№ lp_2_1_31853
File format: docx
Character count: 8362
File size: 25 KB
The document is a syllabus outlining the course requirements, readings, assignments, and policies for the Information Retrieval course at the University of North Texas during the Summer 2018 term.
Year:
2018
Region / City:
Denton, Texas
Topic:
Information Retrieval
Document Type:
Syllabus
Institution:
University of North Texas
Author:
Brian C. O’Connor, Ph.D.
Target Audience:
Students enrolled in INFO 5206
Period of Validity:
Summer 2018
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:
2018
Region / City:
Rwanda
Topic:
Medical Records Management
Document Type:
Policy
Organization / Institution:
Ministry of Health, Rwanda
Author:
Ministry of Health
Target Audience:
Clinical staff and archivist
Effective Date:
August 2018
Revision Date:
July 2020
Departments:
Clinical Departments, Archivist
Purpose:
To set a mechanism for effective medical record filing, retrieving, and tracking within the hospital.
Note:
Definitions
Record retrieval:
Locating a particular document, file, or record, and delivering it for use.
Equipment:
Patient index, Patient file, Register book.
Department of Health (2006) Records Management:
NHS Code of Practice: part 1.
Year:
2018
Region / city:
London, Midlands, Yorkshire, East of England
Field:
Nursing
Document Type:
Practice Assessment Document
Institution:
Health Education England (London)
Author:
Pan London Practice Learning Group
Target Audience:
Nursing students, academic staff, practice supervisors, practice assessors
Validity Period:
Duration of the nursing placement
Approval Date:
2018
Date of Changes:
N/A
Country:
New Zealand
Organ / Institution:
Organ Donation New Zealand
Scheme:
National Kidney Allocation Scheme (NKAS)
Subject:
Kidney transplantation and deceased donor allocation
Document Type:
Clinical policy guideline
Scope:
Allocation and retrieval of deceased donor kidneys
Clinical Roles Defined:
NKAS Physician; Donor Surgeon; Donor Coordinator; Transplant Surgeon; Transplant Physician
Biopsy Criteria:
Mandatory and discretionary criteria for deceased donor kidney biopsy
Reporting Procedure:
Histological reporting by Pathologist, Lab Plus, Auckland City Hospital
Documentation:
Organ Retrieval Report Form; ODNZ documentation
Exclusions:
Donor assessment prior to allocation
Year:
2025
Region / City:
Global
Topic:
MedDRA Data Retrieval and Presentation
Document Type:
Guide
Organization:
International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)
Author:
ICH MedDRA Working Group
Target Audience:
MedDRA users, industry professionals, regulatory bodies
Period of Effectiveness:
March 2025
Approval Date:
March 2025
Revision Date:
N/A
Year:
2010
Region / Base:
Queensland; Cairns Base; Brisbane
Organization:
Royal Flying Doctor Service Queensland Section
Author:
Dr Minh Le Cong
Document Type:
Clinical Practice Guideline
Manual:
RFDS MED-05 Clinical Practice Guidelines Manual
Title:
Retrieval Sedation Guidelines for the Acutely Disturbed Patient
Subject:
Aeromedical Retrieval Sedation and Risk Management
Clinical Setting:
Aeromedical and Remote Retrieval Environment
Target Population:
Acutely Disturbed Patients Requiring Aeromedical Transport
Contributors:
Professor Ernest Hunter; Dr Geraldine Dyer; Dr Bruce Gynther; Dr Peter Schuller; Dr Geoff Ramin
Referenced Standards:
Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists Professional Standards for Sedation; American Society of Anaesthesiologists Classification
Contraindications:
Known Allergies to RFDS QLD Sedative Agents; Recent Food or Fluid Intake; Respiratory Tract Disease; Substance Intoxication
Monitoring Requirements:
Airway Assessment; Mallampati Classification; ASA Classification; Standardized Sedation and Agitation Scoring
Safety Provisions:
Two-Person Transport Team Requirement; Resuscitation Capability; Physical Restraints Protocol
Year:
2023
Region / City:
N/A
Subject:
Document Management, Search Functions
Document Type:
User Guide
Organization:
N/A
Author:
N/A
Target Audience:
Users of OnBase Web and Unity Clients
Effective Date:
N/A
Date of Approval:
N/A
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2023
Region / City:
International
Topic:
PCT Applications, Legal Status, Patent Examination
Document Type:
Report
Author:
Not specified
Intended Audience:
Patent professionals, legal experts in intellectual property
Date of Approval:
Not specified
Date of Amendments:
16.07.2020 (EP)
Document Status:
Pending, Granted, Withdrawn, Rejected
