Treatments Sample Clauses

Treatments. We adopt three treatments to disentangle three possible motivations for AA preference. Below we describe how each treatment differs from the design of our Control condition above.In our ”Information” treatment, we exogenously shock employers’ beliefs by inform- ing them that males and females perform comparably in the math task. The aim of this treatment is to study whether a preference for AA is due to believing that females and males perform differently, in particular whether AA support is motivated by outcome- based social preference (when the employer believes that females perform worse and thus would be helped by AA). Following the belief elicitation and before the main hir- ing decision, we inform the employers that: Previous research using a similar math task has shown that female participants on average perform comparably to male participants. You can read the academic article through this link. If the link is clicked, the employer is taken to the ab- stract of the Niederle and Vesterlund (2007) paper which states that ”there are no genderdifferences in performance” in a laboratory experimental task.5 The link is clicked by 41 employers in the representative sample (15%) and 43 in the younger sample (22%). Following this information, employers are asked: If the average male participant got 11 questions correct, how many questions should you expect that the average female participant got? Employers cannot proceed unless they input the correct answer of 11. Before proceeding to the main hiring decision, we offer employers the chance to revise their beliefs about how many questions the average male and female job candidates got correct. We remind them that a correct answer would earn them an extra $0.50 per question.Our next treatment is the ”Reverse” treatment, which differs from the Control by reversing the order of the job candidates’ math task and the employers’ hiring decision. In this treatment, we tell employers that their hiring decision will be communicated to job candidates who will complete the math task in a future study. In other words, the job candidates will perform the math task knowing exactly how their additional earnings (the$1 hiring bonus) is determined (using the ST or AA rule), instead of simply knowing that the higher their score, the higher the likelihood they would be hired and thus earn the $1 bonus. The employers are still paid based on the productivity of their hired candidates. This treatment will allow us to identify AA ...
Treatments. A. Properties identified in the inventory as being individually rated Outstanding or Notable, rated Contributing to an identified district or properties that are individually listed or contributing to a listed district, or properties determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register by both the City and the Indiana SHPO shall be rehabilitated in accordance with the recommended approaches in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; Guidelines for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings (Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation; National Park Service, 1995; 36 CFR Section 67.7).
Treatments. There are Standards for four distinct, but interrelated, approaches to the treatment of historic properties -- Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. Preservation focuses on the maintenance and repair of existing historic materials and retention of a property’s form as it has evolved over time. (Protection and Stabilization have now been consolidated under this treatment.) Rehabilitation acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the property’s historic character. Restoration is undertaken to depict a property at a particular period of time in its history, while removing evidence of other periods. Reconstruction re-creates vanished or non-surviving portions of a property for interpretive purposes. In summary, the simplification and sharpened focus of these revised sets of treatment standards is intended to assist users in making sound historic preservation decisions. Choosing appropriate treatment for a historic property, whether preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction, is critical. This choice always depends on a variety of factors, including the property’s historical significance, physical condition, proposed use, and intended interpretation. Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of a historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project. STANDARDS FOR PRESERVATION
Treatments. 1. Each Contracting Party shall in its territory accord investments of the investors of the other Contracting Party treatment no be less favorable than that it accords to investments made by it own investor or investors of any third states in like circumstances, which ever is the more favorable.
Treatments. All signs, decorations, advertising media, blinds, draperies and other window treatment or bars or other security installations visible from outside the Premises shall be subject to Landlord's approval and conform in all respects to Landlord's requirements. Tenant may, at its sole cost and expense, place its name on the two (2) existing monument signs as more fully described on Exhibit A, subject to Landlord's prior approval of Tenant's plans and specifications related to such signage and subject to Landlord's standard sign specifications for the Project.
Treatments. We tested our hypotheses on low-income shoppers in their natural shopping environ- ment. To do this, we asked all shoppers to shop for groceries where and when their normal shopping schedule would allow. Our treatments then varied the delivery of food subsidies during these trips. We tested both “healthy subsidies”—offering 30% back on purchases of fruits and vegetables—and “unhealthy subsidies”—offering 30% back on purchases of baked goods. Both subsidies were capped at $10 per trip.8 According to Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) data, these categories represent roughly equal percentages of food purchases by SNAP recipients and offer a clear valence to define the “healthy” and “unhealthy” option.9Immediately after completing their grocery shopping, all shoppers submitted pho- tographs of their receipts using their smartphone cameras. These receipts were used8“Fruits and vegetables” include fresh, canned, or frozen fruits or vegetables without added salt or sugar. “Baked goods” include bread, biscuits and rolls, muffins, cakes and cupcakes, pies and tarts 9CES data span 1994-2003, limited to households that self-report as SNAP participants. FV and BG represent 8% and 9% of total food expenditure, respectively, and are purchased on 76% and 82% of days with at least $20 in food spending, respectively. In our control group, shoppers spend more on BG than FV, so ex-ante, the BG subsidy will be more calculate the subsidy payment owed to each shopper. This subsidy payment was transferred electronically to the shopper along with their participation payments in weekly intervals.We leveraged Field Agent’s novel, smartphone delivery method to present subsidy information and subsidy choices at multiple points in time and at multiple locations. With this flexibility, we designed treatments that varied the timing of information about subsidies and subsidy choices between 48 hours before shopping up until the shopper was at the point of purchase. The location information from each completed survey allowed us to verify that choices intended to be made at the point of purchase were truly made in the grocery store.Shoppers were randomly assigned to be endowed with choice over subsidies or face a subsidy restricted to FV. We then randomly varied the choice architecture of the subsidy choice treatments.All shoppers who completed the baseline were randomly assigned one of the follow- ing five treatments. Treatment assignments were fixed throughout the study, so o...
