№ lp_1_2_59963
File format: docx
Character count: 42626
File size: 192 KB
The document is a technical report on scenarios applicable to NB-IoT and eMTC for Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN), summarizing company proposals and observations on link budget calibration and satellite network parameters.
Year:
2021
Region / city:
Global
Theme:
IoT, Satellite Communication, Network Planning
Document Type:
Technical report
Organization / Institution:
3GPP TSG RAN WG1
Author:
Moderator (MediaTek)
Target Audience:
Engineers, Researchers, Telecommunication Companies
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Not specified
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:
2021
Region / City:
Global
Topic:
Non-Terrestrial Networks, NB-IoT, eMTC
Document Type:
Technical Report
Organization / Institution:
3GPP
Author:
MediaTek Inc., Eutelsat S.A.
Target Audience:
Industry professionals in telecommunications
Period of validity:
Rel-17
Approval Date:
June 14 - 18, 2021
Modification Date:
None
Year:
2021
Region / city:
e-Meeting (Virtual)
Subject:
HARQ operation and enhancements for NB-IoT/eMTC over NTN
Document type:
Technical contribution / meeting report
Organization:
3GPP TSG RAN WG1
Author:
Moderator (Samsung)
Agenda item:
8.15.4
Purpose:
Discussion and decision on potential enhancements
Target audience:
RAN working group members
Reference documents:
RAN#91-e, RAN#92, TR 36.763
Year:
2021
Meeting:
3GPP TSG RAN #92-e
Format:
Electronic Meeting
Dates:
June 14–18, 2021
Agenda Item:
10.5.1
Study Item:
FS_LTE_NBIOT_eMTC_NTN
Title of Study:
Study on NB-IoT/eMTC Support for Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN)
Type of Document:
Status Report to TSG
Leading Working Group:
RAN1
Rapporteur:
Gilles Charbit
Company:
MediaTek
Study Item Status:
Completed
Target Completion Date:
12/2021
Overall Completion Level:
100%
Related Specification:
TR 36.763
Release:
Rel-17 timeframe
Technical Scope:
Time and frequency synchronization enhancements for NB-IoT/eMTC over NTN
Scenarios Covered:
GEO, LEO, MEO satellite deployments
Normative Phase:
Pending further discussion in RAN4
Year:
2020
Organization:
3GPP TSG-RAN WG2
Type of document:
Meeting draft / technical discussion
Authors:
Ericsson, Huawei, HiSilicon, ZTE Corporation, Sanechips, Nokia, Qualcomm, Sequans, Shanghai Chen Si Electronics
Target audience:
RAN2 working group members
Agenda item:
9.1.3
Period of action:
17–28 August 2020
Deadline for comments:
26 August 2020, 11:00 UTC
Topics:
NB-IoT/eMTC carrier selection, Paging carrier improvements, NPRACH configuration, Service-based carrier selection
Intended outcome:
Discussion and decision on carrier selection enhancements
Submitted documents:
R2-2006832, R2-2006835, R2-2007343, R2-2007354, R2-2007570, R2-2007957
Year:
2021
Organization:
3GPP TSG RAN WG1
Location:
e-Meeting
Document Type:
Technical Contribution
Topic:
HARQ Enhancements, IoT over NTN
Author/Source:
Moderator (Samsung)
Agenda Item:
8.15.4
Target Audience:
RAN1 Working Group Members
Study Period:
RAN#91-e to RAN#105-e
Release Reference:
Rel-17
Technical Reference:
TR 36.763
Year:
2020
Location:
Online
Topic:
WUS last used cell behavior and solutions in RAN2
Document Type:
Meeting report
Organization:
3GPP TSG-RAN WG2
Authors:
Huawei, HiSilicon, Qualcomm, Ericsson, ZTE, Thales, Nokia
Target Audience:
RAN2, RAN3, SA2 members
Relevant Standards:
36.300, 36.304, 36.331
Release:
Rel-15, Rel-16
Deadline for Discussion:
25 August 2020, 11:00 UTC
Referenced Documents:
R2-2007334, R2-2007566, R2-2008457, S2-2006478, S2-2005078
Proposals Discussed:
Signal in RRCConnectionRelease, new ‘ConnectionRejection’ indication, WUS UE behavior modifications
Decision Required:
Selection of solution in RAN2 based on RAN3 and SA2 feedback
Summary:
Meeting report containing discussions and proposed solutions regarding the Wake Up Signal (WUS) behavior in NB-IoT/eMTC Release 15 networks, including evaluations by multiple companies and coordination with RAN3 and SA2, to determine the preferred approach for handling WUS last used cell scenarios.
