Subsequent
analysis of actual cases of innovative learning environments led us to add three more dimensions - hence «7 +3» - to optimise the conditions for putting the principles into practice: i) Innovate the pedagogical core; ii) Become «formative organisations» with strong learning leadership; iii) Open up to partnerships.
Not exact matches
In any
case, in the following paragraphs I will first analyze Whitehead's remarks in Process and Reality on societies as the necessary environment for the ongoing emergence
of actual occasions and then show how this
analysis throws unexpected light on Whitehead's further explanation
of the hierarchy
of societies within the current world order, in particular, the difference between inorganic and organic societies, and, among organic societies, those with a «soul» or «living person» and those without such a central organ
of control.
If someone actually makes a good
analysis of the
actual effects
of the 4231 then I am all ears as deduction is a form
of evidence in this
case.
Following some lengthy
analysis of the facts and the previous decisions in the
case, the district court «concludes that defendants are liable for breaching their fiduciary obligations and are liable beginning on August 16, 2001 — or for three funds the later date institutional share classes become available — for the
actual loss in excessive fees paid and for the lost investment opportunity
of this breach.»
But in this post, I'll try and make the
case that most
of the discussion has not related to the
actual analysis described in the paper, but rather to proxy arguments for what people think is «important».
The problem with this type
of writing (and thinking) is that it sacrifices
actual data
analysis in favor
of making the «most convincing
case possible».
Using liquid and ice microphysics models reduces the biases in cloud optical thicknesses to ≲ 10 %, except in
cases of mistaken phase identification; most
of the remaining bias is caused by differences between
actual cloud particle sizes and the values assumed in the
analysis.
I do think the idea
of allowing something close to judicial notice in place
of expert evidence could only have one
of two effects: 1) The judge would have decide on a
case - by -
case basis whether he or she is qualified to advise himself / herself as to «law» generally, or 2) The judge would have to undertake a self - qualification
analysis to determine whether he or she is sufficiently expert in the area
of law in question to forego
actual expert evidence.
In particular Flaux J held that while the
analysis of cases into categories might be helpful in identifying a strand
of authority that was most relevant, there were «any number
of cases [that emphasised] that whether or not
actual damage has been suffered is, in each
case, a fact specific question, an approach which by definition militates against
analysis of the
cases into... rigid categories».
Thus, it's important to compare outcomes (in this
case, satisfaction) while accounting for factors like relationship length (or having kids, which is also more likely for cohabiters), and that more appropriate
analysis actual comes out in favor
of cohabiters.
The study will include, among other requirements, such metrics as return on investment and payback
analyses, comparisons
of spaces that use these measures and those that don't, impact on employment and
actual case studies and data on the spaces where these measures are implemented.