Assessment Results. In Hungary “social contribution tax” is the tax paid on gross salaries to the state by employers. Its rate is 27%. So getting incentives from this tax makes employees more attractive for employers. Statistics about the Start Card: 2007 2008 2009 2010 Wage subsidy and wage cost support (annual number of concerned persons) 43 073 52 668 42 365 59 502 Start Plusz and Start Extra card (annual number of concerned persons) 1 012 8930 28 036 48 970 Start Card allowance (million HUF) 1 472,60 Since January 2013 the START Card system has been transferred into the new “Save jobs action plan” and gives now incentives – without a special card, automatically – after employees under 25 years and over 55 years of age and non-qualified workers between 25-55 years. Contacts: Employer: Trade Union: Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxxxx MGYOSZ-BUSINESSHUNGARY SZEF 0000 Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxx ter 6-8. 1068 Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx 00. Tel.: 00-00-0-000-0000 Tel.: +00-0-0000000 E-mail: xxxxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xx E-mail: xxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxx.xx Web: xxx.xxxxxx.xx Web: xxx.xxxx.xx The Italian System of Apprenticeships / Italy Learning Objective / Summary: The Italian apprenticeship system – reformed in 2011 on the basis of the agreement signed by social partners, national government and regions - is based on a mixed model that includes work, on-the-job and off-the-job training. There are three distinct types of apprenticeships and all of them are based on both training and work. Description of the initiative: The apprenticeship contract is the only employment contract combining work and training. It is an effective tool to ease transitions of young people in the labour market. In order to promote this employment contract, reduced social security contributions are provided for apprenticeships. There are 3 types of apprenticeship contracts: A contract to accompany youngsters (Contratto per la qualifica e il diploma professionale 15- 25 y.o.) aimed at the achievement of a qualification or a vocational qualification and certification of having achieved compulsory education level. A qualifying contract (Apprendistato professionalizzante; 18-29 y.o.) aimed at the achievement of a vocational training qualification at the workplace that can be signed by employers of all productive sectors.
Assessment Results. You can access your results at any time via the E-Learning site by clicking on “Grades” in the menu on the left-hand side of the course page. You can also request a copy of your academic transcript by contacting your Regional Administrator. All of your results will be reported to NZQA and will remain on your record of learning. Assessment Extensions If for any reason you are unable to complete any assessment or examination within the given timeframe, you must notify the Learning Support Manager before the due date (this can be done via your kaiako and supply an appropriate reason and supporting evidence. Submitting a request does not automatically guarantee that it will be accepted. Assessment Appeals You have the right to appeal an assessment decision. The Assessment Appeals process is shown in the flow chart to the right. Full details of the Assessment Appeals process can be found in the Assessment Appeals Guidelines. Trainees are welcome to bring a support person to any meeting. The appeals process is split into stages: Stage One – Initial Review: In the first instance please talk to your kaiako, within five (5) business days of the assessment decision, to discuss the reasons for your appeal of the assessment decision. If you and your kaiako are unable to satisfactorily resolve the issue, your kaiako will download a copy of the Assessment Appeal Form and will explain the appeal process to you. Your kaiako will record a summary of the discussion and the outcome in Stage One of the Assessment Appeal Form. You will review what has been written in Stage One of the Assessment Appeal Form and sign and date the form (after any amendments have been made, if necessary). The kaiako will also sign and date Stage One of the form. The appeal will then proceed to Stage Two Stage Two – Formal Appeal: The Assessment Appeal Form will be passed onto the Learning Support Manager within five (5) business days. All your assessment materials will be reviewed and evaluated by the Learning Support Manager and the Stage Two section of the Assessment Appeal form will be completed. You will be informed of the outcome within five (5) business days. If you remain unhappy with the assessment decision, the appeal will proceed to Stage Three. Stage Three – Appeal Panel: The Learning Support Manager will pass the Assessment Appeal Form onto the Programme Manager within five business days. The Programme Manager will convene a meeting of the Appeals Panel. The Appeals Panel will examine ...