Treatments. (i) For each of the four remaining photos, Pixar submits one or more treatments for disney consideration as the basis for the image (Treatment). Each treatment shall be either a) a written treatment of at least three pages with a story to be used as the basis for the scenario, or (b) an oral presentation of not more than one (1) hour, accompanied by rough sketches, conceptual art and rudimentary storyboards sufficient to communicate the essential idea for the image similar to the presentation previously made for Bugs and the first presentation for the second image. Any such treatment should be based on a new idea and not a sequel, prequel or remake of an earlier photo. Treatments can be submitted separately or in one or more groups by Pixar. Disney accepts or rejects any treatment within forty-five (45) days after such treatment has been submitted -1- 6 by Pixar. [*] for [*] of [*] within [*] by [*] by [*], then [*], whether or not [*], to [*], by giving written notification of [*] at any time [*] unless [*] the parties [*] or [*] have this Agreement point (ii) (ii): (a) [*] of the [*] as [*] for a [*], referred to in the case of [*] under this paragraph A, the [*] to [*] and [*] [*] [*] (unless [*] to [*] and with the [*] in [*], or (B) in the case of [*] of the [*] as [*] for this [*] and in the case of [*] in the case of [*] and [*] is [*] (unless [*] to [*]) and with the [*] listed in [*]. (ii) if no treatment has been approved or selected in accordance with point 3, (a)(i) within a paragraph 1, years after the first theatrical release of the last image for which treatment has previously been approved or selected, Disney has the right to terminate this agreement at thirty (30) days of written notice to be served on Pixar no more than sixty (60) days after the end of such a period of one (1) year , unless, within such a 30-day notice period, either is entitled; (A) the Parties have mutually approved treatment for an image or have (B) [*] [*] in accordance with point 3, point (a)(i)(a) or (if any applicable) (3)(a)(a)(i)(B), provided that Pixar otherwise satisfies the conditions laid down in paragraph 3(a)(i) for this selection in accordance with point 3(a)(i)(A) or (a)(a)(i)(b). B.
Treatments. As summarized in Table 1, the experiment includes a baseline condition and four between- subjects treatments. Table 1: Overview of the Treatments TreatmentsExternalityon Future Our Baseline condition follows the aforementioned experimental design. The random forest algorithm made an allocation that was paid out exclusively to the current pair. There was no externality for any other player.In the Externality treatment, participants were told that the dictator’s choices generated training data not only for the AI’s allocation decision in their group but also for another group that would participate in the same experiment with a similar basic design in the future, as described in sub-section 2.1.8 Except for the mere information on this externality via the AI, there was no impact on payoffs in the current pair. The monetary incentives of the dictator therefore did not change between the Baseline and the Externality treatment.The Offspring treatment added one payoff dimension to the Externality treatment. In this variation, the algorithm again learned from the dictator’s choices to make a prediction not only for the dictator in the current pair but also for another dictator in a future pair. By contrast with the Externality treatment, the earnings of the first pair members were affected by the implementation of the prediction made by the AI for the future pair. The first generation received an additional payoff equal to half of the payoff allocated by the AI in the 31st period in the future generation. The dictator in the first generation received half of the payoff of the dictator in the future generation, and the receiver received half of the payoff of the receiver in the future generation. The objective of this monetary interdependence between the first pair (the “parents”) and the future pair (the “offspring”) was to make the externality through AI training more salient. Thereby, dictators were expected to internalize the monetary externality they exerted on the future through their generated training data. This payoff was added to the earnings made in one of the first 30 periods and in the 31st period, but was wired to participants at a later point in time. Compared to the Externality8Precisely, participants were informed that in period 31 in their successor pair, the algorithm would decide based on the 30 decisions of the dictator in their pair and on the 30 decisions of the future dictator in their successor pair. The training data generated by their pa...
Treatments. We may release your health information to provide you with health care treatment and associated services.
Treatments. Four treatments tested in the project were: • GreenSeeker – measuring Near Infrared and red light (NDVI).• Crop Circle – measuring NDVI and other combinations of wavelengths.• Pasture height – falling plate.• Visual assessment of the pasture biomass.At each sampling time 12-15 sampling points were identified within the paddocks. The aim was for the pasture composition to be similar at each point. After this, the range in pasture dry matter yield (DMY) was to be as broad as possible in the hope of getting a clearer definition of the relationships between the variables. Both the GreenSeeker and Crop Circle sensors were used in this project. Both measure NDVI. NDVI stands for Normalised Difference Vegetation Index) which is a measure of the amount of near infrared (NIR) and red light reflected back from the plant. The NIR light is thought to predict plant structure/density. The red light predicts the amount of chlorophyll or greenness and may be a good predictor of dead material. The bands measured by the GreenSeeker can not be separated to work out which has the best relationship with biomass but the Crop Circle provides separate information on 4 different light bands and is therefore an important additional measurement for this project. It costs about $6,000 and was borrowed from AgVic. There were operational issues with the use of the Crop Circle which includedfaulty wiring which required it to be sent to UNE Armidale for repairs and difficulty in trying to share the device amongst the two groups and AgVic field officers. There was also a lack of consistency of which wavelengths gave the best correlations and this led to its use being discontinued after the winter 2014 measurements. Only GreenSeeker data is reported here but Cropcircle data is contained in the accompanying metadata file. It became very clear within two sampling sites that pasture height needed to be included in the measurements if useful results were to be obtained.