EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Sample Clauses

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE. All study participants came to the same room (individually) and carried out the experiment on the same laptop, to keep factors such as lighting conditions and screen setup constant and ensure that they did not influence the image analysis task. Before using each interface, each participant completed an online tutorial to learn how to use the tools, looking for change on a separate example image. Participants then used each of the interfaces in turn to for 10 minutes - answering a simple yes/no question for each image pair: “do surface features change between the two images?”; to mitigate bias caused by learning of the system, the order in which the interfaces were presented was manipulated so that the same number of participants tested the interfaces in the same order. The order in which image pairs were displayed to each participant was also randomised, to prevent bias being caused by image content (images with or without change appearing in the same interface each time etc.). After using each interface, participants completed the questionnaire to share their views as previously described.
View Source
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE. The testing of the fluids is being performed in a three-step process. The first step is a basic "boil down" test wherein the fluids are heated at a low heat flux and the water allowed to completely boil-off. The consistency of the solution is observed during this boil-down test and the final solids, or liquid residue measured. This test provides a worst-case scenario as to the level of deposition/fouling that could occur within the distiller. The second test is performed in a basic "bench-top" distiller that boils the water and condenses the distillate in a simple air-cooled condenser. In this test, the solution is boiled-down to 10% of the original volume, that which is equivalent to the concentration of the concentrate in the actual Ovation distiller. This test provides a means of observing the purity of the distillate and concentrate before testing in the Ovation distiller. If the residue were of a nature that would likely foul the heat exchangers in the Ovation distiller, no further testing would be performed. The third test is performed with the actual Ovation Alpha unit. This developmental unit has a terminal capacity of 9 to 12 gallons per hour, depending on the compressor drive configuration. For these tests, the compressor was operated at an 8 gallons per hour flow rate, or three-quarter capacity, to minimize potential operational issues that could occur while testing with these new fluids. It is anticipated that future Beta units, with a capacity of up to 20 gallons per hour, will perform in a similar fashion. Shown in Figure 2.1 is a flow diagram of the system and in Figure 2.2 are photographs of the test unit. The sample water first passes through a 5 micron filter to remove large particulates. The liquid is then heated to approximately 95 C in a counterflow heat exchanger. The heated water is again filtered in a 1 micron cartridge filter, after which it enters the distiller. The one micron filter is used to capture particulates which have precipitated out of the solution or viscous fluids formed while the solution was being heated. A quantity of the concentrate, approximately one gallon per hour, is continuously withdrawn from the unit so as not to over-concentrate the solution. Samples are taken at the inlet to the distiller, the concentrate, and the pure distillate outlet streams. In operation, the unit is brought up to operating temperature using clean-water to define a baseline condition. Then approximately 5 gallons of the sample liquid a...
View Source
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE. The study was built and conducted using the PsychoPy2 software (▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2009; 2007). The software allowed the experiment to call and display images from the library and record participant responses. The experiment was run on a desktop computer with participants responding using the keyboard. The study was designed to have participants in both strategies view stimuli drawn without replacement from the image library in a random order and respond accordingly. The experiment would record which stimuli was displayed, and the participant response and response time for that stimuli. Table 3.1 displays the breakdown of the 30 participants into their respective conditions. General Strategy x15 Specific Strategy Cut condition x3 x15 Flat condition x3 Dent condition x3 Glue condition x3 Scratch condition x3 After listening to a briefing and having their questions answered, they would then sign their consent. Both strategies of the study would then have participants assigned to a condition. As the participants were all university students and none of them could have been considered as experts in visual inspection. In order to familiarise them with the task, they would complete a short practice session with instantaneous feedback. It was limited to only 30 trials to avoid any potential bias to be introduced by the presence of rapid feedback (▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1973). This form of training is also commonly found in citizen science projects and is an approach we also intend to take. The General strategy asked participants to indicate which of the categories the stimuli displayed belonged to or if it was a normal sample. In the Specific condition, participants were assigned a defect category and were asked to only reject samples if the stimuli presented contained a defect from their assigned category. Upon conclusion of the study the participants were asked to complete the NASA Task Load Index (NASA- TLX), a cognitive workload assessment tool (NASA, 1986). This tool is used throughout the remainder of this report and is worth going into some detail here. The NASA TLX is generally regarded as an industry standard for the self-report of workload on a task and as such has been used in at least 4,000 published studies across myriad situations and industries (▇▇▇▇, 2006). It is multi-dimensional subjective rating procedure that generates workload scores based upon six subscales: • Mental demand (How much mental and perceptual activity was required?). • Physical demand (How much ...
View Source
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE. Participants tested three versions of the interface for ten minutes over an hour in total, which included time for the introduction and filling in a feedback survey after each one. Each participant completed ten minutes on one of the three (A) interfaces (see table 3.2) in which the crowd had classified all (change and no change) imagery correctly but to differing levels of consensus. Likewise they spent ten minutes on one of three (B) interfaces in which half of the imagery containing changes, and half the imagery containing no changes, was classified incorrectly to different levels of consensus; for the final ten minutes participants carried out the task with an image set (C) in which the incorrect and correct imagery of the second image set was switched, so that results were due to the algorithm’s accuracy.
View Source
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE. Each participant completed the experiment in the same room but at different times. On arrival, participants received an explanation of the project and their task, before they signed a paper copy of the information sheet and consent form, as approved by the Faculty of Engineering’s Ethics Board. The debrief emphasised that participants should mark changes on the surface and not changes in lighting or image quality, for example, that might occur due to differences in atmospheric or photographic conditions. When the participant indicated that they understood what was required and had no further questions they completed an introductory questionnaire; this captured basic demographic data, which our experience and previous research suggested might support data analysis. Following a demonstration of the task, participants had the opportunity to complete the task for one image pair to familiarise themselves with the user interface. Figure 3.14 shows the task that confronted participants. Images were bordered in red if the algorithm suggested there was no change in the two images, and green if the algorithm suggested there was a change. Participants, however, were invited to judge the images independently and to mark where on the images they saw change using the rectangular drawing tool provided, coloured red and labelled “Area of change”. If they did not see any changes, they clicked on “Done” and moved to the next image pair. If they did see a change and draw a rectangle, however, a window would pop and ask them “What surface feature have you marked?” Underneath the question were four choices, from which they could only select one with its radio button.
View Source

