BEE-spoke-data/govdocs1-by-extension huggingface dataset:
# Presentation: 609383

## Copy Structure (see Sec 6.4, Text)

** ****Shallow copy:**** an operation that copies one class object to another without copying any pointed-to data**
**Deep copy****:** **an operation that not only copies one class object to another but also makes copies of any pointed-to data**

## ``Rule of the Big 3”

- For classes in which at least one of the data members is a pointer type, if one of the three
**Class copy constructor**
**Overloaded assignment operator**
**Class destructor**
- is necessay, then most likely all three are necessary.
# Presentation: 712853

## Height Modernization Planning: Lessons LearnedNOAA Grants Application Process

***Renee Shields***

**“****Providing Valuable ****Products and Services Into the Future”**

**NGS Convocation 2005**** **

## Grants Online was new – to applicants and to NOAA 

- Increase in number of grants to process
- Process is held up by delays in appropriations – “CR”
- Lack of guidance/changes in what was required/expected by NOAA

- Problems in FY05

## 1. Grants Online was new – to applicants and to NOAA 

- Kudos to applicants! - All NGS grants (9) were submitted online – 2 minor problems, solved in a few days; 1 problem took a couple of weeks
- Many new staff in GMD – learning grants as well as a new system
- Bugs to iron out – software & process

- Lessons Learned - Grants

## Lessons Learned - Grants

- 2. Increase in number of grants to process – in NGS:
- FY01 – CA, NC
- FY02 – CA, NC, LA, WI
- FY03 – CA, NC, LA, WI, MS
- FY04 – CA, NC, LA, WI, MS, AL, WA, SC
- FY05 – CA, NC, LA, WI, MS, AL, WA, KY, TX
- WE HOPE THIS ISN’T GOING TO CHANGE!

## 1982        368 awards, $109.3 M 

- 1987        583 awards, $171.0 M
- 1992        852 awards, $229.4 M
- 1997     1,174 awards, $357.4 M
- 2002     1,498 awards, $906.0 M
- In 20 years: 307% increase in awards, 728.9% increase in obligations ($)
- FY02, NOS was 31% of all awards

- NOAA Grants Statistics

## 3. Process is held up by delays in appropriations – “CR”

- Assume there will always be a “CR”!
- Get around this with:

- Lessons Learned - Grants

**              **_**Multi-year Grants**_

## Multi-Year Grants

- Grant dates cover 3-, 4-, or 5-year period
- Grant $ amount is for life of grant “Subject to availability of funds”
- Review is done when application is submitted, no other reviews unless significant revisions to SOW
- After approval of application, yearly processing = submission of procurement request by NGS to GMD

## 4. Lack of guidance/changes in what was required/expected

- New rules from GMD and NOAA Legal:

- Lessons Learned - Grants

_**Better Guidelines from NGS**_

## Better Guidelines

- Outline information expected in proposal – background, SOW, NEPA requirements, results desired, connection to NOAA mission
- Detail information needed in budget justification, relationship to SOW
- Explain review process – internal and peer
- Explain post-award actions – financial and progress reports, revisions to budget and SOW, extensions

***Questions?***
# Presentation: 323094

## High Temperature, Silicon Carbide,

-   Demonstrated the first power thyristor in SiC
-   Fabricated high-performance Thyristors in SiC that passed 	1000 hour test at 350C
-   Operated SiC thyristors to temperatures as high as 500C
-   Achieved world record SiC power level of 4.2 kilowatts
**COMMERCIALIZATION**
-   Increased SiC material and device sales by >$3.8M
-   Created 14 new jobs and saved existing jobs
-   Initiated tremendous worldwide interest in the area of SiC 	power semiconductors, resulting in multi-$M programs in 	SiC MOSFETs for government and commercial labs
-   Total market potential for SiC Power Thyristors would be 	>$200M

***Cree Research, Inc.***
***Durham, NC***

**S****mall**
**B****usiness**
**I****nnovation **
**R****esearch**

**GOVERNMENT/SCIENCE APPLICATIONS**
-   Will be used in military electric vehicles, i.e., electric tanks, 	more-electric airplane, and shipboard power distribution
-   Applicable for high temperature power conditioning in 		spacecraft and will reduce weight and size of spacecraft
-   Can be used to replace Silicon power devices in power 		circuits for large electric vehicles and locomotives, and for 	solid state power distribution of electricity for utilities
-   SiC Thyristors offer much lower switching losses than 		silicon devices in theses applications.  Potential power 		savings of >$1B/yr are possible

