№ files_lp_3_process_7_012839
File format: docx
Character count: 18138
File size: 54 KB
A research report detailing archival findings in Arezzo and Florence, focusing on the historical records related to taxes, duties, and goods trade in the 15th century, including details about the Gabelle and related documents in local archives.
Year:
2013
Region / City:
Arezzo
Theme:
History, Archives
Document Type:
Research Report
Institution:
Archivio di Stato di Arezzo, Archivio di Stato di Firenze
Author:
Franco Pratesi
Target Audience:
Researchers, Historians, Archivists
Period of Validity:
15th Century
Approval Date:
27.02.2013
Date of Modifications:
None
Note:
Context
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:
1427–1439
Region / City:
Arezzo, Italy
Subject:
Trade of playing cards and mercery
Document Type:
Historical account / merchant records
Institution / Archive:
Fraternita dei Laici di Arezzo, ASFdL
Author:
Franco Pratesi
Individuals Mentioned:
Agnolo di Giovanni, Francesco, Antonio, Giglio di Bettino
Family Information:
Agnolo di Giovanni lived with his mother Nanna, wife Lorenza, and five children
Economic Data:
Taxable income L.1125, lists of possessions, debts, and credits
Locations:
Via di Seteria, Arezzo; proximity to Santa Maria della Pieve and Piazza Grande
Items Traded:
Naibi Grandi, Naibi Piccoli, charte mezane
Timeframe of Records:
1427–1439
Related Sources:
Catasto books, other account books of local retailers
Year:
2024
Region / City:
Malawi
Subject:
Education, Infrastructure Development, Environmental and Social Management
Document Type:
Report
Organization / Institution:
Government of the Republic of Malawi, Ministry of Education
Author:
Government of Malawi
Target Audience:
Government officials, education sector stakeholders, contractors
Implementation Period:
December 2021 – December 2025
Approval Date:
February 2024
Revision Date:
February 2024
Note:
Study Summary 1.1 Please provide a brief summary of the study in the table below. A complete description of the study with detailed information should be provided in the body of the protocol. For sections not applicable to the study, mark them as N/A. Study Title Study Design Primary Objective/Purpose Secondary Objective(s)/Purposes Research Intervention(s) ClinicalTrials.gov NCT # Study Population Sample Size Study Duration for individual subjects Study Specific Abbreviations/ Definitions
Background 3.1 Provide the scientific or scholarly background for, rationale for, and significance of the research based on the existing literature and how will it add to existing knowledge. :
this section should be limited to only information directly related to the research questions and objectives. Do not include your full dissertation proposal. 3.2 Describe any relevant preliminary data (e.g. pilot data).
Procedures Involved 5.1 Describe and explain the study design. 5.2 Please select the methods that will be employed in this study (select all that apply):
☐ Audio/Video Recording ☐ Psychophysiological Recording ☐ Behavioral Interventions ☐ Record Review - Educational ☐ Behavioral Observations and Experimentations ☐ Record Review - Employee ☐ Deception ☐ Record Review- Medical ☐ Focus Groups ☐ Record Review - Other ☐ Interviews ☐ Specimen Collection or Analysis ☐ Investigational Medical Device – (e.g. Medical Mobile Applications) ☐ Surveys and/or Questionnaires ☐Psychometric Testing ☐ Other Social-Behavioral Procedures Provide a description of all research procedures being performed and when they are performed. (Upload any surveys, questionnaires, interview scripts, focus group scripts, debriefing scripts, psychometric tests, stimulus materials, intervention manuals, and data collection forms on the Local Site Documents page in the IRB application.) 5.3 Describe the procedures or interventions that are going to be conducted as part of the research project, but that would have been conducted anyway, even if the research was not occurring (i.e. standard of care procedures, activities that would occur in a classroom). 5.4 Describe the procedures performed to lessen the probability or magnitude of risks of items selected in 5.2.5. 5 If accessing or collecting existing data, describe: The data that will be collected during the study (e.g. demographics, medical history, etc.). Attach the data capture sheet(s) on the Local Site Documents page in the IRB application. How the data will be obtained, including how you have the authority to access the data. The source or location of the data (e.g. USF Epic, TGH Epic, Hillsborough County School records, CANVAS records, publicly available databases, etc.). 5.6 If collecting and/or analyzing biological specimens, describe: How the biological specimens will be or have been collected. How the biological specimens will be stored. How long the biological specimens will be stored. How the biological specimens will be used. The laboratories that will be used. Whether the collected biological specimens will undergo genetic testing. If so, indicate if this study is part of a Genome Wide Association Study (GWAS) and whether the data will be forwarded to the NIH dbGaP. 5.7 If there are plans for long-term follow-up (once all research related procedures are complete), what data will be collected during this period.
Data and Specimen Storage for Future Research 6.1 If data or specimens will be banked for future research studies, describe where the data or specimens will be stored, how long it/they will b:
the process to request a release, approvals required for release, who can obtain data or specimens, and the data to be provided with specimens.
