Final Model Clause Samples
The "Final Model" clause defines the status and handling of the completed model or deliverable at the conclusion of a project. Typically, this clause specifies what constitutes the final version of the model, how and when it will be delivered to the client, and any requirements for approval or acceptance. For example, it may outline the format in which the final model must be provided or set deadlines for delivery and review. The core function of this clause is to ensure both parties have a clear understanding of what the final deliverable is, reducing the risk of disputes over project completion and deliverable expectations.
Final Model. The logistic regression model for presence/absence and the linear regression model for abundance were multiplied together and regressed against the field measured downed woody debris volumes. This model had an R2 of 0.19 and an RMSE of 6223.04.
Final Model. The models from the Contract Documents that have been professionally electronically generated reflecting the as-constructed conditions of the Work based upon the information provided by the Contractor as reflected in the Record Documents. As various firms tend to use their own definitions of "model level", MD ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ is not specifying a "level of model development" as defined by the AIA. MD Anderson’s primary focus is to receive a data rich model that contains the relevant information and model components necessary for the long term maintenance and future renovations of the facility. To this end overall dimensionally correct physical representations are required, however every technical connection, such as steel connections, gyp board layout, bolt patterns, etc. do not need to be modeled. The physical properties of construction types and methods, finishes, equipment, systems and their corresponding specifications and documentation should be contained within the model(s).
Final Model. The final model produced by the analysis was significant and contained the exposure variable proportion of encounters where family and friends were present and the outcome variable of consent or non-consent. The OR of the likelihood of consent comparing family and friends present during all chaplain encounters to family and friends never present was 0.60 (0.37, 0.95). This OR indicates that when family and friends were present for all chaplain diary encounters were 40% less likely to consent to the study than patients whose family and friends were present at no chaplain diary encounters (Table 2).
Final Model. The final model produced by the analysis included only the exposure variable and the outcome. The OR of 0.64 (0.41, 1.01) for likelihood of consent for family and friends ‘ever’ present compared to family and friends ‘never’ present produced by the model was not significant (Table 2). Collinearity assessment. The highest CI was 54.9 for the initial model run resulting in the interaction term for family or friend presence and the Chaplain Mood Scale Score being removed from the model. When the reduced model was run, the highest CI was 30.9, and the variable for Chaplain Mood Scale Score was removed from the model. When the reduced model was run, the highest CI was 25.2 and the interaction term for family or friend presence and the diary count was removed from the model.
Final Model. The models from the Contract Documents that have been professionally electronically generated reflecting the as-constructed conditions of the Work based upon the information provided by the Contractor as reflected in the Record Documents. As various firms tend to use their own definitions of "model level", MD ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ is not specifying a "level of model development" as defined by the AIA. MD Anderson’s primary focus is to receive a data rich model that contains the relevant information and model components necessary for the long term maintenance and future renovations of the facility. To this end overall dimensionally correct physical representations are required, however every technical connection, such as steel connections, gyp board layout, bolt patterns, etc. do not need to be modeled. The physical properties of construction types and methods, finishes, equipment, systems and their corresponding specifications and documentation should be contained within the model(s) when appropriate based upon project scope and as identified in the BEP. Federated REVIT Models shall be pathed and configured in such a manner that they are usable without significant re- pathing. If the Final Model is federated, ensure all models that were used to create the project are properly supplied and linked to the central model utilizing a generic path.