Table A1. Exceptional changes to Table A (to be approved by e-mail or signature by the student, the responsible person in the Sending Institution and the responsible person in the Receiving Institution) Table B1: Exceptional changes to Table B (if applicable) (to be approved by e-mail or signature by the student and the responsible person in the Sending Institution) Component code (if any) Component title at the Receiving Institution (as indicated in the course catalogue) Component without changes [tick if applicable] Deleted component [tick if applicable] Added component [tick if applicable] Reason for changexiii Semester Number of ECTS credits (or equivalent) Component code (if any) Component title at the Sending Institution (as indicated in the course catalogue) Component without changes [tick if applicable] Deleted component [tick if applicable] Added component [tick if applicable] Semester Number of ECTS credits (or equivalent) Others: Total – in original LA (Table A): Total – in original LA (Table B): Total – deleted components: Total – deleted components: Total – added components: Total – added components: Total after changes: Total after changes: Commitment Name Email Position Date Signature Student Student Responsible person at the Sending Institution Responsible person at the Receiving Institution Commitment By signing this document, the student, the Sending Institution and the Receiving Institution confirm that they approve the Learning Agreement and that they will comply with all the arrangements agreed by all parties. Sending and Receiving Institutions undertake to apply all the principles of the Erasmus Charter for Higher Education relating to mobility for studies (or the principles agreed in the Inter-Institutional Agreement for institutions located in Partner Countries). The Beneficiary Institution and the student should also commit to what is set out in the Erasmus+ grant agreement. The Receiving Institution confirms that the educational components listed in Table A are in line with its course catalogue and should be available to the student. The Sending Institution commits to recognise all the credits or equivalent units gained at the Receiving Institution for the successfully completed educational components and to count them towards the student's degree as described in Table B. Any exceptions to this rule are documented in an annex of this Learning Agreement and agreed by all parties. The student and the Receiving Institution will communicate to ...
Table A1. 1 “Subset A of Licensed Patents”, Table A1.2 “Subset B of Licensed Patents”, and Table 1.3 “Background Patents” are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced as follows: Xxxxxx ID New UW ID Previous UW ID Appl Number Patent No. Filing [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *] [* * *]
Table A1. Results of a random-effects probit regression of the probability of success, round number (Round), treatments (FULL_ALL, STF, ST, FULL_SCRAMBLE, VEC_SCRABMLE), and interactions between round number and treatment (FULL_Round, STF_Round, ST_Round). Standard errors in brackets; * indicates significant at the 10% level, ** at the 5% level, and *** at the 1% level. Covariate Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Round -0.159*** -0.0202 -0.0113 (0.0476) (0.0452) (0.0495) FULL_ALL -3.585*** -2.710*** -0.931 (0.586) (0.678) (0.642) STF 0.0949 0.474 0.768 (0.726) (0.784) (0.818) ST -1.189* -1.199 -0.241 (0.658) (0.808) (0.879) FULL_SCRAMBLE 0.870 0.312 1.328* (0.689) (0.852) (0.784) VEC_SCRAMBLE -1.406** -0.275 1.292* (0.619) (0.711) (0.779) FULL_ALL_Round 0.461*** 0.421*** 0.341*** (0.0771) (0.0875) (0.0802) STF_Round 0.0411 0.00820 0.0309 (0.0928) (0.0890) (0.0881) ST_Round 0.135 0.249*** 0.101 (0.0844) (0.0962) (0.0995) FULL_SCRAMBLE_Round -0.160* -0.0224 -0.0960 (0.0901) (0.114) (0.102) VEC_SCRAMBLE_Round 0.161** 0.0523 0.0434 (0.0800) (0.0800) (0.0863) Constant 1.320*** 0.178 -0.730 (0.365) (0.396) (0.446) No. Obs. 000 000 000
Table A1. Summary Statistics for Data Used for Econometric Results on Institutional Gaps and Income Gaps (Figures 4 and 7) Samplea Variable No. observations Mean Standard deviation Minimum Maximum Group 1 ICRG variablesb Log (country’s GDP per capita/USA GDP 414 923 –0.4069638 –1.715673 0.558766 0.579324 –1.75361 –3.65967 0.6972296 –0.3095284 per capita) Group 2 ICRG variablesb Log (country’s GDP per capita/USA GDP 162 378 –0.1312372 –1.328616 0.4356544 0.3673385 –1.00386 –2.19757 0.6972296 –0.3095284 per capita, PPP adjusted)
