check. Change in Termination Probability The table reports logit regressions of termination on fund manager and fund characteristics. I define termina- tion at a fund level, which is similar to specification in ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (1999). This dummy variable equals 1 if a fund manager is no longer a fund manager at the fund in year t+1. The first two specifications follow the specifications of Table 3 and compare the earlier period to the recent period. The next four spec- ifications follow the specifications of Table 8 and compare between junior and seasoned managers in two sub-periods. Standard errors are double clustered at the manager and year levels. Resulting standard errors are reported in brackets. A detailed description of each variable is included in Appendix A.
View Source
Robustness Check a skill-biased shock from the skill premium‌ The failure of the identified IST shock to explain the data in its entirety implies that there might be a distinction between a sector-biased technology shock and a skill-biased technology shock, especially in the short term. It leaves open the task to identify a perfectly skill-biased technology shock. In pursuit of this goal, I revisit the growth model in ▇▇▇▇ and Lim (1998), in which they separately identifies efficiency parameters for each input factor as follows
View Source
Robustness Check. Deconstructing State Democracy‌ As described in section 4.2.2, the democracy score aggregates several different factors to determine the level of democracy in state election systems. To ensure the validity of the index and to determine whether the variables that comprise it are significant predictors of NPVC membership, I conduct a separate analysis without states’ democracy scores, instead using its component parts as covariates. Table 4.4 shows the results of the second analysis. Variable Estimate HR 95% CI p-value Democratic Governor 1.642 5.164 (0.271, 98.532) 0.275 Population -0.065 0.937 (0.286, 3.074) 0.915 Population Density 1.971 7.1811 (1.719, 29.998) 0.00688∗∗∗ Voted for ▇▇▇▇ (2000) -2.011 0.134 (0.004, 4.641) 0.266 Unemployment Rate 0.312 1.367 (0.590, 3.166) 0.466 Recall Provision 0.243 1.276 (0.134, 12.109) 0.832 Ballot Initiative Provision 0.100 1.107 (0.418, 2.907) 0.845 Voter Turnout 0.101 1.106 (0.572, 2.142) 0.764 Voter ID Law 1.216 3.375 (1.621, 7.024) 0.00115∗∗∗ Voter ID Law (No Photo) -1.070 0.343 (0.121, 0.971) 0.04386∗∗ Observations 118 Number of Events 15 R2 0.080 Wald Test 15.7 (df = 10) LR Test 21.71 (df = 10) Score (Logrank) Test 32.75 (df = 10) Note: ∗p<0.1; ∗∗p<0.05; ∗∗∗p<0.01 Table 4.4: Predictors of NPVC Membership, Survival Model Robustness Check In the second analysis, population density still returns significant with p < 0.01. Notably, some of the component parts of the democracy score also return statistically significant: the adoption of voter ID laws that do and do not require photo verification are also significant predictors of NPVC adoption with p < 0.01 and p < 0.05, respectively.
View Source

Related to Robustness Check

  • PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 5.1 The Employee agrees to participate in the performance management system that the Employer adopted for the employees of the Employer; 5.2 The Employee accepts that the purpose of the performance management system will be to provide a comprehensive system with specific performance standards to assist the employees and service providers to perform to the standards required; 5.3 The Employer must consult the Employee about the specific performance standards and targets that will be included in the performance management system applicable to the Employee; 5.4 The Employee undertakes to actively focus on the promotion and implementation of the key performance indicators (including special projects relevant to the employee’s responsibilities) within the local government framework; 5.5 The criteria upon which the performance of the Employee shall be assessed shall consist of two components, Operational Performance and Competencies both of which shall be contained in the Performance Agreement; 5.6 The Employee’s assessment will be based on his performance in terms of the outputs/outcomes (performance indicators) identified as per attached Performance Plan, which are linked to the KPAs, and will constitute 80% of the overall assessment result as per the weightings agreed to between the Employer and Employee; 5.7 The Competencies will make up the other 20% of the Employee’s assessment score. The Competencies are spilt into two groups, leading competencies (indicated in blue on the graph below) that drive strategic intent and direction and core competencies (indicated in green on the graph below), which drive the execution of the leading competencies. Strategic direc on and leadership People management Program and project management Financial management Change leadership Governance leadersip Moral competence Planning and organising Analysis and innova on Knowledge and informa on management Communica on Results and quality focus

  • Quality Management System Supplier hereby undertakes, warrants and confirms, and will ensue same for its subcontractors, to remain certified in accordance with ISO 9001 standard or equivalent. At any time during the term of this Agreement, the Supplier shall, if so instructed by ISR, provide evidence of such certifications. In any event, Supplier must notify ISR, in writing, in the event said certification is suspended and/or canceled and/or not continued.

  • Configuration Management The Contractor shall maintain a configuration management program, which shall provide for the administrative and functional systems necessary for configuration identification, control, status accounting and reporting, to ensure configuration identity with the UCEU and associated cables produced by the Contractor. The Contractor shall maintain a Contractor approved Configuration Management Plan that complies with ANSI/EIA-649 2011. Notwithstanding ANSI/EIA-649 2011, the Contractor’s configuration management program shall comply with the VLS Configuration Management Plans, TL130-AD-PLN-010-VLS, and shall comply with the following:

  • Enterprise Information Management Standards Performing Agency shall conform to HHS standards for data management as described by the policies of the HHS Chief Data and Analytics Officer. These include, but are not limited to, standards for documentation and communication of data models, metadata, and other data definition methods that are required by HHS for ongoing data governance, strategic portfolio analysis, interoperability planning, and valuation of HHS System data assets.

  • STATEWIDE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM If the maximum amount payable to Contractor under this Contract is $100,000 or greater, either on the Effective Date or at any time thereafter, this section shall apply. Contractor agrees to be governed by and comply with the provisions of §§▇▇-▇▇▇-▇▇▇, ▇▇-▇▇▇-▇▇▇, ▇▇-▇▇▇-▇▇▇, and ▇▇- ▇▇▇-▇▇▇, C.R.S. regarding the monitoring of vendor performance and the reporting of contract information in the State’s contract management system (“Contract Management System” or “CMS”). Contractor’s performance shall be subject to evaluation and review in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Contract, Colorado statutes governing CMS, and State Fiscal Rules and State Controller policies.