Table 10 definition
Table 10. The Sharing Discount Rate of Indoor Distribution Products
Table 10. WAEMU Approvals for Products and Firms Under WAEMU Internal Free Trade Area 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Approved firms 120 208 244 275 381 419 469 505 506 551 Approved products 427 966 948 1168 1655 1845 2136 2244 2247 2605 Source: WAEMU Commission.
Table 10. A: Employment location by institution type Status Employment location College University Total Outside Nova Scotia 14% (n=12) 22% (n=14) 17% (n=26) Nova Scotia 86% (n=73) 78% (n=50) 83% (n=123) Employment location College University Total Outside Nova Scotia 18% (n=19) 16% (n=7) 17% (n=26) Nova Scotia 82% (n=87) 84% (n=36) 83% (n=123) Overall Satisfaction and Evaluation of the Learning Experience The survey included a series of questions around overall satisfaction with the learning experience. To measure satisfaction, survey respondents were asked whether or not they would recommend the institution and/or program to other students with a similar disability who were considering post secondary studies. Overall, over two-thirds of respondents would recommend both their program and institution. This satisfaction is consistent across institution type, and is higher among graduates than those respondents who withdrew from their studies. Of the respondents who would not recommend both their program and institution, many would recommend either their program or their institution. Overall, 10% of respondents would recommend neither their program nor their institution.
Examples of Table 10 in a sentence
Table 10 summarizes the number of 20-second intervals for each error type.
Table 10 displays the annual tax revenue that the County will receive.
The Online Services listed below in Table 10 are granted for use only on a specified project: the Agreement must identify the scope for which the referential is built and used, including its geographical boundaries.
The Commonwealth will provide a maximum financial contribution of $65.50 million over five years to States to implement the VET Data Streamlining Program, including transition to the new VET Information Standard (Table 10).
They are built up of the same process (see Table 10) and resource (see Table 11).
More Definitions of Table 10
Table 10. Mean IOP with the Four Instruments in the high IOP Group INSTRUMENT MEAN (SD) 95% Confidence Interval GAT 29.74(10.8) (27.63,31.85) TONOPEN 24.44(10.46) (22.4,26.48) NCT 25.5(10.34) (23.48,27.52) DCT 27.28(10.1) (25.31,29.26) We looked at correlation between GAT, which is the gold standard and the other three tonometers in measuring IOP in those patients with normal IOP. Our results show that there is good positive correlation between GAT and Tonopen (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ correlation coefficient r = 0.58) and excellent correlation between GAT and NCT(r = 0.77) and between GAT and DCT (r = 0.72). (Table 11) GAT vs Tonopen 0.58 GAT vs NCT 0.77 GAT vs DCT 0.72 Table 12 shows the excellent positive correlation between GAT and the other 3 tonometers when the IOP measured is more than 24 mmHg.
Table 10. Space Environmental Effects Facility, FY 2010 Facility Information
Table 10. The Co-Tenancy Discount Rate of Indoor Distribution Products Discount rate – 40% 50%
