Assignment of Weights Sample Clauses
The Assignment of Weights clause establishes how different factors, criteria, or components are given specific levels of importance within a contract or evaluation process. In practice, this clause might be used in procurement, project evaluation, or performance measurement, where each criterion—such as cost, quality, or delivery time—is assigned a numerical value or percentage reflecting its significance. By clearly defining these weightings, the clause ensures transparency and fairness in decision-making, helping parties understand how outcomes will be determined and reducing disputes over subjective judgments.
Assignment of Weights. If all key, in-scope members of a family responded to MEPS for their entire period of eligibility for Panel 13, Round 3 or for Panel 14, Round 1 and if the family had a key reference person, then that family received a family-level weight (WGTRU13>0). Reporting units consisting of an individual respondent who was both key and in-scope also received a family-level weight. These single person “family” units can be included or excluded from family-level analyses at the analyst’s discretion. Family-level weights were poststratified to figures obtained from the March 2009 CPS. The family-level poststratification reflects population distributions across family type (reference person married, spouse present; male reference person, no spouse present; female reference person, no spouse present), size of family, age of reference person, location of family (census region and MSA status), and race/ethnicity of the family’s reference person. Table 3-3 shows the number of families with family-level weights for each of the two panels separately, as well as the combined total and the total population estimate represented by the weighted total for all families with family-level weights. Included as families in these counts are individuals living in one person RUs. There are 7,346 such families for Panel 13, Round 3 and 7,488 for Panel 14, Round 1. Thus, in total, there are 14,834 sample families in the file with positive family-level weights (WGTRU13>0). The population estimate of the number of these “family” units (families plus single person “family” units) with family-level weights containing at least one member of the U.S. civilian, non-institutionalized population is 131,223,210 based on summing the family level weights across all 14,834 MEPS families where WGTRU13 is positive. Table 3-3. Families with a family weight for the 2009 Point-in-Time file Panel 13 Panel 14 Combined Population estimate (weighted total of combined sample) Number 7,346 7,488 14,834 131,223,210 It should be noted that CPS and MEPS definitions of family units are slightly different. In particular, CPS does not include ▇▇▇▇▇▇ children in families or consider unmarried persons who live together as family units. Adjustments were made in the poststratification process to help compensate for some of these differences. Again, note that MEPS population estimates have undergone some “discontinuities” due to an adjustment in the 2003 CPS estimates.
Assignment of Weights. If all key in-scope members of a family responded to MEPS for their entire period of eligibility in 2001 Panel 5 Round 3, or for Panel 6 Round 1, and the family had a key reference person, then that family received a family level weight (WGTRU13>0). Reporting units consisting of an individual respondent who was both key and in-scope also received a family level weight. These individual person units can be included or excluded from family level analyses at the analyst’s discretion. Family level weights were poststratified to figures obtained from the March 2001 CPS. The family level poststratification reflected population distributions across family type (reference person married, spouse present; male reference person, no spouse present; female reference person, no spouse present), size of family, age of reference person, location of family (census region and MSA status), and race/ethnicity of the family’s reference person. The weighted estimate of the number of units (families plus individual person units) with family level weights containing at least one member of the U.S. civilian non-institutionalized population is 118,594,062 based on 13,393 families with WGTRU13>0. It should be noted that CPS and MEPS definitions of family units are slightly different. In particular, CPS does not include ▇▇▇▇▇▇ children in families or consider unmarried persons who live together as family units. Adjustments were made in the poststratification process to help compensate for some of these differences.
Assignment of Weights. The weight assigned to a logic tree branch should represent the likelihood of that branch being the true model. In most cases, however, weights will be assigned by the experts deriving the input data for the logic tree, based on their judgement of the likelihood of the competing models. Weights can also be derived from e.g. a Bayesian scheme as suggested by
Assignment of Weights. C-1 C-1 C-1 C-2 C-2 C-3 C-3 C-3 C-3 C-11 C-16 C-20 C-23 C-26 C-26 C-26 C-27 C-27 C-27 C-28 C-30 C-30 C-30 C-30 C-32 C-32 C-33 C-33 C-33 3.2.2.3 Instructions to Create Family Estimates ........................... C-34 3.2.3 Relationship between Person- and Family-Level Weights .................... C-35 3.3 Variance Estimation .................................................... C-35 3.4 Using MEPS Data for Trend Analysis ........................ C-36 D Variable-Source Crosswalk ................................................................... D-1 Individual identifiers have been removed from the micro-data contained in these files. Nevertheless, under sections 308 (d) and 903 (c) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 242m and 42 U.S.C. 299 a-1), data collected by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and/or the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) may not be used for any purpose other than for the purpose for which they were supplied; any effort to determine the identity of any reported cases is prohibited by law. Therefore in accordance with the above referenced Federal Statute, it is understood that: