OVERALL PERFORMANCE. Place a check in box that best represents employee’s overall general performance for the entire evaluation period. EVALUATOR COMMENTS: EMPLOYEE COMMENTS: SUPERVISOR’S SIGNATURE DATE EMPLOYEE’S SIGNATURE DATE Signature of employee does not necessarily indicate agreement. The signature indicates that this evaluation has been discussed by the supervisor and employee. July 2013
OVERALL PERFORMANCE. To answer our first research question, whether embeddings improve the score of entity retrieval, we compare our entity re-ranking approach with a number of baseline entity retrieval models. Table 2 shows the results for different models with respect to NDCG@10 and NDCG@100, the default evaluation measures for DBpedia-entity V2. In this table, the embedding-based similarity component (Eq. (5)) is denoted by ESim, where c and cg subscripts refer to the two versions of our entity embeddings: without and with link graph. Table 2. Results of embedding-based entity re-ranking approach on different query subsets of DBpedia-Entity V2 collection. Significance of results is explained in running text. Model SemSearch INEX-LD ListSearch QALD-2 Total NDCG @10 @100 @10 @100 @10 @100 @10 @100 @10 @100 Reranking the FSDM top 1000 entities ESimc 0.365 0.412 0.194 0.252 0.210 0.288 0.192 0.255 0.239 0.300 ESimcg 0.397 0.462 0.216 0.282 0.211 0.311 0.213 0.286 0.258 0.334 FSDM 0.652 0.722 0.421 0.504 0.420 0.495 0.340 0.436 0.452 0.534 +ELR 0.656 0.726 0.435 0.513 0.422 0.496 0.347 0.446 0.459 0.541 +ESimc 0.659 0.725 0.433 0.513 0.432 0.509 0.353 0.447 0.463 0.543 +ESimcg 0.672 0.733 0.440 0.528 0.424 0.507 0.349 0.451 0.465 0.549 Reranking the BM25F-CA top 1000 entities ESimc 0.381 0.424 0.194 0.253 0.211 0.283 0.192 0.252 0.243 0.301 ESimcg 0.417 0.478 0.217 0.286 0.211 0.302 0.212 0.282 0.262 0.335 BM25F-CA 0.628 0.720 0.439 0.530 0.425 0.511 0.369 0.461 0.461 0.551 +ESimc 0.658 0.730 0.462 0.545 0.448 0.529 0.380 0.469 0.481 0.563 +ESimcg 0.660 0.736 0.466 0.552 0.452 0.535 0.390 0.483 0.487 0.572 ± ± The results of our method are presented for components ESimc and ESimcg by themselves (i.e., λ =1 in Eq. (6)), and also in combination with FSDM and BM25F-CA. The mean and standard deviation of λ found by the Coordinate Ascent algorithm over all folds are: 0.34 0.02 for FSDM+ESimc, 0.61 0.01 for ± ± FSDM+ESimcg, 0.81 0.03 for BM25F-CA+ESimc, and 0.88 0.00 for BM25F- CA+ESimcg. The results show that the embedding-based scores alone do not perform very well, however, when combining them with other scores, the per- formance improves by a large margin. We determine the statistical significance of the difference in effectiveness for both the NDCG@10 and the NDCG@100 values, using the two-tailed paired t-test with α < 0.05. The results show that both versions of FSDM+ESim and BM25-CA+ESim models yield significant improvements over FSDM and BM25-CA models (with respect to all met...
OVERALL PERFORMANCE. ✓ Highly Effective Effective Minimally Effective Ineffecive Ancillary staff member signature Date: Administrator signature Date: Xxxxxx Area Schools Ancillary staff member Professional Goals Professional Goals for: Mutually Developed by: Ancillary staff member (signature)Date and Strengths: Principal (signature) Date Strategies: Goals Start Date Progress/Update Review Date Date Accom- plished APPENDIX E
OVERALL PERFORMANCE. Meet or exceed mutually agreed upon satisfaction score in mutually agreed performance areas on an annual basis.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE. At the reasonable discretion of the Board of Directors, the Board may grant CMAG an additional Success Fee and/or make up for any shortfall between CMAG’s Success Fees earned in Targets 1 through 5 above and the $2 million Success Fee aggregate for CMAG’s exceptional performance, as measured by LGI profit performance above plan or increases in stock price or enterprise value. It is the intention of the parties that CMAG should be rewarded for such exceptional performance.”
OVERALL PERFORMANCE. Laboratories should also study carefully the overall performance of all participants in the scheme. Unsatisfactory performance in the context of a round where the majority of participants performed to a satisfactory level should be contrasted with unsatisfactory performance where a significant number of participants performed poorly. Both situations should be viewed seriously, since both indicate problems regarding the methodology used for the test sample supplied. However, in the latter situation, the robustness, specificity, linearity and/or validity of the method should be investigated as well as the potential effect of interferences. The possibility that the criteria for satisfactory performance was incorrectly set should also be considered. In the former situation, it is more likely that the method followed was appropriate, but it had been incorrectly applied by the analysts during the proficiency test.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE. ⮚ Provide a rating from Unsatisfactory to Outstanding in FEEDBACK TABLE C based on the same rating standards as Section A that best reflects the supervisor’s judgment of the employee’s overall work performance through an appraisal of all the ratings given for the factors listed above ⮚ Provide relevant comments for BOTH areas of strength and growth FEEDBACK TABLE C - Overall Performance Instructions: Rate the employee’s overall performance (select one rating below) Instructions: Use this space to describe employee's strengths and weaknesses. Give examples of work well done and suggestions of improving performance. Attach additional sheets, if necessary. Outstanding ☐ Areas of Strength: Click here to enter text. Exceeds Standards ☐ Meets Standards ☐ Needs To Improve ☐ Areas for Growth: Click here to enter text. Unsatisfactory ☐
OVERALL PERFORMANCE. ✓ Highly Effective Effective Minimally Effective Ineffecive Ancillary staff member signature Date: Administrator signature Date: Xxxxxx Area Schools Ancillary staff member Professional Goals Professional Goals for: Mutually Developed by: Ancillary staff member (signature) Date and Principal (signature) Date Strengths: Strategies: Goals Start Date Progress/Update Review Date Date Accom- plished APPENDIX F GRIEVANCE FORM Grievance Copies To: Employee Principal Association Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx Report LEA/MEA/NEA Name of Grievant Building Date of Alleged Occurrence LEVEL I (Informal Discussion with Principal/Supervisor) Date LEVEL II
OVERALL PERFORMANCE. ❒ Unsatisfactory (1) ❒ Basic (2) ❒ Proficient (3) ❒ Distinguished (4) Comments: Appendix H CHEHALIS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 302 CLASSROOM TEACHER PRE-‐OBSERVATION FORM Teacher Observation Date Observer Time Class To Be Observed
OVERALL PERFORMANCE. Contractor has not been assessed Liquidated Damages for the most recent three (3) years. Contractor’s achievement of the conditions shall be determined by the City through review of reports provided pursuant to Article 9, and/or inspection of records pursuant to Section 8.2. For the purpose of this Section, the most recent three (3) years shall be defined as the most-recently completed thirty-six (36) months ending one year in advance of the then-current end date of the Term. For example, if the City is considering an extension beyond the initial ten- (10-) year Term, the most-recently completed three- (3-) year period would be March 2021 through February 2024.
