№ lp_2_3_22791
File format: docx
Character count: 11424
File size: 87 KB
This document provides guidance for obtaining Block Ethics Approval for low-risk student research projects at undergraduate and postgraduate taught levels, detailing the process and criteria for approval.
Year:
2023
Region / city:
UK
Topic:
Research Ethics
Document type:
Guidance
Organization / institution:
DMU
Author:
DMU Research Ethics Committee
Target audience:
Undergraduate and taught postgraduate students
Period of validity:
3 years
Date of approval:
N/A
Date of changes:
N/A
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Year:
2023
Institution:
Medical School, Teviot
Location:
Teaching Room 12 - Doorway 3
Document Type:
Meeting Minutes
Committee:
PGT School Level Student Staff Liaison Committee
Chair:
Richard Baxstrom
Clerk:
Claire Moggie
Attendees:
Student representatives and school staff listed in document
Topics Covered:
Assessment marking inconsistencies, teaching delivery, feedback processes, cohort building, industrial action impact, accessibility issues
Period Discussed:
9 November 2022 – 13 March 2023
Decisions/Actions:
Follow-up on outstanding actions, feedback standardization, marking guidance, student communication protocols, lecture recording accessibility
Year:
2022
Location:
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
Topic:
Postgraduate Taught (PGT) Student Issues and Feedback
Document type:
Meeting minutes
Organizing body:
PGT Student/Staff Liaison Committee
Participants:
Kate Wright, Paula Jaime Mendez, Kelsey Short, Alex Jackson, Eden Armstrong, Shelby Thorne, Serena Rossi, Maria Brichs, Chengshi Huang, Paula Postchick, Beccy Mack, Kimberley Neil, Kerry Bowe, Olivia Allison, Rachel Parks, Natasha Khurana, Sophia Knight, Laura Chant, Shubh Mehta, Yi Liu, Catriona Elder, Cristyn King
Apologies:
Leila Shokat
Agenda topics:
Placement-based dissertations, Mental Health Support, Academic Calendar, Online/Hybrid Learning Support, PG/UG Joint Courses, Covid Safety
Actions recorded:
Assigned by color-coded responsibilities to students, staff, or directors
Pending actions:
Follow-up meetings, outcome reviews, placement sourcing, project targets
Links:
SWAY team, Student Support and Enhancement, Programme Initiative Funds, Student Initiative Grants
Document type for context:
Internal university governance record
Year:
2019
Region / City:
Joplin, Missouri
Theme:
Community Development, Housing, Infrastructure
Document Type:
Action Plan
Agency / Organization:
City of Joplin, Planning, Development and Neighborhood Services
Author:
City of Joplin
Target Audience:
Local Government, Community Development Organizations
Period of Validity:
Fiscal Year 2019
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Year:
2019
Region / City:
Placer County, California
Theme:
Juvenile Justice, Crime Prevention
Document Type:
Comprehensive Plan
Agency / Institution:
Placer County Probation Department
Author:
Placer County Probation Department
Target Audience:
Juvenile justice professionals, law enforcement agencies, policy makers, service providers
Period of validity:
Annual, for fiscal year planning
Approval Date:
May 1, 2019
Date of Last Change:
Not specified
Note:
Year
Theme:
Workplace safety
Document type:
Checklist
Year:
October 1, 2026 – September 30, 2027
Note:
Year
2026
Region / City:
Manchester
Subject:
Community Development, Funding
Document Type:
Application Form
Organization:
Town of Manchester
Author:
Heather Guerette
Target Audience:
Nonprofits, Government Agencies, Organizations
Period of Action:
2026-2027
Approval Date:
March 18, 2026
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2024
Department:
Human Settlements
Section:
CS & RM
Prepared by:
Department of Finance, Central Procurement Office
Contact person:
Ms Bekane Molekwa, Acting Senior Manager Procurement Office
Telephone:
(011) 999-1635
Email:
[email protected]
Address:
5 Junction Road, Driehoek, Germiston, 1400
Quotation number:
BEQ.HS.09.01
Procurement value:
R2000.00 up to R750,000.00 (including VAT)
Regulations:
Preferential Procurement Regulations, 2022; Municipal SCM Regulations amendments 2023; SCM Policy approved 1 March 2024
Document type:
Formal written price quotation
Target audience:
Prospective contractors eligible for municipal procurement
Scope:
Repair and maintenance of Thokoza Hostel blocks 1, 2, 3 and Block K
Submission instructions:
Sealed bid, endorsed, submitted to Bid Box Number Eleven, Central Procurement Office
Evaluation criteria:
Compliance with bid rules, completeness of forms, B-BBEE compliance, municipal account submission
) and join the S1NET. For guides with in depth examinations of performance measure definitions, go to:
https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-129783
Table of Contents (Hyperlinks to Sections):
Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ OER Narratives: Notes, Rules, and Instructions OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: Negative Comment Rules Referred OERs Narrative Comment Examples Block a. APFT and HT/WT Block b. Overall Performance Block c. Character (to include SHARP comments) Block d. Presence Block e. Intellect Block f. Leads Block g. Develops Block h. Achieves Senior Rater Potential Senior Rater Narrative Examples Senior Rater Narrative Comment Examples (for potential, promotion, school, etc.) Successive Assignments Other SR Comments (explanations of anything unusual about OER) Effective Words for Evaluations JUNIOR OFFICER PLATE (DA FORM 67-10-1) NOTE: 2LTs who have NOT completed BOLC, will not receive an OER until they complete BOLC (AC and ARNG; USAR officers can receive an OER before completing BOLC). The FROM date will be their commissioning date. All time until their BOLC graduation will be NONRATED on their first OER. OER PROFILING: OERs: Rater and Senior Rater Profiles are CONSTRAINED, meaning Officers are only allowed to grant 49% of each rank they rate with either an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). HOWEVER, if you have an immature profile, and have only just begun rating/senior rating Officers of a certain rank, you are allowed a ONE TIME option of giving one of the first two evaluations you make at a particular grade, an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). OER (OER SUPPORT FORM) PART III: Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ (blocks a., b., and c.): Refer to DA PAM 611-21 (https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/smartbookdapam611-21
) and DA PAM 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management), to assist in the development of PART III, block d. As a minimum, the duty description will include pr:
- Number of personnel supervised, - Amount of resources under the rated officer’s control, - Scope of responsibilities. 3) Descriptions must be clear and concise with emphasis on specific functions required. 4) Note conditions unique to the assignment; e.g. RA officers assigned to FT support duties with RC units or USAR officers assigned to RA units OER NARRATIVES: Notes, Rules, and Instructions Rater and Senior Rater Narratives: - Requires candor and courage; frank and accurate assessment. - Quantify officer’s value relative to peers and do so in concert with rater/senior rater box check. - Are short; tell a simple story about the quality of officer being evaluated. - Are interesting and compelling. - Are looked at by selection board members when they are looking for in-depth information about a rated officer’s performance and potential. - Numbers; 1-10, write them out (e.g. one, two, ten). 11 or higher, write the number; e.g. 11, 15, 105. Exception, when a 1-10 is WITH an 11 or higher; e.g. “5 tool kits with 20 tools each.” - Fashion the narrative to the officer; double check use of “he/his” vs. “she/hers.” - Awards: Awards and/or special recognition received during the rating period may be cited in evaluation comments (for example, “received the Humanitarian Service Medal” or “named the Instructor of the Year”). - Raters and SR CAN use the officer’s name in the narrative; e.g. “1LT Joe was ….” Rater and Rater Narratives: - Focus on PERFORMANCE; explaining what the rated officer did and how well he/she did it. - Focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance. - Raters should advocate the rated officer to the SR. - When there is no SR (due to lack of qualifications), rater’s narrative provides the input on both performance and potential. Senior Rater (SR) and SR Narrative (see SR Rater Narrative section for examples): - Focus on POTENTIAL, 3-5 years out (promotions, command, school, & assignments). - Can amplify box checks by using the narrative to clearly send the appropriate message to selection boards. - CANNOT mention Box Check. - Additional information for when SR is also Rater can be found in DA PAM 623-3, pg. 26, “DA Form 67–10–1, part VI: block c—Senior Rater Narrative.” OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: - School/Course Comments: Bullets about how a Soldier did in a school or course are ONLY allowed if that school did not produce an AER/DA Form 1059. - Narratives are not a laundry list of superlatives – more is not necessarily better. - Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. - Excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. - Techniques aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative; e.g. excessive use of capital letters; unnecessary quotation marks; repeated use of exclamation points; wide spacing between selected words, phrases, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. - Inappropriate references to box checks; e.g “Would be TOP BLOCK if profile allowed” or “absolutely far exceeded the standard”. - Trying to quantify (e.g. “top 2% of my captains”) with a small population. - Stay in your lane/level; avoid comments like “Best 1LT in the Army” unless you’re the Army CoS. - Stating “the best ever”; having 10 in the population, 50 in the profile. - Using overused phrases and clichés that are counterproductive or overused; e.g. stellar, historic, “delivered a dazzling performance,” “hit the ground running,” consummate professional, and unlimited potential. - Using specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier”. - Don’t exaggerate; “If I could prove it, CPT X is an LTC disguised as a CPT.” - Be mindful of what IS NOT said; it can have the same impact as what is said; e.g. NOT having numbers, or quantifiable points. - Don’t say the sa