- Lewis Research Center
- Space Power
- 3-022

**High Temperature, Silicon Carbide,**
**Power Thyristor**

**INNOVATION**

- 1991 Phase II, NAS3-26927 , 9/98
- NASA Contact - Gene Schwarze
- Company Contact - John Palmour

- A process for producing high performance power Thyristors in Silicon Carbide (SiC) capable of operating at 350C

***Micrograph of a 10 Amp***
***4H-SiC Power Thyristor***
# Presentation: 335289

## U.S. Department of Health & Human ServicesProject BioShield

## Project BioShield

- Bioterrorism is a clear and present danger.
- The development and availability of effective countermeasures against agents of bioterror are essential to protect the homeland.
- It is critical to expedite and accelerate the development of effective countermeasures.

## Project BioShield

- To accelerate the process of research, development, purchase, and availability of effective countermeasures against agents of bioterror.

**Project BioShield**

## Project BioShield

- Establish secure funding source for purchase of critical biomedical countermeasures.
- Increase authorities and flexibility for NIH / NIAID to expedite research and development of critical biomedical countermeasures.
- Establish a FDA Emergency Use Authorization for critical biomedical countermeasures.

**Project BioShield**

## Project BioShield

- Permanent and Indefinite Appropriations to DHS.
- Current projection is $5.6 billion over 10 years for smallpox, anthrax and botulinum countermeasures.
- Funding would be available for other countermeasures once production of licensable products is judged scientifically feasible.
- Appropriation can only be used when the President has approved a joint request from HDS and HHS Secretaries.
- HHS is the procuring authority.
- Appropriation can only be used to purchase countermeasures for which there is no significant commercial market other than homeland security.

**Project BioShield**

## Project BioShield

- Streamline procurement authority.
- Expedite review of grants, contracts and cooperative agreements.
- Bolster authorities for acquisition, construction, and renovation of facilities.
- Expedite professional and personal services contracts.
- Provide flexibility with regard to personnel authority.

**Project BioShield**

## Project BioShield

- Based on a threat determination by the DHS Secretary, DOD Secretary or the HHS Secretary, the HHS Secretary can issue an order allowing an unapproved drug or biologic to be used in an emergency.
- HHS Secretary must find that there is reason to believe: that the product is effective, that the benefits outweigh the risks, and that there is no adequate alternative.
- This new authority could be used to facilitate the use of the Aventis-Pasteur smallpox vaccine in an emergency.
- HHS Secretary can impose certain conditions (e.g., who may administer and to whom, consent requirements, labeling and record keeping).

**Project BioShield**
# Presentation: 843683

## 2003 SSG-WI Study Program

- Near Term Evaluation - 2008
- Existing & Committed Transmission & Resources
- Future Evaluation - 2013
- Gas – Assumes 86% of new generation is fueled with gas near load centers
- Coal – Assumes 66% of new generation is coal fired remote from load centers
- Renewable – Assumes 72% of new generation is from renewable (wind, etc.) remote from load

## 2008 Findings

- Identified transmission paths that may be congested in the near term, based upon existing and committed resources
- In the 2008 study, identified approximately $110 million in unrealized production cost due to path congestion (with planned facilities).

## Slide 3

## 2013 Findings

- Identified transmission facilities necessary to alleviate path congestion for 3 bookend resource scenarios
- Gas – 1325 miles - $2.6 billion
- Coal – 7605 miles - $16.7 billion
- Renewable – 3360 miles - $6.7 billion

##    2013 - New Transmission to Alleviate Congestion

**   ****2013 - New Transmission to Alleviate Congestion**

**Gas **

**Scenario**

**Coal**

**Renewables**

**+**

**+**

**DC**

**Scenario   **

**Scenario**

**+**

**+**

**+**

**+**

## Data Assumptions 

- Data assumptions for scenarios were developed by the SSG-WI Technical Support Group (TSG)
- Resource advocates within the TSG identified resource levels and locations (renewable scenario – wind advocates, etc)
- All data in studies is in public domain
- Typical data was developed for market sensitive information (heat rates, etc.)
- Transmission infrastructure – from WECC transmission data
- Resource planning margin of 25% for all scenarios
# Presentation: 697382

## Your Customer Service Representative

- Acts As Liaison With Client Agencies
- Notifies Customers of System Problems or Availability
- Coordinates and Solicits Customer Participation in the 	Semi-annual HR Briefing
- Coordinates Quarterly Payroll/Personnel Orientations
- Coordinates Agency Visits to NFC
- Conducts Tours, Presentations, and Demonstrations
- Follows up With and Provides Status on Customer Requests and/or Projects