Table A1. Evaporation methods further explained
Table A1. Study programme at the Receiving Institution Componentvi code (if any) Component title (as indicated in the course catalogue) at the receiving institution Semester [autumn / spring] [or term] Number of ECTS credits (or equivalent)vii to be awarded by the receiving institution upon successful completion Total: Muster - Template Web link to the course catalogue at the receiving institution describing the learning outcomes: Table B1: Recognition at the Sending Institution - Group of educational components in the student's degree that would normally be completed at the sending institution and which will be replaced by the study abroad. No one to one match with Table A1 is required. Where all credits in Table A1 are recognised as forming part of the programme at the sending institution without any further conditions being applied, Table B1 may be completed with a reference to the mobility window (see guidelines). Component code (if any) Component title (as indicated in the course catalogue) at the sending institution Semester [autumn / spring] [or term] Number of ECTS credits (or equivalent) to be recognized by Sending Institution Total: If the student does not complete successfully some educational components, the following provisions will apply: In this case the educational component will not transfer into the study program at home university. Language competence of the student The level of language competenceviii in [the main language of instruction] that the student already has or agrees to acquire by the start of the study period is: A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 Native Speaker COMMITMENT OF THE THREE PARTIES By signing this document, the student, the sending institution and the receiving institution confirm that they approve the proposed Learning Agreement and that they will comply with all the arrangements agreed by all parties. Sending and receiving institutions undertake to apply all the principles of the Erasmus Charter for Higher Education relating to mobility for studies (or the principles agreed in the inter-institutional agreement for institutions located in partner countries). The beneficiary institution and the student should also commit to what is set out in the ERASMUS+ grant agreement. The receiving institution confirms that the educational components listed in Table A1 are in line with its course catalogue and should be available to the student. The sending institution commits to recognise all the credits or equivalent units gained at the ...
Table A1. Mixed model analyses comparing the differences between the blended acceptance and commitment therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy group over time Outcome b SE t p Blaming yourself T0-T1 -0.93 0.26 -3.54 < 0.001 T1-T2 -0.90 0.29 -3.08 0.002 T1-T3 -0.95 0.30 -3.15 0.002 T0-T1 * condition -0.05 0.53 0.93 T1-T2 * condition -0.22 0.59 -0.09 0.71 T1-T3*condition -0.23 0.60 0.37 0.70 Rumination T0-T1 -1.10 0.27 -4.09 < 0.001 T1-T2 -0.97 0.30 -3.22 0.001 T1-T3 -0.93 0.31 -3.01 0.003 T0-T1 * condition 0.40 0.54 0.74 0.46 T1-T2 * condition -0.64 0.60 -1.07 0.28 T1-T3*condition -1.18 0.62 -1.91 0.06 Reappraisal T0-T1 0.09 0.33 0.27 0.79 T1-T2 -0.93 0.37 -2.50 0.01 8 T1-T3 -1.04 0.38 -2.74 0.001 T0-T1 * condition 0.73 0.67 2,00 0.27 T1-T2 * condition -0.31 0.74 -0.42 0.67 T1-T3*condition -0.24 0.76 -0.31 0.76 Catastrophizing T0-T1 -0.68 0.21 -3.31 <0.001 T1-T2 -0.30 0.23 -1.29 0.20 T1-T3 -0.35 0.24 -1.47 0.14 T0-T1 * condition 0.34 0.42 0.83 0.41 T1-T2 * condition -0.60 0.46 -1.32 0.19 T1-T3*condition -0.52 0.47 -1.10 0.27 Mindfulness T0-T1 3.80 0.93 4.08 < 0.001 T1-T2 0.90 1.04 0.86 0.39 T1-T3 1.86 1.07 1.75 0.08 T0-T1 * condition 1.41 1.86 0.76 0.45 T1-T2 * condition 0.27 2.08 0.13 0.90 T1-T3*condition 2.00 2.13 0.94 0.35 Experiential avoidance T0-T1 -2.79 0.67 -4.13 < 0.001 T1-T2 -2.68 0.75 3.57 < 0.001 T1-T3 -3.02 0.77 -3.93 < 0.001 T0-T1 * condition 2.77 1.35 2.06 0.06 T1-T2 * condition -2.10 1.50 -1.40 0.16 T1-T3*condition -2.48 1.54 -1.61 0.11 Appendix 2 Supplementary material 1. Links to videos created for older adults Dutch xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx/watch?v=QCcDCvt9N5E English xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx/watch?v=HlBp_5oUeMw Supplementary material 2. Links to videos created for clinicians Dutch xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx/watch?v=4zUTpkXTR1c English xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx/watch?v=d4BMGtrHTi0 References
