Table 10. The Sharing Discount Rate of Indoor Distribution Products Sole user Shared by two companies Shared by three companies Discount rate — 40 % 50 %
Table 10. Space Environmental Effects Facility, FY 2010 Facility Information No. SAAs SAA use Overall utilization NASA use (percentage of overall utilization) Avg. test time Formal schedule 5 21 weeks Varies by capability a 75% Ranges by capability, 1-3 weeks per sample No Source: GAO representation of NASA data. a Overall utilization of the four test capabilities used to support partner activities in the five agreements we reviewed ranged from 40% (under-utilized, 30-60%) to 90% (over-utilized, greater than 85%) in FY2010, according to NASA officials.
Table 10. The Co-Tenancy Discount Rate of Indoor Distribution Products Exclusive use by one company Shared by two companies Shared by three companies Discount rate – 40% 50%
Examples of Table 10 in a sentence
Changes in cost for any subsequent contract years may be based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U), Table 10, U.S. City Averages, or other relevant indices.
See Statement of Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in National Defense, Congressional Research Service, before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Hearing on Submarine Force Structure and Acquisition Policy, March 8, 2007, Table 10 on pp.
Current and Future Analysis Hormonal Therapy – An Overview Hormonal Therapy Strategies Hormone Synthesis Inhibitors Aromatase InhibitorsGnRH AnalogsHormone Receptor AntagonistsSelective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs) AntiandrogensHormone Supplementation Progestagens and Androgens EstrogensSomatostatin AnalogsShifting Therapeutic Preferences Table 10.
In 2018, the government funded and participated in programs that include the goal of eliminating or preventing child labor (Table 10).
For the purposes of clause S5.2.5.11 of schedule 5.2 of the Rules, a Generator listed in Table 10 is not required to include facilities for load control for the generating unit listed in column 2 of Table 10.
More Definitions of Table 10
Table 10. Do you have the support of the institution where you
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) Respondents total 100% (n=85) 100% (n=64) 100% (n=149) Table 10-B: Employment location by program status 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) Respondents total 100% (n=106) 100% (43) 100% (n=149) 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.
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. Method RMSE MAX MAD 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 composite thermochemical 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 ML Model SQM DFT 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 Resonance Energy Figure 12: Aromatic structures used for computing BEBOP’s reso...
Table 10. Stage 3 of Any’s Historical Distribution (Late OE-EME) Following Xxxxxx (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). Stage 2 (LME-EMoE) 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 Xxxxxx (2011) (discussed in §2.3.3).
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. Means and standard error (SE) of oyster shell height and wet mass by sampling time from Burtons Bay (BB), the high salinity site, for Year Two 51
Table 10. SLA requirement for interfaces between Gnome Trader components Chain SLA Requirements authapp Low auth service creation time, medium burst rates, low end-to-end latency and short response time dbapp dbauth dbpc Low throughput demand, medium end-to-end latency pcpp medium throughput demand, medium end-to-end latency pcapp medium throughput demand, low packet delay variation (to prevent streaming degradations and unexpected buffering) and end-to-end latency stpc Medium throughput demand, medium end-to-end latency