Related to EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

  • Discipline Procedure 1. Disciplinary action may be imposed for violation of written rules and regulations as set forth by the Board, incompetence, inefficiency, dishonesty, drunkenness, immoral conduct, insubordination, discourteous treatment of the public, neglect of duty, misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, any other failure of good behavior, or conviction of a felony. 2. No employee shall be disciplined without first having had the opportunity for a hearing, if the employee so requests, with an OAPSE representative of his/her choice present. The employee shall be given a written statement containing the charges and the time and place of the hearing. The written statement shall notify the employee of his/her rights to OAPSE representation. The employee must be given the opportunity to sign the statement acknowledging receipt of the statement and date received. Under emergency conditions as determined by the supervisor (including, but not limited to, health and/or safety of the employee or other employees; blatant insubordination; or refusal to work), the supervisor may immediately suspend an employee without pay for a period of up to three (3) work days without the formal hearing described above. An opportunity for a formal hearing with the supervisor must be provided within the suspension period. Failure to provide an opportunity for a hearing during the suspension period shall preclude the right of further discipline for the offense causing the initial suspension. Emergency suspensions will not be subject to Section 6 of this Article. 3. Disciplinary action of less than discharge should generally be progressive and corrective in nature. A. Disciplinary actions shall be grievable. This Section shall supersede existing state law governing termination of employment (O.R.C. 3319.081). B. In determining progressive and corrective action, just cause shall be construed and limited to the nature and seriousness of the offense, the effect the alleged conduct has on the Board’s operation, the discipline or lack thereof used in other similar situations known to the Board, and the appropriateness of the proposed penalty in view of the record and length of service of the charged employee. The enumeration of these factors is not intended to preclude either the exercise of good and sound business judgment or to minimize the importance of an employee’s property interest in his job.

  • Informal Procedure A complaint may be presented informally to the administrator whose decision or action is being contested.

  • Formal Procedure No different or additional Work or contractual obligations will be authorized or performed unless contemplated within the Scope of Work and memorialized in an amendment or modification of the Contract that is executed in compliance with this Article. No waiver of any term, covenant, or condition of the Contract will be valid unless executed in compliance with this Article. Contractor will not be entitled to payment for Work that is not authorized by a properly executed Contract amendment or modification, or through the express written authorization of HHSC. Any changes to the Contract that results in a change to either the term, fees, or significantly impacting the obligations of the parties to the Contract must be effectuated by a formal Amendment to the Contract. Such Amendment must be signed by the appropriate and duly authorized representative of each party in order to have any effect.