Year:
2020
Region / City:
Global
Subject:
Medical Terminology, Data Retrieval
Document Type:
Guide
Organization:
International Council for Harmonisation (ICH)
Author:
ICH Working Group
Target Audience:
Regulatory Authorities, Pharmaceutical Industry Professionals
Validity Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
March 2020
Modification Date:
N/A
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Vienna, Austria; Peshawar, Pakistan
Topic:
Scholarly retrieval systems, citation networks
Document Type:
Review Article
Author:
Shah Khalid, Shah Khusro, Irfan Ullah, Godfrey Dawson-Amoah
Target Audience:
Researchers, scholars, academics
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Revisions:
Not specified
Institution:
Southeast University
Document Type:
User manual
System Name:
Self-Service System of Literature Retrieval Reports
Subject:
Literature retrieval report generation and paper claiming procedures
Target Users:
Researchers and system users affiliated with Southeast University
Access URL:
http://10.9.0.38/kycgfwptweb/login?platform_redirect_key=cscy
Authentication Method:
Unified identity authentication login
Database Selection:
One target database per report
Affiliation Requirement:
Papers must list Southeast University as the affiliated institution
Related Platform:
Data Science Platform
Approval Process:
Librarian approval for claimed results
Support Contact:
52090336
Year:
1843
Author:
Charles Dickens
Genre:
Literary analysis / Study guide
Document type:
Educational material
Target audience:
Students, educators
Period covered:
Stave 5 of A Christmas Carol
Themes:
Redemption, transformation, morality
Setting:
Victorian London
Content focus:
Character development of Scrooge, plot events in Stave 5
Format:
Question and answer
Note:
Year
Organization:
Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ)
Document Type:
Record Retrieval Request Form
Intended Audience:
DCJ staff and authorized officers
Fields Included:
Organisation details, requesting officer information, record details, retrieval information
Contact Email:
[email protected]
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Not specified
Subject:
SAP, Excel, Data Integration
Document Type:
Code Snippet / Example
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Developers, SAP Professionals
Action Period:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2019
Region / City:
New York City
Subject:
Energy and Water Usage Benchmarking
Document Type:
Instructional Guide
Organization:
PSEG Long Island
Author:
PSEG Long Island
Target Audience:
Property Owners, Customers of PSEG Long Island
Effective Period:
2019
Approval Date:
Not Provided
Date of Changes:
Not Provided
Context:
A document detailing the procedure for property owners in NYC to retrieve energy consumption data to comply with the NYC Benchmarking Law.
) 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:
2022
Event:
3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #118
Location:
Online
Topic:
Coarse UE location information format and reporting mechanism
Document type:
Meeting report / technical discussion
Organization:
3GPP
Author:
Thales
Agenda item:
6.10.1.1
Deadline for feedback:
2022-05-19 08:00 UTC
Deadline for rapporteur summary:
2022-05-19 10:00 UTC
Proposals for agreement by session chair:
2022-05-19 20:00 UTC
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:
2025
Region / City:
Eastern
Theme:
Conference, Faculty Information
Document Type:
Conference Guide
Organization / Institution:
Write His Answer Ministries
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Faculty
Effective Date:
July 25, 2025
Date of Approval:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Context:
A guide for faculty members attending the Write His Answer 2025 conference, including details on sign-in procedures, tech checks, conference schedule, and waiver agreement.
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Not specified
Topic:
Hosted Voice Services
Document Type:
User guide
Organization / Institution:
Clearspan
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
New Administrators and Users of Hosted Voice Services
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
N/A
Region / city:
N/A
Topic:
Power system, wind energy, inverter systems
Document type:
Technical specification
Organization:
N/A
Author:
N/A
Target audience:
Engineers, power system designers
Effective period:
N/A
Approval date:
N/A
Date of amendments:
N/A