) 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:
2020
Region / city:
Johns Hopkins University
Topic:
Coronavirus, Medical Research, Virus Characteristics
Document type:
Informational Article
Organization / institution:
Johns Hopkins University
Author:
Irene Ken
Target audience:
General Public, Researchers
Period of validity:
Ongoing
Date of approval:
4/3/2020
Date of changes:
N/A
Year:
2022
Region / City:
Beijing, China
Topic:
Neutronics, Fusion Energy, Tritium Breeding Ratio
Document Type:
Research Paper
Organization / Institution:
CAEP Software Center for High Performance Numerical Simulation, Institute of Applied Physics and Computational Mathematics
Authors:
Xin Wang, Rui Li, Yuanguang Fu, Guiming Qin, Li Deng, Xueming Shi
Target Audience:
Researchers and Engineers in Fusion Energy
Period of Action:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Modification Date:
Not specified
Acknowledgement:
Sponsored by National MCF Energy R&D Program (No. 2022YFE03160001)
Note:
References
Li Deng, Gang Li, Bao-Yin Zhang, et al., A High Fidelity General Purpose 3-D Monte Carlo Particle Transport Program JMCT 3.0, Nuclear Science and Techniques, 33:
108 (2022)
Wang, X., Li, JL., Wu, Z. et al., CMGC:
A CAD to Monte Carlo Geometry Conversion Code, NUCL SCI TECH 31, 82 (2020)
Year:
2023
Region / City:
N/A
Topic:
Wireless Networking
Document Type:
Technical Submission
Organization / Institution:
IEEE
Author:
Po-Kai Huang
Target Audience:
Engineers, Researchers, IEEE members involved in wireless networking standards
Period of Validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
2023-03-27
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2012
Region / City:
New South Wales
Theme:
Science Education, Working Scientifically
Document Type:
Educational Guidelines
Institution:
NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA)
Target Audience:
Science Teachers, Students
Period of Validity:
K-10 Syllabus
Approval Date:
2012
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2022
Region / City:
Wales
Topic:
Applied Linguistics, Language Education, Bilingualism
Document Type:
Academic Reflection
Institution:
Cardiff University
Author:
Paul Tench
Target Audience:
Academics, Linguists, Students in Applied Linguistics
Period of Validity:
1960s-2022
Approval Date:
January 2022
Year:
2009
Region / City:
Tower Hamlets
Subject:
Academic language development for EAL pupils
Document type:
Guide
Institution:
Tower Hamlets EMA team
Author:
Tower Hamlets EMA team
Target audience:
Teachers and practitioners in Tower Hamlets
Period of applicability:
Ongoing
Approval date:
Not specified
Date of modifications:
Not specified
Context:
The document provides guidance on how to support the academic language development of EAL students in Tower Hamlets by offering strategies for teaching language structures and functions.
Note:
Year
Year:
2017
Region / City:
Punjab, Bathinda
Field:
Research
Document Type:
Application Form
Institution:
Central University of Punjab
Author:
Central University of Punjab
Target Audience:
Prospective applicants for Junior Research Fellow position
Period of Validity:
Until position is filled
Approval Date:
Not specified
Modification Date:
Not specified
Year:
2014
Region / city:
N/A
Topic:
Philosophy of responsibility, Volitionism vs Nonvolitionism
Document type:
Academic paper
Organization / institution:
N/A
Author:
N/A
Target audience:
Scholars in moral philosophy
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval date:
N/A
Date of changes:
N/A
Year:
2021
Region:
New Zealand
Topic:
Oral Health Services for Children and Adolescents
Document Type:
Service Specification
Organization:
Ministry of Health
Target Audience:
District Health Boards, oral health practitioners
Previous Versions:
October 2004, June 2015
Next Review:
within five years
Status:
Approved, Mandatory
Contact:
Service Specification Programme Manager, Planning and Accountability, Ministry of Health, [email protected]
Source:
Nationwide Service Framework Library (NSFL)
Note:
Year
Contextual description:
The document is a religious study guide focusing on biblical examples of faith and trust, using interruptions in life as a metaphor for spiritual growth.
Year:
2014
Region / City:
Lisbon
Topic:
Fisheries management, stock assessment
Document type:
Workshop report
Institution:
WKLIFE IV
Author:
Rainer Froese, Gianpaolo Coro
Target audience:
Fisheries scientists, stock assessment experts, fisheries managers
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval date:
30 October 2014
Date of changes:
N/A
Date:
January 18, 2017
Location:
Village of Waterford, Wisconsin, USA
Type of document:
Official meeting minutes
Organizations:
Village of Waterford CDA, Plan Commission, Village Board
Attendees:
Howard Bryant, Bil Luth, Kathy Nargis, Craig Kosut, Tim Denman, Gil Amborn, Tom Roanhouse, Don Houston, Andy Ewert, Jim Schneider, Tamara Pollnow, Jerry Filut, Rebecca Ewald, Marcy Hasenstab, Rick Huening, Barb Messick, Dennis Gahagan, Jay Henrichs, Doug Snyder, Dave Fidlin
Excused:
Gonzalo Perez, Tom Christensen
Topics discussed:
Trail View Preserve Apartments proposal, zoning amendments, developer agreements, water main infrastructure, industrial park evaluation, strategic planning
Decisions made:
Adjournment at 8:05 p.m.
Document author:
Rebecca Ewald, Administrator
Year:
2025
Region / city:
South Asia
Theme:
Education, Environmental and Social Systems Assessment
Document Type:
Report
Organ / institution:
World Bank
Author:
World Bank E&S team
Target Audience:
Stakeholders involved in the Skills: National ITI Upgradation program
Period of Action:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
The document is an Environmental and Social Systems Assessment for a proposed loan to India, focusing on the Skills:
National ITI Upgradation program.
Note:
Year
Subject:
Organic Certification
Document Type:
Application Form
Institution:
CERES
Author:
CERES
Target audience:
Exporters and Importers