  • Evaluation Procedure 6.1.1 The established evaluation form is to be prepared by the immediate supervisor under whom the bargaining unit member has served for sixty (60) working days or more. (See evaluation form attached as Appendix B.) The immediate supervisor is to present a draft of an evaluation report to the bargaining unit member in private and discuss the report with the bargaining unit member being evaluated. The evaluation shall be based upon direct observation by the immediate supervisor or verified facts. Evaluation reports reflecting “Needs Improvement” or “Does not meet standards” ratings shall include statements of deficiencies and recommendations for improvements, in writing, by the evaluator. The signature by the bargaining unit member does not indicate the employee’s agreement with the ratings; it indicates that the employee has received a copy. 6.1.1.1 Permanent employees shall be evaluated annually. 6.1.1.2 Probationary employees shall be evaluated at least once during the probationary period, prior to the end of the fourth month. 6.1.2 Evaluation reports reflecting “Needs Improvement” or “Does Not Meet Standards” ratings shall be placed in the bargaining unit member’s personnel file only after written notification by the supervisor that the bargaining unit member has been given an opportunity to prepare a written response to such evaluation. Prior to evaluation reports reflecting any “Needs Improvement” or “Does Not Meet Standards” ratings the evaluator is encouraged to implement a Performance Improvement Plan. (See Performance Improvement Plan form attached as Appendix C.) 6.1.3 A bargaining unit member has the right to attach a response to the employee’s evaluation provided that such written response is submitted to the employee's supervisor within fifteen (15) days of the employee's receipt of the evaluation. Any timely received response shall be attached to, and become a permanent part of, the employee's evaluation. 6.1.4 Evaluatees may, within ten (10) working days, present the employee’s objections to the evaluation decision to the Director Personnel Services. Grounds for the objections shall be based on one or more of the following: (1) the evaluation was not based on fact; (2) the evaluation was based on discriminatory standards; (3) the evaluation was not conducted in conformance with this Article. Within ten (10) working days of receipt of such objection the Director Personnel Services shall hear the objections and render a decision whether to uphold the evaluation or rescind the evaluation. 6.1.5 The bargaining unit member's supervisor may, at any time, prepare a notice of commendation. The completed form is to be signed by the bargaining unit member to indicate receipt and the bargaining unit member shall be given a signed copy. The original notice is to be forwarded to the Personnel Services Office for filing. 6.1.6 Contents of evaluations are not subject to the grievance procedure of this Agreement, Article VII, but procedural violations are subject to the grievance procedure. 6.1.7 The probation period shall be defined as the initial six (6) month employment period. 6.1.8 In the event a permanent bargaining unit member is hired for a new position, and is subsequently released from probation under section 6.1.7, the employee will be returned to the employee’s previous classification. 6.1.9 The District, CSEA and the bargaining unit member may mutually agree to extend the probationary period of a bargaining unit member on an individual basis provided the extension is no longer than four (4) months.

  • Referral Procedure Section 4.01 In the interest of maintaining an efficient system of production in the Industry, providing for an orderly procedure of referral of applicants for employment, preserving the legitimate interests of the employees in their employment status within the area and of eliminating discrimination in employment because of membership or non-membership in the Union, the parties hereto agree to the following system of referral of applicants for employment. Section 4.02 The Union shall be the sole and exclusive source of referral of applicants for employment. Section 4.03 The Employer shall have the right to reject any applicant for employment. Section 4.04 The Union shall select and refer applicants for employment without discrimination against such applicants by reason of membership or non-membership in the Union and such selection and referral shall not be affected in any way by rules, regulations, by-laws, constitutional provisions or any other aspect or obligation of Union membership policies or requirements. All such selection and referral shall be in accord with the following procedure. Section 4.05 The Union shall maintain a register of applicants for employment established on the basis of the Classifications and Groups listed below. Each applicant for employment shall be registered in the highest priority Group in the classification or classifications for which he qualifies. GROUP - I. All applicants for employment who have three and one-half (3 1/2) or more years’ experience in the trade, are residents of the geographical area constituting the normal construction labor market, have passed a Journeyman Lineman's examination given by a duly constituted Outside Construction Local Union of the IBEW or have been certified as a Journeyman Lineman by any Outside Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee, and who have been employed in the trade for a period of at least one (1) year in the last three and one-half (3 1/2) years in the geographical area covered by the collective bargaining agreement. Group I status shall be limited to one Local Union at one time. An applicant who qualifies for Group I in a local union shall be so registered electronically and remain on Group I in that local union unless and until the applicant designates another local union as his or her Group I local union. If an applicant qualifies for Group I status in a local union other than his or her home local union and designates that local as his or her Group I local union, the business manager of the new group 1 status local union shall by electronic means notify the business manager of the applicant’s former Group I status local union.