Home

Results 61 - 70 of 239,880 for accepted. Search took 3.35 seconds.  
Sort by date/Sort by relevance
Penalty Scales 3.1 Plagiarism Scales for Undergraduate Programmes Course Assignments - Undergraduate Programmes (version 1.0) Degree of Magnitude Year I Students 1st Occurrence Year I Students 2nd Occurrence Other undergraduate students 1st Occurrence Other undergraduate students 2nd Occurrence All undergraduate 3rd or more occurrences Course Assignments High Scale (50% and more of texts detected)  Teacher warning provided  Resubmission accepted  Advised to do a course on Academic Integrity from Library  Deducting some marks  Resubmission accepted  Ethics on academic writing explained  Teacher warning provided  Resubmission accepted  Case reported at the Department Level  Deducting some marks  Resubmission accepted  Case reported at the Department Level  Disciplinary hearing at Department Level  Record case in the department registry  No more Resubmission  Assignment failed  Moderate scale (30% - 49% of texts detected)  Teacher warning provided  Resubmission accepted  Advised to do a course on Academic Integrity from Library  Deducting some marks  Resubmission accepted  Teacher provides corrective advice  Resubmission accepted  Deducting some marks  Resubmission accepted  Case reported at the Department Level  Disciplinary hearing at Department  Record case in the department registry  No more Resubmission  Marked as it is with strong penalties Low scale (11% - 29% of texts detected)  Teacher provides corrective advice  Resubmission accepted  Deducting some marks  Resubmission accepted  Teacher provides corrective advice  Resubmission accepted  Deducting some marks  Resubmission accepted  Record case in the Department registry  No more Resubmission  Marked as it is with soft penalties 9 Minor scale (Less than or 10% of texts detected)  Corrective advice provided  Resubmission accepted   Final revision required  Resubmission accepted  Check if really plagiarised   Teacher provides corrective advice  Check if really plagiarised  Resubmission accepted  Final revision recommended  Resubmission accepted  No more Resubmission  Marked as it is 3.2 Plagiarism Scales for Postgraduate Programmes Course Assignments - Postgraduate Programs (Version 1.0) Degree of Magnitude 1st Occurrence 2nd Occurrence 3rd or more occurrences Course Assignments High Scale (50% and more of texts detected)  Teacher explains UR Research ethics  Resubmission accepted  Case reported at the Department Level  Advised to do a course on Academic Integrity from Library  Teacher provides corrective advice  Deducting some marks  Resubmission accepted  Case reported at the Department Level  Disciplinary hearing at Department Level  Record case in the registry at School Level  No more Resubmission  Assignment failed  Case reported at the College Level Moderate scale (30% - 49% of texts detected)  Teacher explains UR Research ethics  Resubmission accepted  Case reported at the Department Level  Teacher provides corrective advice  Deducting some marks  Resubmission accepted  Case reported at the Department Level  Disciplinary hearing at Department Level  Record case in the registry at School level  No more Resubmission  Marked as it is with strong penalties  Case reported at the School Level Low scale (11% - 29% of texts detected)  Teacher provides corrective advice  Resubmission accepted  Deducting some marks  Final revision recommended  Resubmission accepted  Record case in the registry at Department Level  No more Resubmission  Marked as it is with soft penalties Minor scale (Less than or 10% of texts detected)  Teacher provides corrective advice  Resubmission accepted  Final revision recommended  Resubmission accepted  Check if really plagiarised  No more Resubmission  Marked as it is 10 3.3 Plagiarism Scales for Internship Reports Internship reports - Undergraduate and Postgraduate Programs (version 1) Degree of Magnitude 1st Occurrence 2nd Occurrence 3rd or more occurrences Undergraduate Programs High Scale (50% and more of texts detected)  Supervisor provides corrective advice  Resubmission accepted  Deducting some marks  Deducting some marks  Resubmission accepted  Case reported at the College Level  Disciplinary hearing at University Level  Record case in the registry at University Level  No more Resubmission  Internship failed  Case reported at the University Level Moderate scale (30% - 49% of texts detected)  Examiner provides corrective advice  Resubmission accepted  Deducting some marks  Resubmission accepted  Case reported at the School Level  Disciplinary hearing at the College Level  Record case in the registry at College Level  No more Resubmission  Internship failed  Case reported at the College Level Low scale (11% - 29% of texts detected)  Examiner provides corrective advice  Resubmission accepted  Deducting some marks  Resubmission accepted  Record case in the registry at Department Level  Record case in the registry at College Level  No more Resubmission  Marked as it is, with strong