Ppt on panel discussion presentation

SRT Review Panel Charge Discipline Scientists for Geospace Science NASA Headquarters.

demonstrate…” “The proposal does not contain sufficient description…” The Supporting panelist should act as a secretary and document the panel’s comments while the Presenting panelist leads the discussion The Supporting panelist can take notes directly in the consensus review form file during the presentation, on a blank file in the same folder, or the old-fashioned way (on paper). Stop and write often/


HARNESSING FUSION POWER POWER EXTRACTION Power Extraction Panel Overview Robust operation of blanket/firstwall and divertor systems at temperatures suitable.

presentation?  An apology  Recap Greenwald report issues and gap statement  PeX Panel work on issues and gaps w/ DEMO as goal  Research needs, tools and expertise needed  Q&A and Discussion ?? 5 minutes after each presentation plus discussion sessions Slide 2 Proposed thrusts will be discussed/12 HARNESSING FUSION POWER POWER EXTRACTION So, what has the ReNeW Power Extraction Panel been doing?  Reading and discussing Greenwald report issues and gaps related to Power Extraction and closely coupled areas/


DO NOW – 1/8/16 Write a response to the following question in your CN: 1)Take the handout for the “Panel Discussion” 2)Write down questions you have about.

on roles, brainstorm ideas for texts. 3) Form your panel, decide on roles, brainstorm ideas for texts. The Panel Discussion Roles Moderator – the leader of the panel. During the “live” session, the moderator introduces the speakers, and also leads the Q&A time after each speaker’s presentation. Moderator – the leader of the panel. During the “live” session, the moderator introduces the speakers, and also leads/


The Panel Discussion. What is CONCLAVE ?  Conclave is basically a modified panel discussion.  It will comprise of two panels- One of eminent medical.

the reforms they suggest will be based on study done by them on UG MBBS students. They will present the conclusions of their study and their proposed reforms before the panel of the experts. The panel of the experts will then discuss these issues with the panel of the students.. Why CONCLAVE ? Conclave is an exclusive and one of its kind national platform which lets/


1 Lessons Learned from Virtual Organizing for the Ontology Summit 2007 Presented by Ontolog: Steve Ray, Peter Yim, Frank Olken, Ken Baclawski, Doug Holmes,

of a wiki Use of teleconferences 27 Communique Writing Based on Framework Documents Framework was available on Wiki Presentations and discussion of Framework at the Ontology Summit 28 Communique Built on Framework Document! It would not have been possible/ folken@nsf.govfolken@nsf.gov Oliver Bodenreider: olivier@nlm.nsf.govolivier@nlm.nsf.gov 35 Reflections from the Panel Ken Baclawski 36 Ontology Summit 2007 Population Framework and Survey Analysis Ken Baclawski 37 Objectives Outreach to the communities /


WWRF Conference Panel Discussion Summary

: rath.vannithamby@intel.com Venue: Base Contribution: Purpose: To give a summary of the WWRF conference presentation and panel discussion Notice: This document does not represent the agreed views of the IEEE 802.16 Working Group or any/framework, Within the ITU Reducing the number of candidates has obvious economic advantages! Emerging Wireless Standards – Panel Discussion Highlights from 3GPP2 presentation: 3GPP2 TSG-C formed the Next Generation Technology AdHoc (NTAH) a focus group responsible for the /


2012 SCHOOL COMMUNITY PANEL AND PRINCIPAL SELECTION PROCESS

and separate from the parents and community. At both the teacher/staff and parent/community meetings, this document is presented and reviewed. The intention is that all school community members understand the process to be used for selection of the/prior to the first interview for orientation and pre-panel discussion. The panel will also be advised by the Instructional Superintendent to make their own arrangements for food for the panel members. If the panel wants to review the resumes before the interview, /


Funding Panel Simulation in The Scientific Process course Charles Gunnels 1, Mustafa Mujtaba 1, Edwin M. Everham III 2, Brian Bovard 2, Mary Kay Cassani.