Note:
en
Topic:
Officer Evaluation, Narrative Guidelines
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Raters, Senior Raters
Year:
2025
Note:
Region/City
Topic:
Juvenile justice, government funding
Document Type:
Report
Agency/Organization:
Office of Youth and Community Restoration
Target Audience:
Counties and related authorities
Period of validity:
2025
Year:
2016
Region / City:
California
Subject:
Hotel Room Block Reservation
Document Type:
Submission Form
Organization / Institution:
Judicial Council of California
Author:
Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts
Target Audience:
Proposers for hotel room reservations
Effective Period:
January 17-21, 2016, May 22-26, 2016
Approval Date:
Not specified
Modification Date:
Not specified
Year:
2023
Region / City:
California
Topic:
Hotel Reservation and Billing
Document Type:
Proposal Submission
Institution / Organization:
Judicial Council of California
Author:
Unknown
Target Audience:
Proposers for hotel room blocks
Period of validity:
60 days after submission due date
Approval Date:
Unknown
Amendment Date:
Unknown
Note:
Year
Region / city:
New York State
Subject:
Informed consent, Legally Authorized Representative
Document type:
Consent form
Target audience:
Research participants, study coordinators
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Not specified
Subject:
Labor relations, grievance procedure, National Agreement, Step 4 settlements
Document Type:
Grievance statement
Organization / Institution:
National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC)
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Union representatives, postal workers, management officials
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Amendments:
Not specified
Year:
[Year]
Region / City:
[Station/Post Office]
Subject:
Grievance regarding violation of Article 8, Section 5 of the National Agreement
Document Type:
Grievance
Organization:
[Union Name]
Author:
[Union Representative Name]
Target Audience:
Union representatives, management officials, employees involved in the grievance
Period of Validity:
[Quarter] of [Year]
Approval Date:
[Date]
Modification Date:
[Date]
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Puerto Rico
Topic:
URA Compliance, Housing, Disaster Recovery
Document Type:
Checklist
Agency:
Puerto Rico Department of Housing (PRDOH)
Author:
N/A
Target Audience:
Subrecipients of CDBG-DR/MIT programs
Effective Period:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Amendment Date:
N/A
Year:
Odd-numbered years
Region / City:
Idaho
Topic:
Transportation, Infrastructure, Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, Environmental Mitigation
Document Type:
Program Guidelines
Organization / Institution:
Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC)
Author:
Idaho Transportation Department (ITD)
Target Audience:
Local Sponsors applying for TA funding
Period of Application:
Every other year, with application released in October and due in January
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Nebraska
Theme:
Economic Development
Document Type:
Instructional Manual
Organ / Institution:
Nebraska Department of Economic Development
Author:
Nebraska Department of Economic Development
Target Audience:
Local Governments / Grantees
Period of Action:
2023
Approval Date:
N/A
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
Not specified
Region:
Oregon
Document type:
Guidelines
Survey type:
Virtual trauma hospital survey
Trauma center levels:
Levels I–IV
Issuing body:
Oregon Health Authority
Program:
EMS & Trauma Systems
Intended participants:
Trauma hospitals and trauma program staff
Survey format:
Virtual
Technology platform:
Zoom for Government
Pre-survey submission timeline:
Two months prior to scheduled survey
Medical record submission deadline:
At least one week prior to scheduled survey
Survey components:
Pre-survey review, medical chart review, interviews, exit interview
Patient data scope:
Trauma census, outcomes, injuries, transfers, readmissions, deaths
Governing authority contacts:
Oregon Health Authority EMS Program
Year:
2019
Region / City:
Not specified
Theme:
Personal Data Protection, Project Management, Competency Certification
Document Type:
Report
Organ / Institution:
CCP
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Candidates for Project Management Certification
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Modification Date:
Not specified
Title I Student Selection Criteria Samples for English Language Arts and Mathematics by Grade Levels
Program:
Title I
Jurisdiction:
Massachusetts
Governing body:
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Document type:
Sample selection criteria templates
Subject areas:
English Language Arts; Mathematics
Grade levels:
Grades 1, 3–5, 4–5, 9–11
Assessment measures:
DIBELS; Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark; iReady; MCAS; STAR Math; SRI
Scoring method:
Point-based composite scoring
Intended use:
Targeted Assistance schools
Status:
Informational sample
Document scope:
Student eligibility and ranking criteria
Source type:
Administrative education guidance