Table A1. Comparison between the different studies of China’s export-embodied carbon emissions based on MRIO model. Author /s Data Year Methods Research Topic Main Results Qi et 2007 MRIO The impact of Increasing export taxes could al., 2014 and CGE economic restructuring on decrease 44 MtCO2 embodied emissions, equivalent to a 3.7% export-embodied decrease. emissions Xxx et 2007 IO The assessment of Ignoring firm heterogeneity caused al., export embodied China’s export-embodied CO2 2016a emissions using firm emissions in 2007 to be heterogeneity overestimated by 20% . information Xxxx et 2012 IO and The impact of trade Trade restructuring could reduce al., multi- restructuring on China’s net export-embodied 2017 objective export-embodied emissions by 3.26%, 9.33% and program emissions 14.58% under low, moderate and ming high scenarios, respectively. Xxxx et 2000 MRIO The carbon impact of During 2000-2006, the expansion of al., - trade between China China’s intermediate exports with 2017b 2014 and major trading major trade partners in the Asia- partners in the Asia- Pacific increased China’s carbon Pacific emissions, with annual growth rates of 20%. After 2006, the impacted carbon emissions fluctuated around 400 MtCO2. Xxxxx 1987 IO The trend of export- In 2005, almost one-third of China’s et al., 2008 - 2005 embodied emissions emissions (1700 Mt CO2) were due to the production of exports. Xx et 2002 IO and Driving factors of During 2002-2008, the increase of al., - SDA export-embodied export-embodied emissions was 2011 2008 emissions (emission attributable to the change of export intensity, economic composition. The decline in emission structure, export intensity counterweighed the growth composition and of embodied emissions. export volume ) Xxx et 2007 IO Estimation of export- Using a non-competitive import IO al., 2017 embodied emissions using a non- approach, the net CO2 emissions embodied in China's trade in 2007 competitive import IO (400 Mt) were much lower than approach previous estimations. Xxxx 2002 Hybrid The impact of green The total emissions embodied in and - IO productivity growth China’s industrial exports increased Xxx, 2012 on emissions more than 100% during 2002-2007, 2017 embodied in China’s with small variation during 2007- industrial exports 2012. Technological improvement could reduce embodied emissions. Xx et 2011 MRIO The estimation of The result based on traditional al., export-embodied methods caused a substantial 2017 emissions overestim...
Table A1. Summary of the results from the FISICA sensitivity model per detector. The table also includes estimates of the point-source detection limit, detection limit for spectrophotometry at R=5 and a limiting line strength. Table notes: 1 The detector NEP is set to be half that of the background photon noise NEP (see R4.6.7-10) 2 The overall NEP is the quadrature sum of the background NEP and detector NEP (allowing for an extra 20% to the detector NEP for non-detector noise contributions (e.g. from the readout – see R4.7.3). 3 Includes the contribution from both telescopes, taking into account interferometric efficiency. To put these results into perspective Figure A1.1 shows how the performance of FIRI, based on the current FISICA study design and sensitivity model, compares with other recent and future missions in terms of sensitivity.
Table A1. 1 This table reflects the proposals and reasoning for how the comments and open issues from HOD 57-2019 and the intersessional commenting by XXX was dealt with by the Group of WG Chairs. Consideration by HOD Proposals and reflections by the online meeting of WG Chairs para 3.21: Management objectives on underwater noise: to keep the objective ‘Ensure noise levels do not adversely affect [noise sensitive species and do not injure] sea life’, noting the general support for deleting the words in brackets and the proposals to consider replacing the word ‘ensure’. Revise to: ‘Minimize noise to levels that do not adversely affect marine life’ - The objectives should adhere to the guidance to be formulated in an aspirational way (HOD 57-2019, document 3.3 Add.1). - However, in order to harmonize with other management objectives the revised objective is proposed to use the initial word ‘Minimize’ instead of ‘Ensure’.