penalties  Case reported at the College Level Minor scale (Less than or 10% of texts detected)  Examiner provides corrective advice  Resubmission accepted  Final revision recommended  Resubmission accepted  Check if really plagiarised  No more Resubmission  Marked as it is, with very slight penalties  Case reported at the College Level Postgraduate Programs High Scale (50% and more of texts detected)  Examiner provides corrective advice  Resubmission accepted  Deducting some marks  Record case in the registry at school level  Resubmission accepted  Deducting some marks  Case reported at the College Level  Disciplinary hearing at College Level  Record case in the registry at College Level  No more Resubmission  Internship failed  Case reported at the College Level Moderate scale (30% - 49% of texts detected)  Examiner provides corrective advice  Resubmission accepted  Deduction of some marks  Deducting some marks  Resubmission accepted  Case reported at the College Level  Disciplinary hearing at the College Level  Record case in the registry at College Level  No more Resubmission  Internship failed  Case reported at the College Level 11 Low scale (11% - 29% of texts detected)  Examiner provides corrective advice  Resubmission accepted  Deducting some marks  Resubmission accepted  Record case in the registry at School Level  Record case in the registry at School Level  No more Resubmission  Marked as it is, with strong penalties  Case reported at the School Level Minor scale (Less than or 10% of texts detected)  Examiner provides corrective advice Resubmission accepted  Final revision recommended  Resubmission accepted  Check if really plagiarised  No more Resubmission  Marked as it is, with very slight penalties  Case reported at the School Level 3.4 Plagiarism Scales for Dissertations Dissertations - Undergraduate and Postgraduate Programs (Version 1.0) Degree of Magnitude 1st Occurrence 2nd Occurrence 3rd or more occurrences Undergraduate High Scale (50% and more of texts detected)  Supervisor provides corrective advice  Resubmission accepted  Deducting some marks  Required to do a training on reference management system  Deducting some marks  Resubmission accepted  Case reported at the College Level  Disciplinary hearing at University Level  Record case in the registry at University Level  No more resubmission  Thesis failed  Case reported at the University Level Moderate scale (30% - 49% of texts detected)  Supervisor provides corrective advice  Resubmission accepted  Deducting some marks  Required to do a training on reference management system  Deducting some marks  Resubmission accepted  Case reported at the School Level  Disciplinary hearing at University Level  Record case in the registry at University Level  No more resubmission  Thesis failed  Case reported at the University Level Low scale (11% - 29% of texts detected)  Supervisor provides corrective advice  Resubmission accepted  Deducting some marks  Resubmission accepted  Record case in the registry at the School Level  Record case in the registry at University Level  No more Resubmission  Marked as it is, with strong penalties  Case reported at the University Level Minor scale (Less than or 10% of texts detected)  Supervisor provides corrective advice  Resubmission accepted  Final revision recommended  Resubmission accepted  Check if really plagiarised  No more Resubmission  Marked as it is, with very slight penalties  Case reported at the College Level Postgraduate 12 High Scale (50% and more of texts detected)  Examiner provides corrective advice  Resubmission accepted  Deducting some marks  Record case in the registry at College level  Required to do a training on academic integrity and research ethics  Deducting some marks  Resubmission accepted  Case reported at the College Level  Disciplinary hearing at University Level  Record case in the registry  Resubmission not accepted  Thesis failed  Case reported at the University Level Moderate scale (30% - 49% of texts detected)  Supervisor provides corrective advice  Resubmission accepted  Deducting some marks  Required to do a training on academic integrity and research ethics  Deducting some marks  Resubmission accepted  Case reported at the College Level  Disciplinary hearing at University Level  Record case in the registry at University Level  Resubmission not accepted  Thesis failed  Case reported at the University Level Low scale (11% - 29% of texts detected)  Supervisor provides corrective advice  Resubmission accepted  Deducting some marks  Resubmission accepted  Record case in the registry at College Level  Record case in the registry at School Level  No more Resubmission  Marked as it is, with strong penalties  Case reported at the School Level Minor scale (Less than or 10% of texts detected)  Supervisor provides corrective advice  Resubmission accepted  Final revision recommended  Resubmission accepted  Check if really plagiarised  No more Resubmission  Marked as it is, with very slight penalties  Case reported at the School Level Notes: 1.
