Termination and Results of Termination 24.1. Without prejudice to the Company’s rights under this Agreement to terminate it immediately without prior notice to the Client, each Party may terminate this Agreement by giving at least three (3) Business Days Written Notice to the other Party.
Justification and Anticipated Results The Privacy Act requires that each matching agreement specify the justification for the program and the anticipated results, including a specific estimate of any savings. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(o)(1)(B).
BID TABULATION AND RESULTS Bid tabulations shall be available thirty (30) days after opening on the Orange County website at: xxxx://xxxx.xxxx.xxx/orangebids/bidresults/results.asp or upon notice of intended action, whichever is sooner.
Publication of Results The National Aeronautics and Space Act (51 U.S.C. § 20112) requires NASA to provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof. As such, NASA may publish unclassified and non-Proprietary Data resulting from work performed under this Agreement. The Parties will coordinate publication of results allowing a reasonable time to review and comment.
Settlement Discussions This Agreement is part of a proposed settlement of matters that could otherwise be the subject of litigation among the Parties hereto. Nothing herein shall be deemed an admission of any kind. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and any applicable state rules of evidence, this Agreement and all negotiations relating thereto shall not be admissible into evidence in any proceeding other than to prove the existence of this Agreement or in a proceeding to enforce the terms of this Agreement.
Results and Discussion Table 1 (top) shows the root mean square error (RMSE) between the three tests for different numbers of topics. These results show that all three tests largely agree with each other but as the sample size (number of topics) decreases, the agreement decreases. In line with the results found for 50 topics, the randomization and bootstrap tests agree more with the t-test than with each other. We looked at pairwise scatterplots of the three tests at the different topic sizes. While there is some disagreement among the tests at large p-values, i.e. those greater than 0.5, none of the tests would predict such a run pair to have a significant difference. More interesting to us is the behavior of the tests for run pairs with lower p-values. ≥ Table 1 (bottom) shows the RMSE among the three tests for run pairs that all three tests agreed had a p-value greater than 0.0001 and less than 0.5. In contrast to all pairs with p-values 0.0001 (Table 1 top), these run pairs are of more importance to the IR researcher since they are the runs that require a statistical test to judge the significance of the per- formance difference. For these run pairs, the randomization and t tests are much more in agreement with each other than the bootstrap is with either of the other two tests. Looking at scatterplots, we found that the bootstrap tracks the t-test very well but shows a systematic bias to produce p-values smaller than the t-test. As the number of topics de- creases, this bias becomes more pronounced. Figure 1 shows a pairwise scatterplot of the three tests when the number of topics is 10. The randomization test also tends to produce smaller p-values than the t-test for run pairs where the t- test estimated a p-value smaller than 0.1, but at the same time, produces some p-values greater than the t-test’s. As Figure 1 shows, the bootstrap consistently gives smaller p- values than the t-test for these smaller p-values. While the bootstrap and the randomization test disagree with each other more than with the t-test, Figure 1 shows that for a low number of topics, the randomization test shows less noise in its agreement with the bootstrap com- Figure 1: A pairwise comparison of the p-values less than 0.25 produced by the randomization, t-test, and the bootstrap tests for pairs of TREC runs with only 10 topics. The small number of topics high- lights the differences between the three tests. pared to the t-test for small p-values.
Audit Results If an audit by a Party determines that an overpayment or an underpayment has occurred, a notice of such overpayment or underpayment shall be given to the other Party together with those records from the audit which support such determination.
Financial Condition There shall have been no material adverse change, as determined by Bank, in the financial condition or business of Borrower, nor any material decline, as determined by Bank, in the market value of any collateral required hereunder or a substantial or material portion of the assets of Borrower.
Discussion Staff has reviewed the proposal relative to all relevant policies and advise that it is reasonably consistent with the intent of the MPS. Attachment B provides an evaluation of the proposed development agreement in relation to the relevant MPS policies.
Financial Conditions Section 4.01. (a) The Recipient shall maintain or cause to be maintained a financial management system, including records and accounts, and prepare financial statements in a format acceptable to the Bank, adequate to reflect the operations, resources and expenditures in respect of the Project and each Sub-project (including its cost and the benefits to be derived from it).
