Scenario B. Within the scope of this SOW, it is the understanding of the parties that Customer’s influence over the determination of the means and purposes of processing of Dataset Personal Data qualifies it as a data controller in respect of such processing. The provisions in Appendix 2 shall apply to such processing. SCENARIO C: Within the scope of this SOW, it is the understanding of the parties that Customer’s influence over the determination of the means and purposes of processing of Dataset Personal Data qualifies it as a data controller in respect of such processing. The provisions in Appendix 2 shall apply to such processing. Additional terms (if any) (See MSA Guidance Notes) [insert details of any additional terms that apply (if any)] By signing below, each party confirms that it has read and understood the terms of this SOW and agrees to be bound by such terms from the SOW Commencement Date.
Scenario B. Scenario B was similar to the first one, but aiming at testing the availability and functionality of an alignment service, and a workflow usage within Taverna. Here, the validator got more difficulties, although the scenario is validated. Only one criterion (Req-TEC- 0106 – Format compliance) is reported as not fulfilled, contrary to the developer who had no problems. The external validator gives a few comments. More than one aligner is available through the registry and it was not clear which one to be selected. Moreover, although some documentation is available through Spinet, the documentation in Taverna was not sufficient enough to be able to use the service in a workflow. The validator had to look for information on the Internet, then chose to use the bsa aligner although it is not listed as a PANACEA tool in the catalogue, but was nevertheless integrated. Using the Spinet interface, bsa run correctly (although, from time to time, bsa failed without returning any error through the Spinet), but the final output was not PANACEA compliant.
Scenario B. Within the scope of this SOW, it is the understanding of the parties that Customer’s influence over the determination of the means and purposes of processing of Dataset Personal Data qualifies it as a data controller in respect of such processing. The provisions in Appendix 2 shall apply to such processing. SCENARIO C: Within the scope of this SOW, it is the understanding of the parties that Customer’s influence over the determination of the means and purposes of processing of Dataset Personal Data qualifies it as a data controller in respect of such processing. The provisions in Appendix 2 shall apply to such processing. By selecting the appropriate Scenario, the data protection terms that apply is determined in relation to personal data that is not business contact data of the parties. See the description of the Scenarios on page 2 above for further details. Additional terms (if any) (See MSA Guidance Notes) [insert details of any additional terms that apply (if any)]
Scenario B. Fast fluid transfer Fast transfer of water is the scenario rivalling poroelastic stress transfer as the trigger for the induced seismicity in St. Gallen. In contrast to the poroelastic stress transfer hypothesis, the fast fluid transfer hypothesis is based on the direct hydraulic connection of the injection well and the PCT, causing a fast fluid pressure transport from the injection well to the PCT. This has been indicated by Xxxxxxxxx et al. (2015) based on the detected inflow zones along the wellbore, the drill cuttings which showed transparent calcites and Thorium anomalies connection between the borehole and the layers underlying the Xxxx reservoir. Should the pore pressure have been transported directly, the principles of effective stresses caused the induced seismicity. Due to the increase in pore pressure the effective stresses defined as the total stresses minus the pore pressure, bring the rock closer to failure as indicated by the horizontal translation of the Xxxx-circle in Figure 11. In case the Xxxx-circle touches the Xxxx-Coulomb failure envelop (red line in Figure 11) the fault has failed.
Scenario B. Fast fluid transport The simulations investigating the effect of a fast fluid transport that might have induced the seismicity are separated into two parts. The first part is about a fracture network simulation using the inhouse software package roxol. The second part is based on the outcome of this simulation and can be regarded as an extension of the previous simulation conducted to investigate the influence of the poroelastic stress transfer.
Scenario B. Clinical data and images were previously collected in different research projects and are used in the neuGRID e-infrastructure, with two different possibilities:
Scenario B. 1 The data collected in previous research protocols are transferred to neuGRID. Before the inclusion of clinical data and images in neuGRID e-infrastructure it is necessary to investigate whether the original protocol and the subjects’ informed consent give this possibility. It is possible to define three different hypotheses:
Scenario B. 2 The provision is to give the final users the possibility to work on data already collected in other data sets using the neuGRID computational facilities; clinical data and images are not collected/archived in neuGRID but only temporary used in the grid. It is assumed that secondary use issues have already been addressed. The final researchers interested in using neuGRID with clinical data and images collected in other data sets, need to follow the rules for the access to the data sets established by the data sets’ owner. After obtaining the authorization to the use of the dataset from the datasets owners, the final users can access neuGRID following the rules established by the neuGRID consortium in the user agreement.
Scenario B. You have been assigned to a mentor who is of a race different from you. You find yourself uncomfortable and sense that your mentor is also feeling awkward. Your mentor does share his/her experiences and strategies on how to approach issues so that you do feel you are gaining something from this relationship. However, you frequently disagree with some of his/her suggested approaches and you find yourself increasingly frustrated. You believe the issue to be that your mentor has a problem with talking about your ethnic/racial background. • Will you address the issue or let it go? If you let it go, what will you do instead? • Is there anything you could have done early on to avoid this situation? • What concerns do you have about being mentored by someone of a different Race/culture or gender? • Are the concerns the same for each one of you? Scenario C: You and your mentor have been communicating frequently and enjoying the naturalness of the relationship and you both have great chemistry together. You have agreed to meet during the day but early on your mentor calls and informs you that s/he is unable to meet as scheduled but suggests meeting after work at a local restaurant. You meet and your conversation goes well, as usual and the atmosphere is relaxed. At some point in the conversation, your mentor talks about how much s/he enjoys this relationship but s/he does so in a way that leads you to think that his/her interest in you is becoming more personal than professional. • What are you going to do? • How will this affect your relationship from this point? • How will you handle this if both of you are single? • How would you react if the mentor reveals that s/he is gay/lesbian? • Are there circumstances when you feel that a mentor and mentoree can pursue a more intimate relationship without it affecting their mentoring? Do You Recognize Yourself?
Scenario B. Holiday: Friday = Observed, Saturday = Actual (non-premium) Schedule: Monday through Friday Sun Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Straight Pay 8 8 8 8 Overtime Pay 8 (4 hrs) 1.5 x Pay* 8 (12 hrs) 8 (12 hrs) 2.0 x Pay** Holiday Pay 8