to written reviews, each student engaged in the panel discussion and scoring. Authors then received two anonymous reviews from their peers. POST FUNDING PANEL SURVEY A post-funding panel survey was used to assess students perceptions of /generation and testing; experimental design; construction of a research proposal; composition of a scientific paper; oral presentation; facilitation of a discussion; and critical review of scientific literature and research proposals. The course (information) is located at /


Stephanie Lartelier, MSW

) Bring original forms along with 1 copy (single-sided 8½” x 11” paper, unstapled) to Resource Panel PSC or attendance designee must be prepared to present case history, interventions, family strengths and weakness, along with challenges faced by family. CASE PRESENTATION TO RESOURCE PANEL Present and discuss the case Panel determines if additional interventions and/or referrals are warranted A letter may be mailed by the SARB/


Pedagogical Strategies: C. Cooperative Learning 1. Starter-Wrapper Discussions (with roles) 2. Turn to Your Partner: Quizzes, Top Tens 3. Value Line and.

Panel Discussions/Symposia 10. Case Creation and Replies Cooperative Learning Principles Positive Interdependence Individual Accountability Group Processing Social Skills and Trust Face-to-Face Interaction 1. Structured Controversy Task Assign 2 to pro side and 2 to con side Read, research, and produce different materials Hold debate (present/ Role Play Guest Experts & Lectures Debates, Controversies Symposia, Panel Discuss Electronic Roundtables Concept Maps, Webs Taxonomies, Timelines Thoughtful Exams /


National Science Foundation Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering (CISE) Panel Charge CAREER Proposals.

Criteria For Each Proposal L (Lead) opens the discussion by presenting the objectives of the research, the strengths of the proposed research, and weaknesses of the proposed research R1, R2 (Reviewers 1 and 2) add to the comments or express any disagreements with the lead reviewer if necessary S (Scribe) makes notes on the panel discussion. The scribe may also add comments or express/


CONTENT Presenting Effective Presentation Using Visual Aids Designing the presentation Define the objectives Planning & organizing materials Choosing.

Aids Choosing visual aids Presenting Industrial Design Illustration What is needed? Presentation panels (posters) Presenting sketches Other visual illustration Do not wait to prepare your presentation while on you way to the training session. You cannot do your best at presenting or persuading by "winging it." At a minimum, prepare an outline of goals, major issues to be discussed, and information to be presented to support main themes/


The Superconducting Materials Program of AARD

accelerator builders and to US manufacturing industry. In the first workshop formal presentations were made by UW researchers only; however, it was clear from strong discussion by the attendees that such a researcher-application user-industrial supplier forum was/for a high resolution 900 MHz NMR system by Varian, Inc.. Image courtesy of Oxford Instruments, plc. Larbalestier – Marx Panel – Fermilab – February 15, 2006 A major new application enabled by the Oxford/HEP LARP conductor Proton Cyclotron- 250 /


Presenting on a Panel or Roundtable Student Research Conference, 2015 Erica Litke, HGSE March 23, 2015.

/15 2 Erica Litke, Harvard Graduate School of Education What is the purpose/structure of my session? PANELPresenting a (finished) research study  Why? FEEDBACK!  3-5 papers total  Each person presents their own work for 10-15 mins.  Followed by discussion/ Q&A from discussant and audience ROUNDTABLE  Presenting a study in progress in some way (early stages)  Why? FEEDBACK!  3-5 people doing the/


Service Oriented Architecture SIG

Fusion Middleware and SOA Suite implementations Discuss recent advances in Oracle FMW Architecture in relation to integration with Oracle EBS, PSFT and JDE application suites Panel Members Ron Batra, Deloitte Consulting – Panel Moderator Mike Rulf, US Internetworking Markus/ Founder, CEO, President bkhan@innowavetech.com COLLABORATE 08, featuring the OAUG Forum, offers more than 500 presentations facilitated by industry experts and members of the OAUG. Early Registration – Save $400 Open Now Registration /


International Technology Recommendation Panel ITRP Barry Barish ILCWS 20-April-04.