Language:English
Score: 595209 - https://en.unesco.org/icted/si...14_ur_antiplagarism_policy.pdf
Data Source: un
For certification schemes: Foreign CA results are accepted according to the following conditions: • foreign CB must be accredited by an IAF member; • foreign CB must have an MoU signed with a national CB; • MoU may cover acceptance of assessments and testing; • national CB issues the certificate, assuming full responsibility for the entire certification process. (...) Acceptance of CA results In the near future, an increase in the acceptance of foreign conformity assessment results will be expected, considering that Inmetro’s regulation will be fully revised to focus on essential requirements instead of prescriptive instructions that hinder innovation and competitiveness. Acceptance of CA results under Inmetro’s new regulatory framework Thank you for your attention maborges@inmetro.gov.br lcontier@inmetro.gov.br
Language:English
Score: 595070.85 - https://www.wto.org/english/tr...e/presentations_e/c_brazil.pdf
Data Source: un
Figure 9 – Easypaisa Merchant Acceptance 8.3.1.2.1 Evolutionary Pathways for the MSP Model Because of the potential for variation in the MSP model it is possible to imagine that as eMoney deployments continue to evolve to support merchant acceptance this model will experience some variation as deployments mature. (...) One driver of new technology adoption has been the deployment by MMOs of POIs for merchant acceptance. In many cases MMOs have opted for technology that reflects an extension of their P2P capabilities to drive merchant acceptance. (...) However, there will be pressure to accept payment types or acceptance marks to drive acceptance by enabling a more robust merchant value proposition.
Language:English
Score: 594285.9 - https://www.itu.int/en/publica.../files/basic-html/page195.html
Data Source: un
The Hungarian Government accepts recommendations 128.21, 128.32–33 and 128.35-40. 3. (...) The Hungarian Government accepts recommendations 128.156 and 128.230–232. VI. (...) The Hungarian Government accepts recommendations 128.22, 128.176, 128.222–224 and 128.227. 17.
Language:English
Score: 594130.66 - https://www.ohchr.org/sites/de...C_49_8_Add.1_AV_Hungary_E.docx
Data Source: un
In addition, the CERF Secretariat fully accepts two, partially accepts one and rejects one of the four recommendations directed at the CERF. (...) Partnership and coordination (recommendations 11-15) 9. FAO management accepts three and partially accepts two of the recommendations in relation to partnership and coordination. (...) FAO management partially accepts the two recommendations on equity and targeting.
Language:English
Score: 594092.1 - https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/.../PC106-4Sup1CERF-MR-MA216E.pdf
Data Source: un
Stipulated date for acceptance of documentary credit Date as per agreement when documentary credit is accepted. (...) Date of acceptance of tooling Payment time reference is date of acceptance of tooling or set of tooling. (...) Date of final acceptance of work Payment time reference is the date of final acceptance of work.
