Experimental Design Sample Clauses

Experimental Design. The Contractor shall select a rigorous experimental design that controls for confounding factors and other threats to the validity of the evaluation. The Contractor shall discuss the strengths and limitations of the chosen experimental design, including how it accounts for the effects of confounding factors in isolating impacts of the deployment. If using control/treatment groups, methods for recruiting participants of these groups, identifying the right type of participants, determining the appropriate sample size, and potential issues associated with sample size shall be discussed. The Contractor shall refine the MEP evaluation plans and submit for review to the COR and other USDOT representatives, and revise based on comments received. The Contractor shall submit to the COR, the Revised Plans and corresponding Comment Resolution Reports that document how each substantive comment was resolved. The COR, in consultation with the Contractor shall determine if a meeting is necessary to discuss any of the comments (depending on the nature and quantity of the comments). Upon the COR’s approval of the Comment Resolution Reports, the Contractor shall make revisions (as per the Reports) and submit final versions of the MEP evaluation plans.

Experimental Design. The Contractor shall select a rigorous experimental design that controls for confounding factors and other threats to the validity of the evaluation. The Contractor shall discuss the strengths and limitations of the chosen experimental design, including how it accounts for the effects of confounding factors in isolating impacts of the deployment. If using control/treatment groups, methods for recruiting participants of these groups, identifying the right type of participants, determining the appropriate sample size, and potential issues associated with sample size shall be discussed. Note that recruiting of participants is required only if the sites’ provided data and experimental designs are not sufficient to control for internal and external threats to validity of evaluation.

Experimental Design. Each experimental session was comprised of four parts followed by a survey: an initial trust game (a.k.a. investment game) in which subjects played both the part of the trustor and the trustee (Part 1); 10 rounds (“days”) of trading in the market game under no institutions (Part 2); 10 rounds of trading under either partial enforcement system (PES) or impartial enforcement system (IES) (Part 4); a final trust game (Part 3), for a total of 24 decisions per subject.

Experimental Design. Based on the biological question, the experimental design of the top-down systems biology study should be aimed at generating large information-rich data sets in order for data analysis to extract relevant biological information from the data set. Not only experimental conditions for the experimental design should be considered, but also sampling, sample work-up, and the functional genomics tool to be used to analyze the samples. The first step in establishing how to plan and conduct the experiments is to identify those parameters affecting the response of the phenotype. These parameters can be process type (batch, fed-batch, or continuous), environmental conditions such as pH and nutrients, or selected strains. In the case of using various mutant strains to induce variation in the data set (for an example, see Xxxxxxxx et al., 2003), one should keep in mind that each strain may have its own bottleneck, making identification of specific targets for a general improvement more complex. When a phenotype relevant to the biological question is available, the experimental conditions should be targeted to induce variation in this phenotype. When it is unclear what experimental factors are involved in the induction of biological variation relevant to the biological problem, screening experiments need to be conducted to obtain more information regarding these experimental factors.

Experimental Design. The experimental design is summarized in table 1 below. Animals Rats WISTAR RjHan:WI, male Nanomaterials TiO2 NM100 and NM101, CeO2 NM212 + TiO2 NM105 as reference NM Exposure method Unique instillation after hyperventilation Theoretical dose 500, 50, 5 μg/animal (0.125, 0.0125, 0.00125 μg/cm2 *) Exposure duration 3h, 24h, 5d, + (35d and 90d for biodistribution and histology) Endpoints On bronchoalveolar Lavage fluids(BALF): Cytotoxicity, Inflammation, Oxidative stress (3h, 24h, 5d) On blood smear: μ-nucleus assay (5d group only) Biodistribution: lungs, tracheobronchial nodes, spleen, liver, kidneys (35 and 90d) On animal tissue: Histology (35d and 90d only) Characterization of suspensions Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS) Dosimetry ICP-MS * assuming 4000 cm2 for total rat lung alveolar surface [1]

Experimental Design. Using a within-subjects design, three different image comparison presentation styles were manipulated, side-by side, automatic flicker and manual flicker - where the participant used an on-screen button to change between each image. Three separate classification interfaces that varied in relation to these presentation styles were employed, again in conjunction with a questionnaire including NASA Task Load Index (TLX) type statements to assess volunteer opinion and perceived workload. The questionnaire also allowed ‘free-text’ responses so participants could raise issues and add context to their responses. 3.2.1.1. Participants

Experimental Design. As in the first study, we conducted a between-subjects deception experiment, but with only two conditions: a textured agreement and a plain-text control condition. Subjects were asked to down- load, install, and use a single image manipulation application (as opposed to three in the first experiment). The same instrumented installation environment was used as before. However, the dis- tractor task of using the application was not actually performed by participants (though the instructions asked them to use the soft- ware after installing it to rate its usability). Instead, participants were interrupted after reaching the point in the software installa- tion process where the software would actually be installed. Instead of installing the software, the participant was stopped and given a content quiz to test how much information they absorbed from the agreement process. This approach minimized the time between exposure to the agreements and taking the quiz. Scroll position (%) Scroll position (%) 100 80 60 40 20 0 100 80 60 40 20 0 100 80 60 40 20 0 100 80 60 40 20 0 100 80 60 40 20 0 100 80 60 40 20 0 100 80 60 40 20 0 100 80 60 40 20 0 100 80 60 40 20 0 100 80 60 40 20 0 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 Scroll position (%) Scroll position (%) Scroll position (%) As before, subjects were given a written scenario and instructions after obtaining verbal consent. The scenario indicated that they had recently received a digital camera, but lacked software to perform basic manipulations of the images. Accordingly, they were told to imagine they had just found the website of an image manipulation application. The instructions asked them to download, install, and evaluate the application, and to decide whether they would con- tinue to use this program on their home computer. Once they had reached a decision, the instructions indicated that they would be given a questionnaire. After receiving and reading the instructions, subjects had the op- portunity to ask questions. They were then seated at a desktop com- puter with a web browser already opened to the download page of the application, called “Program A”. Participants were then able to download and run the installer. After clicking the “Next” button on the software agreement screen in the installer, a full-page screen in- formed participants that the task portion of the study was complete, and that the researcher will set up the questionnaire (this screen h...

