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. 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
Examples of Table 10 in a sentence
Table 10: Living arrangements over time 2013 (n=15,218) 2010 (n=12,488) 2007 (n=12,648) 2004 (n=11,132) 2001 (n=7,093) With parents 47% 47% 49% 56% 50% On-campus residence 36% 37% 35% 27% 29% Rented home/apartment/room 14% 14% 14% 16% 19% Personally-owned home 1% 1% <1% 1% 2% Note: In previous years, respondents could provide more than one answer.
Table 10 summarizes the number of 20-second intervals for each error type.
Table 10 below shows the price for each category of fuel consumed.
Table 10 Price for DEF by Pack Size Pack Size Price 55 Gallon Drum* $144.69 per drum 2.5 Gallon Jug** $9.04 per jug 4 X 1 Gallon Case $15.14 per case *Minimum order is 2 drums.
They are built up of the same process (see Table 10) and resource (see Table 11).
More Definitions of Table 10
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. 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
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%
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. 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) I am more likely to get a job with a degree 91% 90% 92% 90% 94% To get a more fulfilling job than I probably would if I didn't go 90% 91% 91% 89% 91% To prepare for a specific job or career 90% 89% 90% 89% 90% To satisfy my intellectual curiosity 80% 77% 79% 83% 77% Learning new things is exciting 80% 79% 79% 82% 78% To apply what I will learn to make a positive difference in society or my community 78% 79% 76% 80% 77% To get a broad education 78% 74% 77% 81% 74% To earn more money than if I didn't go 73% 70% 76% 70% 71% To explore whether university is right for me 41% 40% 45% 38% 44% To meet my family's expectations 58% 52% 62% 56% 52% The satisfaction of doing challenging academic work 57% 53% 56% 62% 51% To meet new people 53% 45% 58% 50% 51% Most of my friends are going 24% 17% 28% 23% 14% The chance to participate in varsity athletics 12% 11% 13% 10% 10% I didn't have anything better to do 12% 10% 13% 11% 10% Difference by visible minority. Students who self-identify as a member of a visible minority (68%) are statistically more likely than non-visible minority (50%) students to rate to meet their family’s expectations as important for motivating them to attending university.
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.