– Meeting of the Panel, including : § Discussion on how to organize the panel’s work § Presentation of the ITRP charge – Maury Tigner § Telephone inputs from the Laboratory Directors & ICFA Chair § Round table – panellists present issues which they think / : conclusions of the Technical Review Committee report – Gerald Dugan Afternoon (14:00 – 18:00) – panel discussions 1st Meeting RAL 18-April-04COV Report for OHEP19 Criteria for making the Linear Collider technology choice This document sets /


Grants Factory How the peer review panel works Mick Tuite (Biosciences) BBSRC/Leverhulme Trust Simon Kirchin (SECL) AHRC Jan 2013.

Flawed 2 = Not competitive 3 = Fundable but... 4 = Good 5 = Very good 6 = Excellent 7 = Outstanding/world class 20% “Discuss” “Not fund Fund The scoring system: referees  Exceptional (fundable)  Excellent (fundable)  Very Good (fundable)  Good (fundable) / to referees  Succinct, courteous  Include new information Influencing the panel....legally.... Profile – they know who you are  Research/conference papers  Seminars/conferences Presentation of grant  12pt Arial (11pt allowed), layout  Use of/


KICK OFF OF KCLAM Presented by Dr. Kap Lee University of North Dakota Grand Forks, ND USA.

presented at the meetings in Boston in 1946-Gastrointestinal surgery. The second presentation-1947 in Cincinnati – problems in bronchoscopy – Art work by Dr. Robert Litt.The second presentation/Flynn and Schroeder.On May 1950, the first letter of announcing the formation of the panel was distributed to USA and Canada – signed by the fir Chicago veterinarians – Drs/ dated Aug. 10, 1955 addressing Jules’ proposed question to be discussed at Veterinary Care of Laboratory Animal Committee. The question posed was,/


Collaborative for REMS Education Presented by CO*RE Collaboration for REMS Education www.corerems.org Achieving Safe Use While Improving Patient Care Presented.

chromatography/ mass spectrometry IA=immunoassay LC/MS=liquid chromatography/ mass spectrometry Initial testing w/ IA drug panels: Classify substance as present or absent according to cutoff Many do not identify individual drugs within a class Subject to cross-/: benzos, hypnotics, muscle relaxants, etc Identify and treat psychiatric co-morbidity— common in both This review does not discuss the management of pain, requiring chronic opioids, in the context of active or ongoing addiction. Bailey, et al. /


Panel Meeting 196 12 April 2012. Apologies Andrew Pinder 12 April 2012.

implementation dates 16WD if Self Governance or 10WD following Authority decision P275: Panel’s initial views 13 No new arguments were presented Majority support for Panel’s initial recommendation Unanimous support for Implementation Date Unanimous support for Self /with many potential solutions should be considered as Standing Issues instead? »ELEXON encourages this when discussing issues and ideas regarding prospective Modification Proposals with Parties. But it is ultimately up to the Proposer whether to /


11-29-06 Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu) 1 TAMU-C Grant Writing Workshop Presenter: Mike Cronan, PE (inactive) Director, Office of.

questions; Questions will help direct, guide, and focus the discussion on proposal topics. 11-29-06 Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu) 7 Presentation topics Generic competitive strategies Identifying funding solicitations Analyzing the solicitation / plan Org chart Management Program officers Reports, pubs Web speeches Public testimony Review criteria Review process Review panels Project abstracts Current funding Solicitations 11-29-06 Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu) 59/


Objective Review Training 2009 Sponsored by Grants Policy Staff/OMS Michelle G. Bulls, Director Presenter: Ms. Tammy G. Bagley Senior Grants Policy Analyst.

the room, –Requests primary, secondary, and tertiary (as appropriate) reviewer to summarize the project narrative and present strengths and weaknesses of the application, –Second reviewer presents, strengths and weaknesses, –Panel discussion, for clarity if needed, –Call for a motion of approval or disapproval, –Motion is seconded by a panel member, –Votes are taken on the motion, –Reminds reviewers to enter individual scores on their score/


AIAA NFFP TC Update and TAC Proposal on JPC / Conference Consolidation Presented to the NFFP TC Marriott Marquis San Diego, CA Bryan Palaszewski NASA Glenn.

