№ lp_1_2_20817
File format: docx
Character count: 4378
File size: 280 KB
Guidance source describing required structure, content standards, governance roles, review practices, and metadata needed for drafting and managing mandatory university policy documents.
Institution:
University of Queensland (UQ)
Document type:
Policy drafting guidance
Scope:
University policies
Intended use:
Guidance for development, approval, and management of policies
Key sections covered:
Purpose and scope; principles and key requirements; roles and responsibilities; monitoring and review; appendices; document metadata
Target audience:
Staff involved in policy development and governance
Compliance focus:
Laws, regulations, government policies, and professional standards
Review framework:
Monitoring, assurance, and periodic review requirements
Authorship roles referenced:
Policy owner; unit head; document author; enquiries contact
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:
2024
Region / City:
Washington, D.C.
Topic:
Bibliographic Cataloging Standards
Document Type:
Standards Document
Organization / Institution:
Program for Cooperative Cataloging
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Catalogers
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Date of Approval:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Contextual description:
A standards document for cataloging resources using RDA and BIBCO guidelines, focusing on various types of materials including archival, audio, cartographic, graphic, and rare resources.
Year:
2015
Region / City:
Ashland
Project ID:
1181-11-70
Project Type:
Miscellaneous (Culvert Replacement)
Prepared by:
Jarrod Starren
Phone:
715.720.6261
Office/Firm:
SEH, Inc.
Email:
[email protected]
Project Limits:
29th Avenue – 36th Avenue
Highway:
USH 2
Date:
February 6, 2015
Report File:
USH2.txt
Cross Section Data Filename:
CL1SEC.ear
Proposed Cross Section Filename:
CL1ENDXX.ear
Existing Topo Information:
TOPO25.dgn
Graphical Data:
010101_ti.dgn, 020101_gn.dgn, 021001_cd.dgn, 022001_ec.dgn, 023201_ps.dgn
Geodetic Reference Information:
See form DT1773
Superelevation Data:
N/A
Slope Staking Report:
CL1ENDXX.soe, CL1END.ssk
DTM Data:
Exist.srv118051.zip
Existing Topo Including Utilities:
Industrial Road Detour topo 4-15-14.dgn
Existing Cross Section Data:
CL1SEC.ear
Proposed Cross Section Data:
CL1ENDXX.ear
Structure Survey Information:
Storm Sewer Survey.pdf, Bench Marks.pdf
Survey Points Attributes:
APN, XC, YC, ZN, JN, GM, FC
Geometry Data:
CL1, ALUSH225.dgn, PRUSH225.dgn
Cross Section Information:
STA 9+35 – STA 29+10 (CL1)
Note:
Year
Year:
2015
Region:
Australian Capital Territory
Subject:
Records management, Metadata standards, Electronic document management
Document type:
Guidance / Standard
Organization:
Territory Records Office, ACT Government
Author:
Wayne Finlaison
Target audience:
System owners and administrators in ACT Government organizations
Applicable systems:
HP Records Manager 8, Objective, Business Information Systems
Standard referenced:
AS/NZS 5478:2015, AS ISO 15489, AS ISO 23081
Legislation:
Territory Records Act 2002
Document status:
Final
Version history:
0.1 Draft 12/04/2015, 1.0 Final 12/08/2015
Contact:
Wayne Finlaison, Whole of Government Thesaurus Manager
Year:
2025
Region / city:
Global
Theme:
Education for Sustainable Development, Global Citizenship Education
Document type:
Indicator metadata
Organization:
UNESCO, Global Education Monitoring Report
Author:
UNESCO Education Sector
Target audience:
Policy makers, educational authorities
Period of validity:
Until 2030
Approval date:
2025-04-23
Date of modifications:
N/A
Year:
2025
Region / City:
Global
Theme:
Education for Sustainable Development, Global Citizenship Education, Climate Change
Document Type:
Metadata
Organization:
UNESCO Education Sector, Division for Peace and Sustainable Development
Author:
UNESCO
Target Audience:
Governments, Education Policymakers, Researchers
Effective Period:
2021-2026
Approval Date:
2025-04-23
Modification Date:
N/A
Note:
Contextual description
Year:
2024
Region / City:
Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida
Subject:
Water Quality Monitoring
Document Type:
Metadata
Institution:
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Author:
Griffin Alexander, Christopher Mayer, Tristan Clute
Target Audience:
Environmental Researchers, Marine Conservationists, Environmental Agencies
Period of Validity:
January 2024 – December 2024
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
January 29, 2025
Context:
Metadata document outlining water quality monitoring research in Biscayne Bay with a focus on seagrass loss and abiotic parameters monitored via datasonde stations and discrete water samples.
