Impact of the Sample Clauses

Impact of the. Radio Evolution towards 5G on the Transport Network We observe that, the transport network evolution to support 5G RAN has to cope with requirements in term of capacity, latency, Hops lengths, but also has to support different transport model, ranging from Backhaul, XHaul up to Fronthaul imposing stringent requirement as capacity and latency. Last but not least, even the transport network topology has to evolve from what is today, based on tree topology and few rings, to something closer to a full connected topology, the meshed network, managed from a central control. Small cells are currently a focus of research leading to new challenges for the backhaul network because of their dense deployment. The forecasted rise in traffic demand of mobile users has to be met with new network architectures. While the trend of reducing the cell area coverage improves the spectrum spatial efficiency by allowing the carrier frequency reusing, at the same time it imposes challenges in cell edge intelligence and distributed cell control in order to avoid degrading the spectrum temporal efficiency due to the small cell high-density area. Two main aspects may be worth to analyse here are: • the C-RAN approach, having an impact on data traffic and latency that has to be supported inside the Transport network • the maximum connection length that has to be supported having impact on transceiver and antenna performances.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Impact of the. Merger on corporate social responsibility The merger will have no impact on the corporate social responsibility policy of CaixaBank.
Impact of the second curation step In order to further evidentiate the behavior of Holistsic IAA, we use it to quantify the impact of the corpus-level curation step. This step was performed per-language after the usual document- level curation step was accomplished. The data was sorted per-label and the master curators looked at the overall coherence of the annotated text-span label pairs, the context of the spans was also pro- vided. This step lead to several corrections and is understood to have boosted the overall coherence of the dataset, and should be reflected with a higher o value for the corpus. In Table 5 we consider the agreement as mea- sured by Holistic IAA after step 1 and 2 of the curation by considering the 4 most active cura- tors: ai and si denote respectively the agreement percentage between annotators and the support at step i. For step 2, the o value is higher, and the average IAA is 1.6 pts higher, while the average intra-annotator agreement (self-agreement) is 3.5 pts higher. This demonstrates that Holistic IAA is able to capture and quantify the positive impact of the corpus-level curation. In Table 6 we illustrate the impact of exclud- ing Loaded Language (MW:LL) and Name Calling (AR:NCL) from the dataset as these labels constitute nearly half of the annotations and are frequently confused with each other by annotators in terms of absolute number (but not in proportion) as shown in Figure 1 and Table 1. We observe that the agree- ment between annotators can be label specific. In Figure 8 we consider the whole curated dataset and measure the o value between pairs of languages. The columns ai report the value after step 1 and 2 considering the whole range of la- bels, while the columns a′i exclude the two labels MW:LL and AR:NCL. Doing so gives us an under- standing of the agreement for the lower populated labels. Please note that all the Attacks on Repu- tation (AR:*) and Manipulative Wordings (MW:*) were excluded from the second step of the curation due to time constraints - except for DE and PL. The impact of the second curation step is almost always positive for all pairs of languages, except notably for one language for which the related o values de- teriorate and which drags down the intra-language coherence score. cur1 cur2 a1 s1 a2 s2 A A 0.597 193778 0.603 177604 A B 0.5 57351 0.517 54503 A C 0.586 45694 0.595 183937 A D 0.544 51327 0.548 123539 B B 0.49 10319 0.523 10210 B C 0.451 8575 0.434 29189 B D 0.61 11688 0.625 27113 C C 0.597 3185...
Impact of the parties’ incentives on the feasibility, private value, and public value of settlement Armed with this understanding of the parties’ incentives, we are ready to explore the circumstances under which settlements are feasible, and then to assess whether feasible settlements will necessarily inure to the benefit of the customer. In what follows, for simplicity, we will focus on potential agreements under which the licensee (alleged infringer) pays a running royalty to the licensor (patentee) and exclude complications such as lump sum payments (in either direction), cross-licenses, and other trappings that may well come into play in real life. The condition under which a given license agreement is feasible is simple enough to state: an agreement is feasible if it offers the litigants—patentee and alleged infringer alike—an alternative that each prefers to continued litigation. We assume, moreover, that a party will prefer the settlement agreement if that party’s total profits under the agreement are no lower than the mathematical expectation (the probability-weighted average) of the value of litigation.17 Let P represent the probability that the patentee prevails in the lawsuit, let PROFITDE represent the entrant’s profit under a pure duopoly (i.e., the situation in which the parties do not settle and the patentee loses the lawsuit), let PROFITDP represent incumbent patentee’s profit under the same scenario, and let PROFITMP represent the patentee’s profit in the event that it wins the lawsuit and retains its patent monopoly. Finally, let R
Impact of the variance bound In this subsection we keep the insured’s initial wealth unchanged and analyze the impact of the variance bound on her demand for insurance. Consider two variance bounds with 0 < ν1 < ν2 < var[X] and denote the corresponding optimal indemnity functions by I1∗ and I2∗ and the parameters by β1∗ and β2∗, respectively. Thus, the insurer’s risk exposures, eIi∗ (x) = Ii∗(x) − E[Ii∗(X)], i = 1, 2, satisfy Ur(w0 − x + eIi∗ (x)) − 2βi∗eIi∗ (x) − E[Ur(w0 − X + eIi∗ (X))] = 0 (4.4) and E[eI∗ (X)] = 0 and E[(eI∗ (X)) ] = var[eI∗ (X)] = νi. (4.5) The following theorem illustrates how the insurer’s risk exposure responds to the change in the variance bound.

Related to Impact of the

  • WORKLOAD STANDARDS One (1) Direct Service Hour (DSH) will be equal to sixty (60) minutes of direct services.