Model Tiger Team AIAA TAC Exec Telecon July 13, 2011 13 Discussion Outline Transition Plan and Timeline Resulting Proposed Baseline Conferences Proposed Conference /and Special Sessions in Red) Commercial Space  Emerging Commercial Propulsion  Commercial Space Panel National Security Space Robotic Technology and Space Architecture Space Exploration Space History, Society,/ for both staff and our planning committees. All of these factors present us with an opportunity - an opportunity to consider fewer, much/


1. Most of the information presented in this workshop represents the presenter’s opinion and not an official NSF position 2.

- look at Chat Box to see if you will be called 26  Pretend you analyzed a stack of panel summaries to identify the most commonly cited strengths and weaknesses  List what you think will be ◦ Most common/? Students’ successes? The diversity of the students? Consider an idea aimed at integrating 3-D visualization software and small group discussions and presentations of homework problems into an engineering mechanics course  List possible goals for this project ◦ Use student perspective not instructor or/


Mock GRF Review Panel The following is the protocol for evaluation of proposals at the panel meeting: (From an actual NSF grant review panel) 1. The Program.

reached on the wording of the panel summary, the primary panelist must approve the panel summary. 9. At the end of each day, and at the very end of the panel after all the proposals have been discussed, the panel will review the ratings and make /topic lead to the next? - Note formatting details (subtitles, bold or italicized statements, spacing) 4. Next week, you will present your analysis of the statement to class so we can compare various formats/styles of essays Ford applicants – read the NSF essays and/


News Essay due: - Oct. 29 if all presentations made by Oct. 24 - Oct. 31 if all presentations made by Oct. 29 Template for essay available in:

topic with their corresponding teammates and send list of questions to panelist by Tuesday night - Panelist make their presentations and the global discussion takes place on Thursday Grading for panels -Evaluation will be based on the preparation and written and oral participation for all three panels. -I need all the materials/information to be send to me ahead of time -Proposed reading material -Questions/


Task Force on Emission Inventory & Projection Expert Panel on Combustion and Industry 23-24 October 2007, Dublin (Ireland) Balances and perspectives Dublin.

Dublin (Ireland), 23-24 October 2007Carlo Trozzi  Report from previous meetings  Main discussion about sector specific tests Dessau meeting Task Force on Emission Inventory & Projection Expert Panel on Combustion and Industry 23-24 October 2007, Dublin (Ireland) Balances and perspectives/ regarded the only individuation and extraction of relevant emissions factors from the BREF documentation and presentation in Tables  A report will be send to the TFEIP segretariat and to the consultant in the next/


CCLA 2015 Annual Conference Challenges for new technologies: physician and payer education and a view from the PAMA advisory panel CARL MORRISON, MD, DVM.

present Surgical pathology 2002-2104 Other pertinent CAP Molecular Oncology Committee 2006-2102 CMS Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests, 2015 COMMENTS: Expertise limited to oncological based molecular pathology. My comments are my own and not those of RPCI or OmniSeq. Dr. Morrison will discuss/regulations for market based pricing of new technologies will also be discussed. State three key points (education objectives) that your presentation will cover. 1.Why gapfill has failed in the past /


September 9, 2002, Circulatory System Devices Panel Meeting FDA Lead Reviewer Summary W.L. GORE & Associates EXCLUDER Bifurcated Endoprosthesis A. Doyle.

shelf-life) have been completed. There are no issues regarding these areas for the panel to discuss. September 9, 2002, Circulatory System Devices Panel Meeting Device Integrity FDA review included assessment of device integrity. As with other stents /panel to discuss. September 9, 2002, Circulatory System Devices Panel Meeting FDA Questions for the Panel 1.The primary safety endpoint of the clinical study was the rate of major complications as evaluated through 12 months. Additionally, data are presented/


Radiological Devices Advisory Panel Meeting Radiological Devices Advisory Panel Meeting Computer-Assisted Detection Devices Panel Questions Radiological.

device? November 18 th, 2009 27Panel Questions Panel Question #5 “Minor modification” The following questions seek additional discussion and clarification of specific responses received at the March 2008 panel meeting. a.Manufacturers often make modifications to /prospective study. Published literature of clinical studies evaluating CAD Mammography in the postmarket setting have not presented a consensus on findings or have limitations that minimize generalizability. Please comment on the following: Although/