## Your Customer Service Representative

- Provides help desk support               504-255-5230
- Troubleshoots problems with data entry, inquiry, and reporting applications
- Mainframe
- Client
- Web
- Submits system problem reports as needed
- Researches problems with missing datasets and files
- CAIS files
- TM 102 downloads
- Debugs FOCUS reports
- Responds to printer/telecommunications questions
- Troubleshoots problems transmitting T&A data
- General inquiries

## Your Customer Service Representative

- Coordinates new client implementations
- Conducts planning and strategy meeting
- Develops plan for implementation

## Your Customer Service Representative

- FOCUS (Basic and Advanced)
- STAR (Client/Web)
- EPIC/HCUP
- Reporting Center
- CULPRPT
- ISPF
- VPSPrint

- RFQS
- EARN
- EPP/ESS
- PMSO
- IRIS
- PINQ
- TMGT

-  Develops/Conducts training and system 	demonstrations

## Your Customer Service Representative

- Tests and Certifies
- Tests newly developed systems and modifications to existing systems and applications
- Coordinates external user testing
- Certifies new systems and modifications to existing systems

## Your Customer Service Representative	

- Provides business analysis service
- Prepares comprehensive review and analysis of office procedures
- Conducts statistical analysis
- Performs a review of operational environment
- Develops recommendations

## Your Customer Service Representative

- Missing paychecks
- Unpaid employees
- Assistance with suspended transactions
- SPPS or MANLOG problems

- Questions about payments
- Status of manual payments
- TINQ issues
- General payroll information

- Operations Control Center - 504-255-5037
-   Telecommunications/connectivity  		problems
-   Security problems
- Payroll/Personnel Inquiry  - 504-255-4630

## Your Customer Service Representative

- When to e-mail NFC.Webmaster@usda.Gov
- Problems/questions concerning access/pin for the employee personal page and employee self service
# Presentation: 724065

## Enhanced Perinatal Surveillance in Louisiana

## Background

- Expanded Perinatal Surveillance (EPS)
- Funded by CDC beginning in 1999
- Medical record abstraction for all          HIV-exposed babies born since 1999
- Follow-up of all HIV-exposed babies to ascertain infection status
- Birth registry match to ensure completeness
- In Louisiana from 1999-2001, abstractions on 432 babies have been completed

## How have EPS data been used?

- To evaluate the state’s perinatal prevention programs
- Perinatal working group
- Annual and regional reports/epi profile
- Provider education
- Perinatal summit
- collaboration between staff from prevention, services, surveillance, and medical providers

## EPS - Strengths

- Detailed information not routinely collected on standard case report form
- Ex: prenatal care history, antiretroviral history,
-    use of rapid testing, mother’s substance use
- Allows for targeted interventions with providers and medical facilities
- Information obtained from multiple sources
- prenatal care, hospital, and pediatrician records

## Challenges in Using EPS Data for Evaluation Purposes

- Timeliness - ability to use data for “real-time” interventions
- Completeness - records are not always available, babies lost to follow-up
- Small sample size - difficult to look at regional trends, subgroup analyses
- Data quality issues - consistency among data abstractors

## EPS Data Used in Perinatal Working Group

## HIV prevalence among African-American women giving birth in the Baton Rouge region

**Percent of deliveries that are to an HIV-positive mother**

- 1 in 163

- 1 in 85

- 1 in 71
# Presentation: 391009

## Comments of the Gas Processors Association

**Natural Gas Quality & Interchangeability**
**Docket No. PL04-3**
**May 17, 2005 Technical Conference**

**Joel Moxley, Sr. Vice President**
**Enterprise Products Operating L.P.**

## GPA & the “Midstream” Energy Industry

- What is the GPA?
**Trade organization of 110 member companies**
**Members produce over 90% of U.S. NGLs**
**Strong history in technical, safety, and environmental issues**

## NGC “Plus” Findings

- The GPA participated in and supports the findings of NGC “Plus” found in White Papers on Liquid Hydrocarbon Drop Out and Gas Interchangeability.  The GPA is the only organization solely representing gas processing in the midstream energy segment.
- 	_Upstream_	_Midstream_	_Transportation_	 _Consumers_
- 	NGSA	GPA	INGAA	AGA
- 	IPAA		NAESB	APGA
- 	Intl. LNG			EEI
- 	NAESB			EPSA
- 				PGC
- 		Other: Univ. of Houston		GAMA
- 				NAESB