Year:
2024
Region / city:
Global
Topic:
Health
Document Type:
Metadata
Organization:
World Health Organization (WHO)
Author:
World Health Organization (WHO)
Target Audience:
Governments, health organizations
Effective Period:
2030
Approval Date:
2024-12-20
Modification Date:
N/A
Year:
2015
Region / city:
New Zealand
Topic:
Health Information Standards
Document type:
Standard
Organization:
Ministry of Health
Author:
Health Information Standards Organisation (HISO), National Health IT Board
Target audience:
Health professionals, health information technology professionals
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval date:
February 2015
Amendment date:
Not specified
Content type:
Clinical document metadata standards
Year:
2024
Region / City:
Wisconsin
Project Type:
Construction Data Packet
Document Type:
Metadata Sheet
Prepared by:
WisDOT
Contact:
Name, Phone, Email
File Location:
constCD-BaseData
File Naming Convention:
CDP Project File(s)
Description:
Includes general construction data for WisDOT project.
Purpose:
Provides data for general contractor knowledge but not part of the contract.
Source of data:
Field surveys, aerial mapping, geotechnical data
CAD elements:
AutoCAD polylines, Civil 3D points
Date of approval:
2024
Modification date:
Not specified
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Global
Topic:
SDMX Structural Metadata Governance
Document Type:
Guideline
Organization / Institution:
Statistical Working Group
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Statistical agencies, data management professionals
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
March 2023
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2021
Region / City:
COMESA
Theme:
Statistical Data and Metadata Exchange
Document Type:
Request for Expression of Interest
Organization / Institution:
COMESA Secretariat
Author:
Silver Mwesigwa
Target Audience:
Individual Consultants
Period of Validity:
90 days
Approval Date:
28 JULY 2021
Deadline for Submission:
18 AUGUST 2021, 16:00 hours
Contract Value:
US$ 7,500 per month
Evaluation Criteria:
General qualifications, Experience relevant to assignment, Experience in the African region
Contact:
Ted Peter Luka
Clarification Deadline:
7 working days before submission deadline
Year:
2021
Region / City:
Dane County
Topic:
Highway Reconstruction
Document Type:
Metadata Sheet
Agency / Institution:
WisDOT (Wisconsin Department of Transportation)
Author:
Kyle Henderson
Target Audience:
Engineers, Designers, and WisDOT personnel involved in the project
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
07/13/2021
Modification Date:
Not specified
Project Type:
Reconstruction
Project ID:
5845-01-06, 5845-01-08
Project Description:
US 51 – Stoughton to Madison Reconstruction
File Location:
ProjIDBaseDataSurveyTopo-Ex-Survey.dwg
File Contents Description:
Topographic survey data and design alignments
Design Alignments:
Mainline, NB, and RW alignments
Proposed Surfaces:
Combined Top Surface, Datum Surface
Right-of-Way:
PRW, RW-MonPoints
Proposed Cross Sections:
090201_xs.dwg, 090202_xs.dwg
Graphical Data – Plan Reference Files:
Pavement marking, erosion control, lighting design
Graphical Data – Plan Sheets:
Plan sheets in Sheets Plan folder
Note:
Year
Subject:
Civil 3D Design Data
Document Type:
Metadata Sheet
Organization / Institution:
WisDOT
Target Audience:
Engineering and design professionals working with Civil 3D
Year:
2021
Region / city:
Manassas, VA
Topic:
Global Navigation Satellite Systems, Software Defined Radio, Metadata
Document Type:
Technical Standard
Organization / Institution:
The Institute of Navigation
Author:
ION GNSS SDR Standard Working Group
Target Audience:
Researchers, Engineers, and Developers working with GNSS SDR systems
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
) 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
Note:
Year
Region / City:
Australia
Subject:
Joint venture formation
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Solicitors, legal professionals
Year:
2023
Region / city:
California
Topic:
Anti-SLAPP motions
Document type:
Legal guide
Organization / institution:
N/A
Author:
N/A
Target audience:
Legal professionals
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval date:
N/A
Date of amendments:
N/A
Note:
Year