Experimental Design. 4.2.1. Trial 1 at the UC DREC used a nested split-split plot design with planting date as main plots and irrigation treatments nested within planting dates. A chlorpyrifos soil treatment (labelled L) was compared to a seed treatment (clothianidin12, labelled PB) or an untreated control (C or UTC) within irrigation plots and planting date plots13. Large plots were split further to allow for a comparison of post-emergence insect control and untreated plots. Emergence was monitored starting at approximately 5 to 7 days post planting and irrigation. Seedlings were marked with small stakes on emergence in six 25-foot rows and observed for damage and loss up to 12 leaves. The experimental units for UC DREC trials were 25-foot subplots selected at random from the middle two rows (rows 2 and 3) of beets, nested within larger four row plots (60 feet long) (see diagrams attached). This corresponds to the capacity of a sugarbeet plot harvester and minimizes edge effects. All UC DREC plots included additional untreated rows of beets between and around replications to encourage pest pressure. Variety, irrigation, fertilization, weed management and mildew control were held constant. 12 E-1- (2-chloro-1-3-thiazol-5ylmethyl)-3-methyl-2-nitroguanidine; Poncho-Beta was used. Its formulation includes 34.3 % clothianidin and 4.6% of beta-cyfluthrin. It belongs to the neonicotinid group of insecticides. Typically 60 g a.i. per 100,000 seeds are applied with seed coatings. Commonly, 50,000 seeds are planted per acre, so application rates are approximately 30 g/ per acre a.i., depending on seed amounts actually planted. 13 Initials for common names were used to simplify communication with growers, PCA and others familiar with the sugarbeet industry and crop production in general. 2 rows4 rows

Experimental Design. We initially considered four treatments, with each of the four types of game presented in Table 1 corresponding to a treatment. Following the advice of a referee we subsequently considered a further two treatments with variations on the vector and full-agreement game (more details to follow shortly). We reiterate that our standard treatment corresponds to the benchmark 14 Iﾐ ; ゲ┞ﾏﾏWデ�ｷI ｪ;ﾏW けゲヮﾉｷデ デｴW Iﾗゲデ ヮ�ﾗヮﾗ�デｷﾗﾐ;ﾉﾉ┞げ ;ﾐS ﾗデｴW� ;ﾉデW�ﾐ;デｷ┗Wゲ ;�W Wケ┌ｷ┗;ﾉWﾐデ デﾗ ゲヮﾉｷデ デｴW Iﾗゲデ equally. 15 This more liberal interpretation of label scrambling would make no difference in a standard game or vector game. Each experimental session was divided into three parts, as summarised in Table 4. In part 1, subjects played a game with parameters corresponding to those in the symmetric game, as already detailed in Table 2, for 10 rounds. In part 2 they played a game with parameters corresponding to those in the asymmetric game for a further 10 rounds, and in part 3 they played a game with parameters corresponding to those in the very asymmetric game for a final 10 rounds. The type of game played, standard, standard with feedback, vector or full agreement, was the same in all three parts of a session. Note that subjects retained their role within the group throughout a part. Thus, a subject endowed with, say, 70 in an asymmetric game was endowed with 70 in all 10 rounds. The groups, of five, were randomly assigned at the beginning of each part but remained fixed during the part. Fixed matching during each part of the session allows us to look for dynamic and learning effects as observed in previous threshold public good experiments (e.g. Cadsby et al. 2008). Indeed, given our interpretation of the vector of contributions as a form of indirect communication it is natural to think of the 10 rounds within each part as part of one big game. With this interpretation the final round of the ten takes on special importance as culmination of the game. In this last round there is nothing to be gained by indirect communication and so the only relevant objective is to maximize round payoff. The use of three different sets of parameters allows us to consider symmetric and asymmetric games.16 More specifically, the use of the benchmark parameters in part 1 allows an unambiguous comparison of behaviour across treatments in the standard, symmetric case considered in the literature. Parts 2 and 3 allow us to compare behaviour across treatments as subjects are exposed to progressively more a...

Experimental Design. Operational “boundaries” of PSTA systems are being investigated in mesocosms at an experimental facility near the outflow of STA-1W. Triplicate flow ways with a local limerock substrate were established under each of four water depth treatments. The first two treatments are static in depth. Shallow treatments (23 cm) and deeper treatments (46 cm) consist of 4 tanks (each 1.8 m2) plumbed in series. These tanks were initially established in September 2013, under constant flows that provide a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 5 and 10 days for the shallow (23 cm) and deep (46 cm) flow ways, respectively. Delivery of a constant flow rate to both shallow and deep tanks insures equal P mass loading rate (PLR) to those treatments on an area basis. In January 2014, additional mesocosms were established to test PSTA performance at greater water depths. Six new flow ways were constructed using larger tanks (2.8 m2 per tank) plumbed two in series (Figure 1 and Figure 2). These systems were initially established at 46 cm depth, and flows are being delivered to provide equivalent HRT and PLR conditions to the existing mesocosms operating with 4 tanks-in-series at 46 cm depth. The first tanks in series of the new flow ways receive an equivalent PLR to the first half (first 2 tanks) of the 4-in-series systems. This approach enables a comparison of “midpoint” and “outflow” positions with equivalent HLR and P loading across static and variable-depth treatments. Key operational parameters of these systems are outlined in Table 1.