№ files_lp_3_process_9_61283
File format: docx
Character count: 15950
File size: 1590 KB
This document provides the syllabus for the American Sign Language 4SGNL 2050 course, outlining class schedule, materials, grading policies, and participation expectations.
Instructor:
Peter M. Quint, M.Ed. (He/Him)
Course Times:
T/Th 11:00PM – 12:20PM, 12:30PM – 1:50PM
Location:
LANG 217
Text & Materials:
Interactive Online Student Materials for Signing Naturally Units 7-12
Course Description:
Builds on ASL grammar, vocabulary, and cultural understanding, progressing from previous units.
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Denton, Texas
Theme:
American Sign Language, Deaf Culture, Course Information
Document Type:
Syllabus
Institution:
University of North Texas
Note:
Instructor
Peter M. Quint
Target Audience:
Students enrolled in American Sign Language courses
Duration:
Fall 2026 semester
Approval Date:
2026
Modification Date:
None
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
Region / city:
New Zealand
Topic:
Food sector, demand opportunities
Document type:
Submission form
Organ / institution:
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)
Author:
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)
Target audience:
Stakeholders in the food sector, organizations, and individuals providing feedback
Effective period:
2023-2050
Approval date:
February 2023
Date of amendments:
Not specified
Program:
Regional Flexible Funding (RFF) Program
Plan referenced:
2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
Document type:
Evaluation rubric and application narrative requirements
Purpose:
Scoring and assessment of project narratives
Organ / committee:
Project Selection Committee
Audience:
Project applicants seeking funding
Evaluation criteria:
Alignment with selected MTP goals
Structure:
Three-paragraph narrative assessed across responsiveness levels
Time horizon:
2050
Funding context:
Regional transportation funding
Year:
2021
Region / City:
KYOVA Metropolitan Planning Organization area (Cabell and Wayne Counties, West Virginia; Boyd and Greenup Counties, Kentucky; Lawrence County, Ohio)
Topic:
Transportation Planning
Document Type:
Request for Qualifications/Proposals
Agency:
KYOVA Interstate Planning Commission
Author:
KYOVA Interstate Planning Commission
Target Audience:
Consulting Firms
Effective Period:
2021-2022
Approval Date:
May 10, 2021
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Date:
April 26, 2024
Type:
Press Release
Organization:
National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA)
Partner Organization:
Legacy Infrastructure Group
Location:
Greenbelt, MD
Contact:
Bill Rowan
Phone:
240-825-4444
Email:
[email protected]
Initiative:
The Road Forward
Focus:
Net zero carbon emissions in asphalt pavements by 2050
Companies Mentioned:
Haskell Lemon Construction Co.; Superior Bowen Asphalt Co.
Founding Year of Legacy Infrastructure Group:
2022
Enrollment Deadline:
August 30, 2024
Industry Sector:
Asphalt pavement industry
Geographic Scope:
United States
Date and Time:
July 25, 2018, 4:15–5:15
Session Title:
Childhood 2050: Exploring Creative Futures for Young Children and Families
Speakers:
Joe Waters (Capita); Grady Powell (Openfields)
Partner Organization:
KnowledgeWorks
Moderator:
Ginger Young (Book Harvest)
Documenter:
Lisa Finaldi (NC Early Childhood Foundation)
Thematic Focus:
Strategic foresight in early childhood and family policy
Type of Document:
Session documentation and facilitation guide
Key Topics:
Funder role; future scenarios; technology and caregiving; stakeholder engagement; transformational change
Methodological Tools:
Cone of Plausibility; 2x2 scenario matrix; General Principles of Foresight
Audience:
Funders; GLR Network participants; early childhood leaders
Geographic Scope:
Communities and states within the GLR Network context
Document type:
Technical note
Subject:
Passenger transport modelling methodology
Tool referenced:
DPP Tool for passenger transport
Time horizon:
2020–2050
Base year for comparison:
2010
Projection year:
2050
Calibration data source:
In-country research partners
Main categories:
Demography and economics; Human settlement, land development and spatial organization; Sociocultural practices and lifestyles; Technological development of vehicles; Fuel generation and carbon content; Penetration of alternative motorizations and car stock
Key variables:
Population; Household size; Household income; GDP growth rate; Mobility indicators; Energy consumption; Fuel prices; Electricity mix; Motorization rate; Car stock composition
Indicators computed:
Emissions; Energy consumption by mode and motorization; Car and bus occupancy rates; Electricity carbon content; Annual sales and stock loss rates
Document Type:
Supplementary appendix
Main Title:
Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases: Projections from 2025 to 2050
Study Framework:
Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2019