Language:English
Score: 593601.46 - https://unece.org/fileadmin/DA...ventTimeReferenceCode_D09B.xsd
Data Source: un
The state in which risks associated with aviation activities, related to, or in direct support of the operation of aircraft, are reduced and controlled to an acceptable level. SM2018 NACC & SAM What is an acceptable level? (...) LATAM Airlines Group, Ecuador SM2018 NACC & SAM SMS Acceptance Process / Proceso de Aceptación del SMS (Regulatory and Technical Aspects) / (Aspectos Técnicos y Regulatorios) • Is the SMS acceptance a separate approval? (...) SM2018 NACC & SAM Challenges of the SMS acceptance process / Retos del Proceso de Aceptación del SMS • What are the challenges faced by the States or service providers during the SMS acceptance process?
Language:English
Score: 593503.56 - https://www.icao.int/Meetings/...%202/0.2%20Day%202_revised.pdf
Data Source: un
Furthermore, several features of this model may support scaling acceptance as MMOs evolve. These characteristics include: the adoption of new technology, different from that deployed for P2P, to drive merchant acceptance; pressures to move towards open loop or inter-operable structures; and finally, adoption of the Payment Facilitator model. Finally, we have seen MMOs adopt a merchant acquirer model because of their desire to pursue a card centric approach coupled with a physical POI to drive their evolution into merchant acceptance. While this approach presents opportunities to scale merchant acceptance, question still remain. (...) To build on this effort, there are a number of additional activities considered, these include: 1 assigning the profiled deployments in the appendix of this chapter to a model, create a more robust sample and focus on the points evolution identified in the MSP model; 2 development of merchant acceptance KPIs and their systematic on-going tracking; 3 further investigation into these deployments with a focus on merchant acceptance; 4 identifying, understanding and profiling third parties that have emerged to play a role in the acceptance value chain; 5 identify growth inflection points, drill down and distill key learnings. 170     193     194     195     196     197     198     199     200     201     202     203          
Language:English
Score: 593111.2 - https://www.itu.int/en/publica.../files/basic-html/page198.html
Data Source: un
“Despite progress, the emphasis on acceptance has not always filtered down to the country office and sub-office levels, where understandings of acceptance – and familiarity with organizations’ acceptance policies and guidelines – were generally limited,” the report found in 2017. (...) • What are the major challenges identified so far to sustain access and pursue acceptance? Why is it important to address them and how could this be done? (...) Identifying challenges and limitations to building acceptance in the new security environment; b. Identifying lessons-learned and best practices in terms of security and programme management; c.
Language:English
Score: 592934.6 - https://www.unocha.org/sites/u...0to%20People%20in%20Need_0.pdf
Data Source: un
To achieve this, it is critical to give consumers avenues to spend money received electronically. Merchant acceptance of electronic payments from consumers and other businesses can increase the velocity of money in the ecosystem, therefore reducing the costs and risks associated with “cash-in, cash out”. • The DFS Focus Group has published a series of reports on electronic payments acceptance. “Enabling Merchant Acceptance in the DFS Ecosystem” describes the value chain and segmentation; four other reports look at particular aspects of acceptance: B2B Payments and the DFS Ecosystem (if a merchant can buy their inventory electronically, they will be more willing to accept consumer payments); Merchant Data and Lending (merchant transaction history can lead to credit extension); The Impact of Social Networks on Digital Liquidity (social networks may enable small merchant eCommerce); and The Impact of Agricultural Platforms on Digital Liquidity (agricultural platforms should integrate with consumer wallets). • While recognizing the importance of the topic, policy makers should be aware that there is no single “killer app or factor” to enable electronic acceptance. (...) Measures should be considered to ensure that small merchants which are today accepting only cash are not subject to immediate taxation upon moving to electronic payments.
Language:English
Score: 592934.6 - https://www.itu.int/en/publica...s/files/basic-html/page11.html
Data Source: un