Comparative Evaluation Sample Clauses

The Comparative Evaluation clause establishes a process for assessing and ranking proposals, products, or services against each other based on predefined criteria. In practice, this clause outlines the methods and standards by which submissions are compared, such as scoring systems, evaluation panels, or weighted factors. Its core function is to ensure a fair and transparent selection process, helping decision-makers objectively identify the best option among multiple candidates.
Comparative Evaluation. In order to have an impression how the result is compared to the state of the art, the test sentences were translated with several available MT systems, to have an impression how useful they would be. The systems selected for comparison were one SMT and four RMT systems. The test sentences were translated, and the translations for the test words were identified and compared to the reference translation. Like for the absolute evaluation, total (rank1) and partial (rank2) identity were computed, as well as the overall scores. Tab. 5-1 shows the evaluation result. It can be seen that the LT-Xfr system clearly shows the best performance of all systems in all categories. It has much better scores than all RMT systems, and also better scores than Google. It is absolute 20% better than the least-performing MT system, and still 7% better than the best-performing one. Even the fallback frequency-based (LT-Xfr-freq) version outperforms all RMT systems, and is better than Google in three of six categories (Verbs1, Verbs/1+2, Adj/1+2). 5-1: Evaluation results, compared to the reference. Number sentences, ranks (sentences, percentage), per part of speech, total, and score, for all systems.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Comparative Evaluation. The Consultant will evaluate feasible alternatives utilizing evaluation criteria agreed upon in the MM. The Consultant will compile the evaluation matrix to show the differences between each alternative in a manner appropriate for public use. The Consultant will assist the Department in presenting the results of comparative alternative evaluation in the public meeting and in soliciting public and agencies opinions on the alternatives recommended for elimination and alternatives that may be advanced in the PD&E study.
View Source

Related to Comparative Evaluation

  • Annual Performance Evaluation On either a fiscal year or calendar year basis, (consistently applied from year to year), the Bank shall conduct an annual evaluation of Executive’s performance. The annual performance evaluation proceedings shall be included in the minutes of the Board meeting that next follows such annual performance review.

  • JOC EVALUATION If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and ▇▇▇▇ them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials. TIPS/ESC Region 8 is required by Texas Government Code § 791 to be compensated for its work and thus, failure to agree shall render your response void and it will not be considered. Vendor agrees to remit to TIPS the required administration fee or, if resellers are named, guarantee the fee remittance by or for the reseller named by the vendor?

  • Performance Evaluation The Department may conduct a performance evaluation of Contractor’s Services, including Contractor’s Subcontractors. Results of any evaluation may be made available to Contractor upon request.

  • Performance Evaluations Employee performance shall be evaluated and communicated on a yearly basis as required under County policy. Performance evaluations are used to demonstrate to employees that they are valued; record how an employee’s performance meet the requirements of the job; create a job history record; identify employee strengths and areas for enhancement; assist the employee and supervisor in an effort to attain the highest level of performance; and reinforce performance standards. Every effort will be made to include substantiated information within an employee’s performance evaluation. Non-recurring discipline history which is more than two (2) years old will not be referenced in performance evaluations. The County shall ensure employee performance evaluations are conducted in accordance with County and departmental policy. Performance evaluations and disciplinary matters shall only be conducted by County employees. When an employee who does not agree with the overall rating he/she receives on his/her written performance evaluation, he/she shall discuss and attempt to resolve the differences with his/her immediate supervisor. If discussion with his/her immediate supervisor does not result in resolution of the differences, the employee may file a written request to meet with the next level of management. Said request shall state the unresolved issues and the specific changes in the written performance evaluation the employee is seeking. The appropriate manager shall meet with the employee to discuss the unresolved issues. If the issues are not resolved to the employee’s satisfaction following discussion with the appropriate manager, the employee may within thirty (30) working days file a written request for a meeting with the department head. Within fourteen (14) working days of receipt of a written request stating the unresolved issues and the desired changes in the written performance evaluation, the department head shall meet with the employee to discuss the issues. Within ten (10) working days of said meeting, the department head shall respond in writing to the employee. The decision of the Department Head shall be final and not subject to the grievance procedure. An employee may submit a written response to his/her evaluation that shall be placed in his/her personnel file.

  • Comprehensive Evaluation The Comprehensive evaluation is a growth-oriented, teacher/evaluator collaborative process that requires teachers to be evaluated on the eight (8) state criteria. A teacher must complete a Comprehensive evaluation once every six (6) years. Subsequent years they will be evaluated on a Focused evaluation, unless they have received a Basic or Unsatisfactory rating on their final comprehensive summative evaluation. Then they shall continue using the Comprehensive evaluation for the following year. All teachers during their provisional status must be on the Comprehensive evaluation.