Assessment Results. It is routine for our clients and clients at similar mental health and relationship care centers to fill out assessment instruments at the request of their therapist. Assessment instruments give us information about the types of problems our clients are dealing with and help us track clients’ progress in therapy. The information you provide in an assessment instrument helps us to improve our services to the community and may also be used for marketing and research purposes. No personally identifiable information (e.g., your name, initials, birthdate, etc.) is included on any marketing materials or published research. Upon your completion of an assessment instrument such as a questionnaire, your answers will be stored securely according to state and federal standards. Therefore, by filling out an assessment instrument at this private practice, you will take on a minimal risk of harm or discomfort no greater than what you would experience when filling out paperwork at your medical doctor’s office. If you have any questions or would like additional information about how we use assessment results for service and research purposes, you may ask me (i.e., Xx. Xxxxxx) in person or contact me at 000-000-0000.
Assessment Results. 4.71 Operational noise impact assessment under the “Original Scenario” and “Unmitigated Scenario” has been conducted at the identified existing and planned NSRs. The results at each level of the identified representative NSRs based on morning and afternoon peak traffic flow are presented in Table 4.12 and Table 4.13, respectively. Table 4.12 Predicted Road Traffic Noise Level at Each Identified NSR (Morning Peak) Predicted Noise Level, L10 (1-hr) dB(A) NSR Floor Height, Scenario” Scenario” “Original Scenario”) EIAO-TM N1 1 8.9 77.0 77.0 0.0 65 No N2 1 7.4 67.6 67.6 0.0 70 No N3 1 10.1 72.2 72.2 0.0 70 No 2 12.9 73.8 73.6 -0.2 70 No N4 1 10.0 75.1 75.0 -0.1 70 No 2 12.8 76.1 76.0 -0.1 70 No N5 1 9.9 65.2 65.2 0.0 70 No 2 12.9 70.2 70.2 0.0 70 No 3 15.9 73.0 73.0 0.0 70 No N6 1 10.1 81.0 81.8 0.8 55 No 2 13.1 81.8 82.4 0.6 55 No N7 1 10.8 80.7 80.7 0.0 70 No N8 1 11.7 78.4 78.8 0.4 70 No 2 14.5 79.3 79.7 0.4 70 No 3 17.3 79.5 79.8 0.3 70 No N9 1 11.6 78.2 78.1 -0.1 70 No mPD “Original “Unmitigated Difference (“Unmitigated Scenario” - Noise Standard under Noise Impact considered as significant (1) Predicted Noise Level, L10 (1-hr) dB(A) Difference Noise Noise Impact NSR Floor Height, mPD “Original “Unmitigated (“Unmitigated Scenario” - Standard under considered as significant (1) Scenario” Scenario” “Original Scenario”) EIAO-TM N10 1 10.9 75.0 75.0 0.0 70 No N12 1 12.7 69.7 69.8 0.1 70 No 2 15.5 70.2 70.3 0.1 70 No N13 1 14.6 81.4 82.3 0.9 70 No 2 17.4 82.1 82.8 0.7 70 No N15 1 12.3 74.0 74.1 0.1 70 No 2 15.1 75.1 75.2 0.1 70 No N16 1 13.0 74.9 74.9 0.0 70 No 2 15.8 75.8 75.7 -0.1 70 No N17 1 16.0 76.5 76.9 0.4 70 No 2 18.8 77.1 77.7 0.6 70 No N18 1 16.8 75.6 76.2 0.6 70 No 2 19.6 76.4 77.2 0.8 70 No N19 1 17.2 78.8 77.9 -0.9 70 No 2 20.0 81.3 80.5 -0.8 70 No N20 1 18.0 75.5 74.6 -0.9 70 No 2 20.8 76.3 75.6 -0.7 70 No 3 23.6 76.7 76.0 -0.7 70 No N21 1 18.2 75.7 75.7 0.0 70 No 2 21.0 76.1 76.3 0.2 70 No N22 1 19.7 73.3 73.1 -0.2 70 No 2 22.5 74.2 74.0 -0.2 70 No 3 25.3 74.7 74.5 -0.2 70 No N24 1 19.8 76.8 76.7 -0.1 70 No 2 22.6 78.0 77.8 -0.2 70 No N25 1 21.9 72.0 72.0 0.0 70 No 2 24.7 72.7 72.8 0.1 70 No 3 27.5 73.1 73.2 0.1 70 No N26 1 23.0 75.5 75.6 0.1 55 No 2 25.8 76.3 76.4 0.1 55 No 3 28.6 76.6 76.6 0.0 55 No N27 1 23.0 80.1 80.6 0.5 70 No 2 25.8 80.5 80.8 0.3 70 No 3 28.6 79.9 80.2 0.3 70 No N28 1 23.9 71.2 71.2 0.0 70 No 2 26.7 71.8 71.8 0.0 70 No 3 29.5 72.2 72.2 0.0 70 No N29 1 24.3 76.2 76.6 0.4 70 No 2 27.1 77.1 77.5 0.4 70 No 3 29.9 77.3 77.6 0.3 ...
Assessment Results. 5.1.1 The water quality modelling results for the baseline and bypass discharge scenarios at all water sensitive receivers are tabulated in Appendix 5.1. A discussion of the results is given below.
Assessment Results. Note: The EBU deployment has been taken offline in autumn 2013 due to security issues. Thus not all features could be tested with a current version. This will be updated in 2014. Characteristics Sub-characteristics Level of Need Fulfilment Functional suitability Functional completeness Metadata input formats Dublin Core Mandatory 1 ESE Desirable 1 EDM Desirable 0 EBU Core Mandatory (for broadcasting related CoPs) / Recommended 1 MPEG-7 Recommended (for CoPs using automatic content analysis) 1 LIDO Mandatory (for museum/gallery related) / Recommended 1 EAD Mandatory (for non-a/v archive related) / Recommended 1 Metadata output formats Dublin Core Mandatory 0 ESE Recommended 0 EDM Recommended 0 EBU Core Mandatory (for broadcasting related CoPs) / Recommended 1 MPEG-7 Recommended (for CoPs using automatic content analysis) 0 LIDO Mandatory (for museum/gallery related) / Recommended 0 Characteristics Sub-characteristics Level of Need Fulfilment EAD Mandatory (for non-a/v archive related) / Recommended 0 option to add custom formats Recommended 1 XML representation support Mandatory 1 RDF representation support Recommended 0 Metadata model constructs single -> multiple elements Recommended 0,5 multiple -> single elements Mandatory 1 structure using context elements Mandatory 1 conditional mapping based on element/attribute values Mandatory 0,5 map collections Recommended 1 merge string values Mandatory 1 split string values Recommended 1 number of levels in data structure Mandatory: 2 / Recommended: 2+ 1 / 0 start from example(s) Recommended 1 start from schema Recommended 0 configuration user interface Mandatory 1 user interface drag & drop mappings Recommended 1 preview Mandatory 1 map constructs not found in available examples Recommended 0 Functional correctness Tested mappings MPEG-7 -> EBU Core 1 DC -> EBU Core 1 Functional appropriateness ingest of metadata (e.g. SIP creation) 0,3 B2B exchange 0,5 provision to portals (e.g. Europeana) 1 Performance efficiency Time behaviour processing time simple document (one bibliographic record) not tested complex document (detailed metadata) not tested document with collections not tested response time of user interface not tested time for generating preview not tested Resource utilization Characteristics Sub-characteristics Level of Need Fulfilment RAM requirement no data CPU requirement no data GPU requirement not required Capacity Number of metadata elements per core/minute > 300 Compatibility Interoperability con...
Assessment Results. Characteristics Sub- characteristics Level of Need VidiCert fulfillment of functions/features/capabilities Completeness for AV QC in Preservation/Migration Appropriateness for AV QC in Preservation/Migration Functional characteristics
Assessment Results. Following the methodology in Section 2.1, the respective threats from the list yielded an average score of 19.58, while the devices had a score of 174.44 in average. The highest scores for devices and, thus, the devices/systems seen most vulnerable are the gateway device (GW - with around 280% of the average score) and the Wide Area Monitoring System (WAMS - ca. 216%). The imminent threats identified (with each more than 150% of the respective average score, sorted descending by risk scoring) are: • Unauthorized use or administration of devices and systems; • Insecure Interfaces (APIs); • Manipulation of hardware and software; • Failure or disruption of main supply; • Abuse of Information Leakage; • Malfunction of equipment (devices or systems); • Abuse of authorizations; • Unauthorized installation of software; • Unauthorized use of software; • Unauthorized access to the information system / network; • Unauthorized physical access / Unauthorized entry to premises; • Failure or disruption of communication links (communication networks); • Failure of devices or systems; • Unauthorized changes of records; • Failure or disruption of service providers (supply chain); • Targeted attacks (APTs etc.). The most severe one for single entities (a Red rating of r) serve as an input for the threat model (see Section 3.1).