## GPA Recommendations

- Hydrocarbon drop-out should be controlled using cricondentherm HDP standards
- CHDP standards should be uniform in specific geographic regions in the 10-40°F range
- Determination of CHDP should be done using extended gas analyses (C9+) combined with equation of state calculations
- Long term, CHDP results should be verified through automated dewscope equipment
- Waivers of CHDP standards should be short term and transparent to all parties

## Processing Clarifications

- Gas processing isn’t always profitable
- Gas quality variations make economic differences
- NGL and gas market locations are significant
- Operating costs of processing are material
- Operation of processing plants is subject to physical and contractual limits
- Idle processing capacity isn’t always useable due to gas availability
- Processing plants won’t recover more NGLs than necessary to meet CHDP standards unless economics dictate
- Plant residue gas must meet the strictest common denominator of quality specifications

## Gulf Coast Processing 2001-2003

**Gulf Coast Processing 2001-2003**

**($/MMBtu)**

**NGL Value**

**NYMEX Natural Gas**

**2001**
**Nat Gas $4.26**
**NGL $4.11**

**2002**
**Nat Gas $3.21**
**NGL $3.56**

**2003**
**Nat Gas $5.39**
**NGL $5.10**

**$1.00**

**$2.00**

**$3.00**

**$4.00**

**$5.00**

**$6.00**

**$7.00**

**$8.00**

**$9.00**

**$10.00**

**2001**

**2002**

**2003**

**Sustained period of marginal processing economics**

## Parting Thoughts

- GPA members operate the facilities to insure sufficient amounts of NGLs are extracted to meet CHDP standards
- Improved economics in 2004 and 2005 have not altered inherent volatility of processing
- CHDP standards should be clearly defined in next 60 days so all parties can make necessary operational and economic decisions; FERC should continue to review standards as more data is known
- With clear and consistent CHDP standards and practices, GPA members will continue to play a vital role in the US energy value chain
# Presentation: 725079

## Session #17

- HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
- OPEN FORUM
- Joel V. Harrell, Director
- Special Initiative Services

## Who are we?

- 	Within the School Services and Training Channel, the Special Initiative Service unit strives to proactively identify the unique needs of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving institutions, and Tribally controlled colleges.

## Slide 3

## Examples of Services Provided

- Technical assistance in programmatic and administrative areas
- Provide customized training that is developed to meet the unique needs of the institution

## Examples of Services Provided

- Assists institutions in performing on/off campus assessments and if warranted, the development of corrective action plans

## Basic Guiding Principles of Assistance

- We are here to help!
- We are not program reviewers or auditors
- Our emphasis is self initiated institutional self improvement

## HBCU CLIENTS

- Historically Black Colleges and Universities

## Historically Black Colleges and Universities Expenditure Levels 

**2005-2006 AY **
** **
**Pell Grants****	****	****	****	****	****$489,639,171**
**FFEL****	****	****	****	****	****	****$928,958,276**
**Direct Loans****	****	****	****	****	****$663,902,602**
**FSEOG****	****	****	****	****	****$  48,038,727**
**FWS****	****	****	****	****	****	****$   36,980,439**
**Federal Perkins****	****	****	****	**_**$   18,617,702**_
**Total****	****	****	****	****	****         $ 2,186,136,917**

## Most Frequently RecurringAudit/Program Review Findings 

- R2T4 Calculations not performed
- R2T4 Calculations performed late
- R2T4 Calculations performed              incorrectly
- Inadequate SAP Policy

## Most Frequently RecurringAudit/Program Review Findings 

- Excess cash on hand
- 	FISAP incorrectly completed
- Inadequate Title IV Funds reconciliation procedures
- Failure to meet required institutional financial ratios
- Lack of written policies and procedures

## Special Initiative Service

- 	We appreciate your feedback and comments.
- We can be reached at:
- Phone:  404-562-6295
- Fax:      404-562-6283
- Email:   joel.harrell@ed.gov

## THANK YOU!
# Presentation: 789829

## GEODYNAMICS  BRANCH

***SCIENCE  HIGHLIGHTS  -  DECEMBER  2001***

**Northern hemisphere projection of the Earth showing volcanic centers (red) active in the last 1 million years and earthquake epicenters (black) for magnitudes > 3.5 between 1963 and 1998. Although most seismicity is associated with plate boundaries,  substantial and significant earthquake activity does occur within the interiors of plates.  Figure derived from *****A Digital Tectonic Activity Map***** by P.D Lowman and J. Yates.**