Table 10. Root mean squared error (RMSE), maximum absolute difference (MAX), and mean absolute deviation (MAD) for the bond dissociation energies D298 (in kcal/mol) for C – C, C – H, C – O, and O – H bonds of small alcohol isomers. D298,all D298,C-C D298,C-H D298,C-O D298,O-H D298,all D298,C-C D298,C-H D298,C-O D298,O-H D298,all D298,C-C D298,C-H D298,C-O D298,O-H CBS-QB3//B3LYP/CBSB7 1.17 1.02 1.20 1.38 1.05 2.11 1.75 2.11 1.97 1.65 1.04 0.35 0.55 0.23 0.40 BEBOP//B3LYP/CBSB7 5.29 8.03 2.20 5.20 5.22 12.00 12.00 3.37 8.97 6.73 3.33 1.84 0.60 2.73 1.17 ALFABET ML Model 2.11 0.71 2.60 1.90 2.43 4.00 1.40 4.0 2.40 3.40 1.63 0.55 0.63 0.41 0.54 DFTB3/3OB//DFTB3/3OB 16.71 22.54 8.25 26.69 1.06 34.34 28.51 11.49 34.34 1.69 8.93 3.50 2.22 3.26 0.81 AM1//AM1 17.64 23.83 16.62 16.45 4.69 33.91 33.91 21.13 28.04 6.24 5.53 4.79 1.67 5.63 1.13 PM7//PM7 17.68 24.78 16.84 13.08 6.05 34.61 34.61 21.1 18.44 7.9 5.66 4.12 2.72 2.46 1.38 PM6//PM6 18.13 25.53 18.78 7.79 3.49 33.41 33.41 23.52 12.52 5.35 7.46 3.78 3.04 2.46 1.69 M062X/cc-pVTZ//M062X/6-31G* 2.52 2.64 2.47 1.44 3.19 4.72 4.72 3.88 2.05 4.03 2.26 1.77 1.00 0.39 0.45 B3LYP-D3BJ/cc-pVTZ//B3LYP/6-31G* 4.52 4.09 3.71 4.54 6.56 7.49 7.42 5.39 6.49 7.49 1.61 1.81 1.31 0.77 0.46 APFD/cc-pVTZ//APFD/6-31G* 4.76 2.37 5.07 3.14 7.45 8.60 5.01 6.68 4.90 8.60 3.25 1.61 1.29 0.64 0.59 M062X/6-31G*//M062X/6-31G* 4.85 6.30 1.66 3.31 7.86 8.91 8.91 3.00 3.86 8.82 3.87 1.61 1.13 0.43 0.46 B3LYP-D3BJ/6-31G*//B3LYP/6-31G* 5.02 2.05 2.79 2.63 11.00 12.09 4.18 4.57 4.67 12.09 3.05 1.60 1.44 0.72 0.52 APF/cc-pVTZ//APF/6-31G* 5.60 4.42 5.65 4.44 7.82 8.72 8.4 7.73 7.03 8.72 3.56 1.85 1.37 1.16 0.49 APFD/6-31G*//APFD/6-31G* 5.62 2.94 3.93 1.63 11.75 13.05 5.69 5.76 3.31 13.05 4.17 1.48 1.42 0.65 0.63 B3LYP/6-31G*//B3LYP/6-31G* 5.78 3.57 3.44 4.31 11.64 12.62 7.14 5.52 7.18 12.62 2.85 1.94 1.54 1.18 0.48 PBE0-D3BJ/6-31G*//PBE0/6-31G* 5.86 3.44 4.23 1.44 12.00 13.12 6.41 6.27 3.27 13.12 3.96 1.58 1.44 0.77 0.55 APF/6-31G*//APF/6-31G* 5.92 2.27 4.50 2.92 12.13 13.18 4.55 6.63 5.44 13.18 3.98 1.75 1.48 1.04 0.51 B3LYP/cc-pVTZ//B3LYP/6-31G* 6.00 7.09 4.35 6.32 7.19 11.49 11.49 6.38 9 8.02 1.77 1.95 1.36 1.17 0.47 B3LYP/CBSB7//B3LYP/CBSB7 6.21 7.48 4.46 5.78 7.89 10.22 10.22 5.98 8.09 8.86 1.59 1.29 1.18 0.82 0.49 PBE0/6-31G*//PBE0/6-31G* 6.26 2.54 4.94 3.02 12.63 13.65 5 7.18 5.78 13.65 3.44 1.96 1.53 1.24 0.51 Figure 12: Aromatic structures used for computing BEBOP’s resonance energies. The extra stability of aromatic molecules is accurately reflect...
Table 10. Motivation for attending university (% important or very important) All students Group University of Lethbridge (n=14,886) (n=3,136) (n=6,176) (n=5,574) (n=357)
Table 10. Do you have the support of the institution where you
Table 10. Stage 3 of Any’s Historical Distribution (Late OE-EME) Following ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2011) (discussed in §2.3.3), in LME all n-words, including na/no, changed from being [- NEG] to [+NEG]. Any and na/no were still in competition for the same structural position. Thus, this stage does not immediately affect the relationship between any and na/no. One exception is that any could now be licensed by n-words, rather than just sentential negation in the ne+VP structure. The weakening of these constraints led to the loss of NC, which is Stage 4 of the proposed model (Table 11). Any [+ NPI] [- N_WORD] [- EMPH] [- NEG] Na [- NPI] [- N_WORD] [- EMPH] [+ NEG] Table 11: Stage 4 of Any’s Historical Distribution (LME-EMoE) At this stage, the negative elements ceased to be n-words. It is at this stage that n-words like no, nobody, and nowhere are replaced with NPIs like any, anybody, and anywhere in negative sentences. At this point, I am willing to accept that the structural reason for this is the same as those proposed by ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2011) (discussed in §2.3.3).