1 Lessons Learned from Virtual Organizing for the Ontology Summit 2007 Presented by Ontolog: Steve Ray, Peter Yim, Frank Olken, Ken Baclawski, Doug Holmes,

wiki  Use of teleconferences 27 Communique Writing ● Based on Framework Documents ● Framework was available on Wiki ● Presentations and discussion of Framework at the Ontology Summit 28 Communique Built on Framework Document! ● It would not have been possible to/ folken@nsf.govfolken@nsf.gov ● Oliver Bodenreider: olivier@nlm.nsf.govolivier@nlm.nsf.gov 35 Reflections from the Panel ● Ken Baclawski 36 Ontology Summit 2007 Population Framework and Survey Analysis Ken Baclawski 37 Objectives ● Outreach to the /


The ARCP An Overview. A Trained ARCP Panel? Purpose of the ARCP Normally at least annually A review and record of the trainee’s progress Allows judgement.

by a lay representative GIM – Specialties involving GIM should usually have their representative on the GIM RTC present All panel members must have up-to-date equal opportunities training Preparation for the Day of the ARCPs Identifying the / trainee is then invited into the room Welcomed, panel members introduced Purpose of ARCP explained Outcome discussed (aim to be positive, supportive) CCT date reviewed and if appropriate, Period of Grace discussed (entered in comments section on ARCP proforma in /


Conceptual Design Review of the Magnet Circuits for the HL-LHC: - 21-23 March, 2016 - Review Report presented by Akira Yamamoto on behalf of the Review.

Secretary) Reported at HL-LHC Technical Coordination Committee, 31 March, 2016 16/03/31HL-LHC MagCircuit Rev. Report1 Review Panel Members Review Panel Members: Guram Chlachidze (Fermilab) Arnaud Devred (ITER) Chen-Yu Gung (ITER, through remote contribution) Rudiger Schmidt (/ is essential Document plan presented Current review is expected to validate baseline choices, some R&D already done, hence time to harvest information and compile the ‘Protection R&D documentation’ Discussion: – Lucio: Protection /


Panel Review Orientation for Disability Employment Initiative Grants SGA-DFA-PY-11-11 July 16, 2012 (11:00 – 12:00 pm EST)

job. 12 Panel Review Orientation for Disability Employment Initiative Grants SGA-DFA-PY-11-11 Paneling Process Orientation Materials  Today’s PowerPoint Presentation  Panelist Excel Workbook  Conflict of Interest Form  Security of Proposals Form  Assigned Panel Information  /Placing the page # on your evaluation response sheet will enable quick referral back to the discussion area) 39 Panel Review Orientation for Disability Employment Initiative Grants SGA-DFA-PY-11-11 Scoring Basics, continued For/


HIGHER AUTHORITY APPEALS S TRUCTURE & S TANDARDS OF R EVIEW W HY A RE W E S O D IFFERENT ? Stephen S. Kelly, Jr. Chairman, Appellate Panel South Carolina.

Workforce Commission Presentation Overview  Size Comparison  Structures of HAA  Standards of Review: The Role of HAA  Standards of Review: Evidence & Procedure  Methods of Deciding Cases  Precedential Value of HAA Decisions  Questions/Discussion HAA Size Comparison/the rights of each party to an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal (Lower Authority Appeals) and the Appellate Panel. Regulations governing procedures at hearings and appeals before the Department include:  Procedures for seeking a hearing, /


1 THE VACCINE-AUTISM DEBATE:NEWDEVELOPMENTS FROM SCIENCE AND POLICY Presentation by David Kirby NYU Law School, New York City June 26th, 2008.

which had serious weaknesses in their designs. Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto, NIH Panel Chair, Prof of Public Health, UC-Davis Med School 19 2008 – / Induce inflammation. THIMEROSAL CAN CAUSE IMMUNE IMBALANCES 33 AUTISM ASSOCIATED WITH IMMUNE IMBALANCES Presentation of UC Davis - MIND Institute 2005 IMFAR - International Meeting for Autism Research/ vaccine schedule is flexible… parents shouldnt be reluctant to have such discussions with the childs doctor. Were currently conducting the largest study to investigate/