  • Emergency Preparedness All residents are advised to have an emergency plan. It is recommended that each resident maintain an emergency supply kit consisting of a first aid kit, three-day supply of water, non-perishable food, battery operated radio and flashlight, extra batteries, portable electronic device charger, gloves, and medications.

  • ACCIDENT PREVENTION T h i s p r o v i s i o n i s applicable to all Federal-aid construction contracts and to all related subcontracts.

  • Data Portability Operator shall, at the request of the LEA, make Data available including Pupil Generated Content in a readily accessible format.

  • ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS CONTRACTOR shall be in compliance with the Clean Air Act (Title 42 USC Section 7401 et seq.), the Clean Water Act (Title 33 USC Section 1251 et seq.), Executive Order 11738 and Environmental Protection Agency, hereinafter referred to as “EPA,” regulations (Title 40 CFR), as any may now exist or be hereafter amended. Under these laws and regulations, CONTRACTOR assures that:

  • Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Contractor understands that HHS does not tolerate any type of fraud, waste, or abuse. Violations of law, agency policies, or standards of ethical conduct will be investigated, and appropriate actions will be taken. Pursuant to Texas Government Code, Section 321.022, if the administrative head of a department or entity that is subject to audit by the state auditor has reasonable cause to believe that money received from the state by the department or entity or by a client or contractor of the department or entity may have been lost, misappropriated, or misused, or that other fraudulent or unlawful conduct has occurred in relation to the operation of the department or entity, the administrative head shall report the reason and basis for the belief to the Texas State Auditor’s Office (SAO). All employees or contractors who have reasonable cause to believe that fraud, waste, or abuse has occurred (including misconduct by any HHS employee, Grantee officer, agent, employee, or subcontractor that would constitute fraud, waste, or abuse) are required to immediately report the questioned activity to the Health and Human Services Commission's Office of Inspector General. Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, and System Agency policies regarding fraud, waste, and abuse including, but not limited to, HHS Circular C-027. A report to the SAO must be made through one of the following avenues: ● SAO Toll Free Hotline: 1-800-TX-AUDIT ● SAO website: xxxx://xxx.xxxxx.xxxxx.xx.xx/ All reports made to the OIG must be made through one of the following avenues: ● OIG Toll Free Hotline 0-000-000-0000 ● OIG Website: XxxxxxXxxxxXxxxx.xxx ● Internal Affairs Email: XxxxxxxxXxxxxxxXxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxx.xx.xx ● OIG Hotline Email: XXXXxxxxXxxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxx.xx.xx. ● OIG Mailing Address: Office of Inspector General Attn: Fraud Hotline MC 1300 P.O. Box 85200 Austin, Texas 78708-5200

  • Emergency Medical Condition A medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that a prudent layperson, who possesses an average knowledge of health and medicine, could reasonably expect the absence of immediate medical attention to result in any of the following: (1) placing the health of the individual (or with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy; (2) serious impairment to body functions; or (3) serious dysfunction of any body organ or part.

  • Fire Safety 9.5.1 Residents found in violation of the following fire safety stipulations not only put themselves at risk but also jeopardizes the safety of the entire community.

  • How to Obtain Prescription Drug Preauthorization To obtain prescription drug preauthorization, the prescribing provider must submit a prescription drug preauthorization request form. These forms are available on our website or by calling the number listed for the “Pharmacist” on the back of your ID card. Prescription drugs that require preauthorization will only be approved when our clinical guidelines are met. These guidelines are based upon clinically appropriate criteria that ensure that the prescription drug is appropriate and cost- effective for the illness, injury or condition for which it has been prescribed. We will send you written notification of the prescription drug preauthorization determination within fourteen (14) calendar days of the receipt of the request. How to Request an Expedited Preauthorization Review You may request an expedited review if the circumstances are an emergency. Due to the urgent nature of an expedited review, your prescribing provider must either call or fax the completed form and indicate the urgent nature of the request. When an expedited preauthorization review is received, we will respond to you with a determination within seventy-two (72) hours or less. If we deny your request for preauthorization, you can submit a medical appeal. See Appeals in Section 5 for information on how to file a medical appeal. Formulary Exception Process When a prescription drug is not on our formulary, you can request that this plan cover the drug as an exception. To request a formulary exception, complete a Coverage Exception form (located on our website), contact our Customer Service Department, or have your prescribing provider submit a request for you. We will respond to you with a determination within seventy- two (72) hours following receipt of the request. For standard exception reviews, if the exception is approved, we will cover the prescription drug for the duration of the prescription, including refills. How to Request an Expedited Formulary Exception Review You may request an expedited review if a delay could significantly increase the risk to your health or your ability to regain maximum function, or you are undergoing a current course of treatment with a drug not on our formulary. Please indicate “urgent” on the Coverage Exception form or inform Customer Service of the urgent nature of your request. We will respond to you with a determination within twenty-four (24) hours following receipt of the request. For expedited exception reviews, if the exception is approved, we will cover the prescription drug for the duration of the exigency. For both standard and expedited exception reviews, if we grant your request for a formulary exception, the amount you pay will be the copayment at the highest formulary tier in your plan. Other applicable benefit requirements, such as step therapy, are not waived by this exception and must be reviewed separately. If we deny your request for a formulary exception, we will notify you with information on how to appeal our decision, including external appeal information.

  • SAFETY AND ACCIDENT PREVENTION In performing work under this Contract on State premises, Contractor shall conform to any specific safety requirements contained in the Contract or as required by law or regulation. Contractor shall take any additional precautions as the State may reasonably require for safety and accident prevention purposes. Any violation of such rules and requirements, unless promptly corrected, shall be grounds for termination of this Contract in accordance with the default provisions hereof.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!