Subject:
Cardiovascular diseases
Geographical Scope:
Global
Time Frame of Projections:
2025–2050
Methodology:
Cause of Death Ensemble model (CODEm); Poisson regression models; age-standardisation using GBD 2019 population estimates
Key Measures:
Mortality; Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs); Prevalence; Risk factors
Statistical Outputs:
1000 model draws; 95% uncertainty intervals (25th and 95th percentiles)
Corresponding Author:
Dr Nicholas WS Chew
Affiliation:
Department of Cardiology, National University Heart Centre, National University Health System, Singapore
Additional Contributor:
Professor A. Mark Richards
Note:
Affiliation
Christchurch Heart Institute, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand
Content Components:
Supplementary materials; figures; tables; references
Data Classification:
GBD Super-Regions; GBD Regions; World Bank Income Groups
Year:
2020
Region:
Gulf of Maine, United States of America and Canada
Topic:
Ocean acidification, climate projections, marine biogeochemistry, fisheries impacts
Document type:
Supplemental material to a scientific research article
Authors:
S.A. Siedlecki; J. Salisbury; D.K. Gledhill; C. Bastidas; S. Meseck; K. McGarry; C.W. Hunt; M. Alexander; D. Lavoie; Z.A. Wang; J. Scott; D.C. Brady; I. Mlsna; K. Azetsu-Scott; C.M. Liberti; D.C. Melrose; M. White; A. Pershing; D. Vandemark; D.W. Townsend; C. Chen; W. Mook; R. Morrison
Affiliated institutions:
University of Connecticut; University of New Hampshire; NOAA Ocean Acidification Program; Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant; NOAA Milford Laboratory; NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory; Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; University of Maine; Environmental Protection Agency; Bedford Institute of Oceanography; NOAA Narragansett Laboratory; Mook Sea Farm; Gulf of Maine Research Institute; University of Massachusetts Dartmouth; Northeastern Regional Association of Coastal Ocean Observing Systems
Study period:
2004–2017 observational data; projections to 2050
Methods:
Regional Ocean Modeling System (ROMS) simulations with empirical biogeochemistry; observational comparisons; ensemble model scenarios (present, 2050_RCP8.5, 2050_slug)
Data sources:
NOAA Fisheries Service; WHOI seasonal data; GOMECC 1 and 2; ECOA 1; UNH Coastal Marine Laboratory observations
Key variables:
Temperature; salinity; total alkalinity; dissolved inorganic carbon; aragonite saturation state (Ωarag); acidification intensity and duration
Species focus:
Commercially important Gulf of Maine species including American lobster and sea scallop
Geographic coordinates referenced:
WB7 station (42.859 °N, -69.860 °W)
Year:
2022
Country:
United Kingdom
Region:
England, Scotland, Wales
Topic:
Food system environmental impact and footprint reduction targets
Document type:
Request for Proposals (Terms of Reference)
Organization:
WWF-UK
Commissioning institution:
WWF-UK
Project manager:
Carmel Edwards
Project location:
Living Planet Centre, Woking, United Kingdom
Sector:
Environmental research and food policy
Key research focus:
Environmental footprint of the UK food system
Impact areas assessed:
Greenhouse gases, material footprint, biomass footprint, marine resource use, land degradation and land use change, nutrient use, chemical pollution, water pollution, water availability, air pollution
Geographic scope of analysis:
Domestic and overseas impacts of UK food production and consumption
Target timelines:
2030 and 2050
Expected outputs:
Technical report, public research report, policymaker summary report, presentation slides
Estimated project duration:
Approximately 27 working days over 10 weeks
Planned publication timeframe:
June 2022
Estimated project budget:
£20,000–£35,000 (inclusive of VAT)
Stakeholder groups considered:
Governments, businesses, farmers and fishers, consumers
Related policy frameworks:
Sustainable Development Goals, UNFCCC commitments, Convention on Biological Diversity
Year:
2025
Country:
New Zealand
City:
Wellington
Theme:
Climate change policy and emissions reduction targets
Document type:
Government report / official response
Institution:
Ministry for the Environment (Manatū mō te Taiao)
Government body addressed:
House of Representatives
Legal framework referenced:
Climate Change Response Act 2002
Related body:
Climate Change Commission (He Pou a Rangi)
Review subject:
2050 emissions reduction target
Publication date:
December 2025
Publisher:
Ministry for the Environment
ISBN:
978-1-991404-21-3
Publication number:
ME 1934
Copyright holder:
Crown copyright New Zealand
Address:
PO Box 10362, Wellington 6143, New Zealand
Official website:
environment.govt.nz
Geographical scope:
New Zealand
Key topics:
greenhouse gas emissions, biogenic methane targets, international shipping and aviation emissions, climate strategy, emissions budgets
Time horizon discussed:
2030–2050 and post-2050
Basis of review:
Recommendations from the Climate Change Commission and the Methane Review scientific report
Year:
2012
Countries:
1 MDC, 2 LDCs
Data Sources:
U.S. Census International Database, Population Reference Bureau 2012 Population Data Sheet
Document Type:
Educational Assignment
Intended Audience:
Students studying population demographics
Required Content:
Population pyramids, population statistics, demographic transition analysis
Analysis Period:
2012–2050
Sections:
Population pyramids, population statistics table, five-paragraph summary
Key Metrics:
Projected population 2025 and 2050, infant mortality rate, fertility rate, birth rate, death rate, natural increase rate
Year:
2018
Region:
United States
Theme:
Transportation energy efficiency and policy
Document type:
Press release
Organization:
Alliance to Save Energy
Authors:
50x50 Commission members including Scott Keogh, Dean Seavers, Jason Hartke
Target audience:
Policymakers, industry leaders, public officials
Date of release:
September 26, 2018
Period covered:
Up to 2050
Key topics:
Electrification, autonomous vehicles, energy efficiency, mobility, infrastructure, public-private partnerships
Context:
National transportation commission report presenting recommendations to policymakers for halving U.S. transportation energy use by 2050 while improving mobility and integrating new technologies
Year:
Not specified
Region:
Puget Sound region
Subject:
Regional planning; urban growth centers; land use and development policy
Document type:
Planning checklist and review guidance
Organization:
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
Related regional strategy:
VISION 2050
Related framework:
Regional Centers Framework (2018)
Related legislation:
Growth Management Act
Planning scope:
Regional Growth Center plans
Planning process stages:
Plan scoping; draft plan review; certification review; regional collaboration; centers monitoring
Monitoring period referenced:
2025 monitoring following 2024 local plan updates
Target users:
Local jurisdictions preparing or updating regional growth center plans
Key thematic areas:
Regional collaboration; environment and climate change; land use and development patterns; transportation and infrastructure investment
Geographic planning unit:
Designated Regional Growth Centers including Urban Growth Centers and Metro Growth Centers
Minimum size guidance:
Urban Growth Centers 200–640 acres; Metro Growth Centers 320–640 acres
Density guidance:
Minimum existing density 18 activity units per acre for Urban Growth Centers and 30 for Metro Growth Centers
Growth strategy reference:
Target of 65% regional population growth and 75% employment growth in centers and high-capacity transit station areas
Supporting resources:
Regional Transportation Plan; Regional Economic Strategy; Plan Review Manual; Certification Reports
Year:
2020
Region / City:
Virginia
Subject:
Interpreter Services, Sign Language, Government Agencies
Document Type:
Manual, Agreement
Organization:
Virginia Department for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Target Audience:
Qualified Sign Language Interpreters, State and Local Government Agencies
Effective Date:
January 1, 2020
Date of Approval:
January 1, 2020
Date of Last Update:
January 1, 2020
Note:
Year
Region / City:
Burlington
Subject:
Signage Regulations
Document Type:
Application Form
Authority / Institution:
Burlington City Government
Target Audience:
Property owners, contractors, and individuals applying for sign permits
Program name:
Ashland Sign & Façade Program
Document type:
Application form
Grant type:
Reimbursement grant
Administering organization:
Town of Ashland
Administering program:
Ashland Economic Development Incentive Program
Location:
Ashland, Massachusetts
Eligible applicants:
Businesses located in Ashland
Eligible improvements:
Exterior façade and sign improvements
Maximum funding amount:
Up to 50% of project cost or $5,000
Funding source:
Town funding
Approval authority:
Ashland Economic Development Advisory Group; Town Manager; Board of Selectmen
Submission requirements:
Completed application, bids, permits, supporting documents
Contact person:
Economic Development Director
Contact address:
101 Main Street, Ashland, MA 01721
Contact email:
[email protected]
) 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:
2019
Region / City:
Indiana
Subject:
World Languages
Document Type:
Academic Standards
Institution:
Indiana Department of Education
Author:
Indiana Department of Education
Target Audience:
Teachers, School Administrators, Curriculum Planners
Period of Application:
Kindergarten to Grade 12
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Revisions:
2019
Year:
2016
Region / City:
London
Topic:
Traffic Sign Illumination Research
Document Type:
Invitation to Tender
Organization:
Transport for London (TfL)
Author:
Transport for London (TfL)
Target Audience:
Research firms, Tenderers
Period of Activity:
February 2016
Approval Date:
February 2016
Modification Date:
N/A