Note:
Year
Region / City:
Canberra
Subject:
Female Genital Cutting (FGC), Clinical Guidelines, Healthcare
Document Type:
Clinical Guideline
Organization / Institution:
Canberra Health Services
Target Audience:
Healthcare staff (medical officers, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, midwives, allied health, students)
Contextual Description:
Clinical guideline outlining the management and prevention of female genital cutting (FGC) for healthcare providers at Canberra Health Services.
B. Tech (Computer and Communication Engineering) (applicable to students admitted from 2018 onwards)
Year:
2018
Region / City:
N/A
Subject:
Computer Science / Engineering
Document Type:
Academic Course Curriculum
Institution:
N/A
Author:
N/A
Target Audience:
Students of B.Tech program in Computer and Communication Engineering
Period of Application:
2018 and onwards
Date of Approval:
N/A
Date of Last Revision:
N/A
Note:
Year
Year:
1998
Region / city:
United States
Topic:
Repair and alteration services
Document type:
Contract Terms and Conditions
Agency / institution:
Federal Government
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
Contractors, Government Agencies
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval date:
Not specified
Amendment date:
Not specified
Year:
Not specified
Region / City:
Not specified
Subject:
Government equipment rental agreements
Document Type:
Contract
Agency / Institution:
Not specified
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Government agencies
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Investigator:
[insert name of principal investigator]
Key Information:
The following is a short summary of this study to help you decide whether or not to be a part of this study. More detailed information is listed later on in this form.
Note:
Why am I being invited to take part in a research study?
You will be asked to _________ [include a high level summary of the procedures that will be done. For example:
You will be given an investigational drug and asked to come for 3 study visits. You will give a total of 3 blood samples and fill out questionnaires asking about how you feel.]
Instead of being in this research study, your choices may include:
[List alternatives procedures. For student subject pools describe alternatives for course credit. For clinical trials describe the options that you would normally offer patient. If applicable, include supportive care as an option.]
Detailed Information:
The following is more detailed information about this study in addition to the information listed above.
[Tell the subject what to expect using lay language and simple terms. Whenever appropriate include the following items:
]
Note:
Year
Topic:
Certification of True Copy
Document Type:
Application Form
Organization:
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Target Audience:
Students of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Context:
Application form for certifying a true copy of academic documents issued by The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
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
Organization:
Asia Securities Industry & Financial Markets Association (ASIFMA)
Type of document:
Guidance / Industry publication
Jurisdiction:
Hong Kong
Topic:
Capital market regulations, IPO underwriting
Date of last update:
6 December 2022
Related authorities:
Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), Hong Kong Stock Exchange
Target audience:
Capital market intermediaries, overall coordinators, sponsors
Legal context:
Code of Conduct for Persons Licensed by or Registered with the Securities and Futures Commission, Listing Rules amendments
Year:
2016
Region / City:
Marshall Space Flight Center, Michoud Assembly Facility
Subject:
Contract Administration, Property Management, Security Requirements
Document Type:
Contract Clause
Author:
Lockheed Martin
Target Audience:
Contractors, Subcontractors
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Amendment Date:
N/A
Context description:
A legal contract clause outlining specific terms related to government property, security access, and organizational conflict of interest for contractors performing work in facilities related to Lockheed Martin projects.
Year:
2013
Region / city:
Geneva
Topic:
Laboratory quality management
Document type:
Standard Operating Procedure
Organization / institution:
Laboratory quality department
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
Laboratory staff
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval date:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Not specified
Year:
YYYY
Region / City:
(Name of State)
Subject:
Atal Innovation Mission Grant Bond
Document Type:
Legal Document
Institution:
Atal Innovation Mission, NITI Aayog
Author:
(Name of School, Principal, Surety)
Target Audience:
Schools receiving grants under Atal Innovation Mission
Period of Validity:
Until the terms of the bond are fulfilled
Approval Date:
(Date of approval mentioned in the letter of sanction)
Date of Amendments:
(If any, mention date)