Presented by: NC State University Office of General Counsel 2011 Faculty Review/Grievance Panel Workshop.

petitioner/grievant Dismissal after presentation if burden not met Presentation of evidence by respondent(s) Closing Statements Closed Session Chair facilitates discussion Burden of Proof on Petitioner/Grievant Discussion of facts as they relate to each key issue Resolution of conflicting evidence Deciding the ultimate issue Findings of Fact/Recommendation to Chancellor Panel Report Introduction - describing the process followed by the Panel Brief Description of the/


Panel Coordination Meeting Panel 3 Improving Information Sharing and Management Capabilities 4 June 2012, 16.30 – 17.00 Harbour Suites A & B Westin Hotel.

Q&A moderated by Panel Chair) 1410Presentation - Mrs. Karna Bryan (20 presentation and 10 Q&A moderated by Panel Chair) 1440Presentation - Mr. Frank Sisto (20 presentation and 10 Q&A moderated by Panel Chair) 1510Coffee Break 1530Presentation - Mr. Keith Wilson (20 presentation and 10 Q&A moderated by Panel Chair) 1600Panel Co-Chairs Wrap up and first question followed by Q&A and discussion session moderated by Co/


BSC Panel 195 9 February 2012. Report on Progress of Modification Proposals Adam Lattimore 8 March 2012.

potential framework for assessing the costs and benefits We can also facilitate discussions on consumer issues Additional analysis 10 Draft timetable of work Next steps MarchBSC Panel meeting AprilWorkgroup meetings – scenarios and assumptions MayIssue consultation – 6 weeks June/ JulyWorkgroup meeting – discuss responses and confirm analysis AugustWorkgroup finalise report SeptemberAssessment report presented to Panel OctoberFinal report sent to Ofgem Ofgem decision by February 2013 to allow/


Systems Integration Panel Discussion: Challenges and Opportunities in Advancing the State of the Art July 2013 Texas Gulf Coast Chapter Tony Williams 1.

) proposed and formed May, 2012: AIAA TAC officially approved the establishment of ASI-WG Activities (January 2012 to Present) Monthly Teleconference, Yearly Face-to-Face Meeting Developing AIAA G135: Guide to Aerospace Systems Integration Conducting/participating in Panel discussions (CASE, New Horizon, ASM, etc) Presentation to AIAA TCs and PCs INCOSE participation 3 INITIAL GUIDELINE NEED Industry need for comprehensive toolset of guidelines and/


CNS Alphabet Soup: CVA, ICH, SAH. Patient Case Presentations,

P. Sloan, MD, MPH FERNE Global Objectives Improve ED neuro patient care Minimize morbidity and mortality Expedite disposition Optimize resource utilization Enhance our job satisfaction 54 2 54 Session Activities Present relevant clinical cases Poll the audience about care Discuss the questions Understand areas of consensus Explore areas of uncertainty Go forth and prosper 54 2 54 Headache and SAH Case/


8 Scriptwriting. 8 Scriptwriting Objectives Identify each of the program formats presented and summarize the unique characteristics of each. Identify.

. Glossary outline script: A program script that usually has a word-for-word introduction and conclusion, but an outline for the body of the script. panel discussion: A program format that presents a group of people gathered to discuss topics of interest. Daytime talk shows are an example of this format. Glossary program proposal: A document created by the scriptwriter that contains general information/


2b. Serious Residential Offences Panel (SROP) RHUL Disciplinary Procedures 2a. Hall Disciplinary This will be held by the Residential Support Coordinator.

a greater sanction, including requesting a resident student to cease living in Hall would be referred to a Serious Residential Offences Panel. This will be held by the Residential Support Coordinator. S/he will carry out a fair enquiry where you can /, s/he will consult with a Vice-Principal to discuss whether the case should be presented to a Student Disciplinary Committee. The Student Disciplinary Officer and the Vice-Principal may then invite you to present a written statement and allow you a period of 7/


Fiber Cement Panels as Rain Screens

wall that allow water penetration. Pressure differences that force water ingress through the structural backup. We will discuss this last form of rainwater penetration more thoroughly in the next slides. Pressure Differences and Water Ingress /materials in various applications, in residential and commercial construction. We will focus on a panelized wall system rainscreen for this presentation. Brick Veneer Panelized Wall System Types of Rainscreens D/BV Rainscreen: PER Rainscreen: There are two types/


CASE-BASED PANEL DISCUSSION Led by Carl Knud Schewe Infektionsmedizinisches Centrum Hamburg.

