Model Sample Clauses

Model. The Lenders shall have received, at least three (3) Business Days prior to the Closing Date, the financial model for the Loans, which shall be satisfactory to the Lenders in their sole discretion (the “Model”) (it being agreed and acknowledged by the Lenders that the Model delivered to the Lenders on April 16, 2021 is satisfactory). (o)
Model. The teacher evaluation and feedback model used shall be consistent with the most recently adopted model(s) of the District. On or before October 15 of each school year, the administration shall make available to each teacher a copy of the evaluation criteria and instrument to be used during that school year. Copies of the evaluation criteria and instrument may be posted electronically. In the event that the administration intends to modify the evaluative criteria or instrument, the Association shall be provided an opportunity to consult with the administration. It is understood, however, that the administration retains the sole and exclusive authority to establish such criteria and instrument. In the event the District changes the criteria for evaluation after the start of the school year, the evaluation criteria that were in effect at the beginning of the school year will remain in effect until the new school year begins.
Model. (A) The Facility Agent, the Technical and Modelling Bank and Kosmos may each make proposals with regard to amendments to the Model which it believes:
Model. The Credit Parties shall have provided the Global Agent a copy of financial projections for the fiscal years 2008 through 2012 which have been prepared taking into account historical levels of business activity, known trends, including general economic trends, and other information, assumptions and estimates considered by management of the Parent and its Subsidiaries to be pertinent thereto, and such Financial Projections shall be satisfactory to the Global Agent.
Model. Representation of a process aimed at producing a simulation, using data, with the goal of making an environmental impact prediction. Project Any project carried out collaboratively by Canada and Quebec under the Agreement.
Model. We use a mean-field model of an SGSC, dt i k ik k yer i τ d Ij+1 = −Ij+1 + f .Σ Wj+1,jIj + Igate(t)Σ . (1) Here, Ij denotes the synaptic current in neural population i in la i j. Igate is a gating current, approximated by a ik square pulse of length T . Both currents are subthreshold. Thus, in the absence of the gating current, no information is propagated. For the simulations shown here, the time con- stant τ = T . Wj,j+1 are elements of a synaptic connectivity matrix connecting layers j and j + 1. And f is a non-linear activity function, giving the firing rate, which, for an SGSC, is approximately piecewise-linear of the form . x, x > 0
Model. Gatherer will develop a fifteen (15) year discounted cash flow model as described above to perform the annual COS Calculation for each System. Gatherer’s model will be in substantially the form of the Sample Calculation unless otherwise agreed to by the Anchor Shippers through Shipper Supermajority Approval. Gatherer will accumulate the data described in Section 3.2 below for each System to populate the discounted cash flow model for the COS Calculation.
Model. − We assume a fully connected network of n processors, whose IDs are common knowledge. Each processor has a private coin. Communication channels are au- thenticated, in the sense that whenever a processor sends a message directly to another, the identity of the sender is known to the recipient, but we other- wise make no cryptographic assumptions. We assume a nonadaptive (sometimes called static) adversary. That is, the adversary chooses the set of tn bad proces- sors at the start of the protocol, where t is a constant fraction, namely, 1/3 ϵ for any positive constant ϵ. The adversary is malicious: bad processors can en- gage in any kind of deviations from the protocol, including false messages and collusion, or crash failures, and bad processors can send any number of mes- sages. Moreover, the adversary chooses the input bits of every processor. The good processors are those that follow the protocol. We consider both synchronous and asynchronous models of communication. In the synchronous model, communication proceeds in rounds; messages are all sent out at the same time at the start of the round, and then received at the same time at the end of the same round; all processors have synchronized clocks. The time complexity is given by the number of rounds. In the asynchronous model, each communication can take an arbitrary and unknown amount of time, and there is no assumption of a joint clock as in the synchronous model. The adver- sary can determine the delay of each message and the order in which they are received. We follow [2] in defining the running time of an asynchronous protocol as the time of execution, where the maximum delay of a message between the time it is sent and the time it is processed is assumed to be one unit. We assume full information: in the synchronous model, the adversary is rush- ing, that is, it can view all messages sent by the good processors in a round before the bad processors send their messages in the same round. In the case of the asynchronous model, the adversary can view any sent message before its delay is determined.