COMORBIDITIES IN HIV: THE OSTEO-RENAL EXCHANGE PROGRAM3 Disclaimer "The views and opinions expressed in the following presentation are those of the presenter and do not necessarily reflect those of AbbVie Pty Ltd. AbbVie Pty Ltd does not endorse the/ renal ultrasound 5.Other BONE AND RENAL COMORBIDITIES IN HIV: THE OSTEO-RENAL EXCHANGE PROGRAM 26 Renal Case: Question 1 Panel Discussion Why is the determination of creatinine not enough? What formula for eGFR calculation would you recommend? When would be the /


PREPARING FOR AN AER REVIEW A Handy Things-To-Do List Joint URC/UEP Presentation.

 interview guideline  questions generated from panel PROCESS OF THE PANEL (cont’d)  Final Panelist Phone Conference  Panel Leader summarizes the University and Student interviews for panelDiscusses final recommendations for Review Scores  Panel determines FINAL RECOMMENDATION (Approved ~ Conditional /least three candidates who are nearing the end of their program or recent graduates so that you are presented with multiple points of view.  Required questions:  What do you see as the greatest /


BSC Panel 205 8 November 2012. Report on Progress of Modification Proposals Adam Lattimore 8 November 2012.

of: 1 April 2015 if approved on or before 13 February 2014 P272: Implementation Date 10 Assessment Report was presented to Panel in January 2012 By majority, Workgroup believed: Neither Proposed nor Alternative was better than baseline Alternative was better than / Focusses on small segment of market Significant impact Better to do as part of a wider change? P272: Workgroup’s Discussions (1 of 2) 14 Consider DUoS pricing differential to be significant obstacle Obstacle to moving to HH elective now Dis-/


Major Panels on  Sexuality with Björn Salomonsson (Sweden), Luis Kancyper (Argentina), René Roussillon (France), Nancy Kulish (USA)  Dreams with.

Salomonsson (Swe); Luis Kancyper (Arg); René Roussillon (Fra); Nancy Kulish (USA) Saturday 6 August – afternoon Meet the Analyst: Peter Fonagy (UK) Final Plenary Panel Chair: Arnold Rothstein (USA) Discussant: Marianne Leuzinger-Bohleber (Ger) and panellists from all Major Panels Presenters include: Albert Mason (USA); David Bell (UK), David Taylor (UK); Marco Antonio Dupont (Mex); Enrique Nuñez Jasso (Mex); Andres Gaitan(Mex); Raquel Berman/


Philip Burrows IoP HEPP Conference, Oxford 7/4/09 Particle Physics Advisory Panel Philip Burrows John Adams Institute for Accelerator Science Oxford University.

physics Neutrino physics Hadron-hadron collisions Lepton collisions Detector R&D Accelerator R&D Grants Panel PPRP Previous Adv. Panel Philip Burrows IoP HEPP Conference, Oxford 7/4/09 The PPAP Experiment Theory Flavour physics/Invite ‘programme committee’ for each meeting, drawing in more community expertise, to define: scope of meeting topics for presentation speakers discussion questions / issues Philip Burrows IoP HEPP Conference, Oxford 7/4/09 Some ideas – comments please Invite ‘programme committee/


St Margaret’s C of E Junior School Secondary Admissions 2016 Presentation for Parents 3 rd June 2015 Welcome.

before you apply for secondary school places. The aim of this presentation is to help you understand the processes ahead and, hopefully, to answer any questions you may have. The aim of this presentation is to help you understand the processes ahead and, hopefully, to/You will need to discuss this with Miss Dalmedo as soon as you have registered your child for the Medway Test. A request for special arrangements can be made by the school to be considered by the LA’s Special Arrangements Panel. A request for /


Ads by Google