**Approved DDF Study Tied to Global Earthquake Satellite System**
***Lowman and Yates successfully propose study of intraplate seismicity based on their Digital Tectonic Activity Map***

**Contact:  Paul Lowman, GSFC, Code 921 (lowman@core2.gsfc.nasa.gov)**

_**Objectives of the DDF Study:**_
**      ****Provide a comprehensive global picture of intraplate earthquake epicenters**
**      ****Clarify relations between seismic activity, lithospheric stress, plate motion, and regional tectonic structure**
**      ****Highlight active or potentially active intraplate areas worthy of study by a Global Earthquake Satellite System**
**      ****Produce maps and reports on the above for the scientific and educational communities**

**A DDF proposal to focus attention on intraplate seismic activity has been won by Paul Lowman and Jacob Yates.**
**One  impetus for this proposal is the Global**
**Earthquake Satellite System (GESS) initiative**
**which is looking at  InSAR and other remote**
**sensing techniques for monitoring crustal**
**motion related to earthquakes. The current**
**study builds on a Digital Tectonic Activity**
**Map produced by Lowman & Yates under a previous DDF. **
# Presentation: 300839

## Modeling PARATEC(current progress)

- Dan Gunter, Erich Strohmaier

## Overview

- Goal: Model PARATEC’s 3D FFT
- Scalability of this FFT is the bottleneck on large numbers of processors
- Approach:
- Run MPI microbenchmarks
- multi-ping
- all-to-all (using MPI_{Isend,Irecv})
- Use multi-ping to approximate the all-to-all microbenchmark
- Then try to use the same model for the all-to-all of the FFT transpose

## Results so far

- Multi-ping
- (1..all) processors on each node
- All-to-all
- Separated on-node and off-node timings
- Timings for each “phase”, i.e. send to neighbor+1, neighbor+2, etc.
- Some informal analysis of the variance of the above measurements
- more/better is planned in this area

## Multi-ping results

- For Bassi, Jacquard, and Seaborg

## Slide 5

## Slide 6

## Slide 7

## All-to-all benchmark

- Emulate PARATEC’s all-to-all which uses asynchronous send/receive calls
- Time each processor separately
- Place a barrier between each “phase” of communication
- Next page: cartoon view of all-to-all phases

## Slide 9

## All-to-all results

- For Bassi, Jacquard, and Seaborg

## Slide 11

## Per-phase communication time on Bassi for different message sizes

## Slide 13

## Modeling approach

- Assume known, relatively small distinct ranges of message sizes
- fine for an FFT
- Do table-lookup on multiping results
- Multiply multiping time by #processors
- use full SMP multiping for all phases, or
- use proper mixed SMP for first/last phases

## Formula definitions

- P = number of processors
- S = number of processors on 1 SMP node
- M{x,n} = Maximum observed time on 1 processor to send and receive message of size *n* when *x* processors are active on the SMP.
- T = time from start until last processor is finished

## Formulae for time

- Using only S-way multiping
- T = (P-1)*M{S,n}
- Using 1..S multiping
- T = 2*sum[i=1..S-1](M{i,n}) + (P-2*S+1)*M{S,n}
- Note: difference between these two goes asymptotically to zero as P gets large with respect to S

## Simple model result

- Check how well the model approximates the all-to-all microbenchmark results

## Slide 18

## Slide 19

## Next steps

- Re-run all-to-all without barriers between phases
- Bassi had some big outliers for “local” communication times; run multi-ping within SMP to get a better feel for these
- Gather PARATEC timings
- Compare PARATEC timings with synthetic all-to-all and prediction from simple linear model
# Presentation: 602923

## GUSEV CRATER: ASSESSING ITS RELEVANCE AS THE MER-A LANDING SITE

- Nadine G. Barlow (UCF)
-  Nathalie Cabrol (NASA Ames)
-  Edmond Grin (NASA Ames)
-  Horton Newsom (UNM)
-  Rene DeHon (ULM)

## Which Site is Best?

- Strongest MER-A candidate site will combine safety with achieving the science objectives of the mission.

## Safety

- True, Gusev is not a perfectly smooth site.
- But none of the other sites are perfectly smooth either!

## Safety

## Science Goals

***Does site show clear evidence of surface processes involving ancient water?***
- YES.  Only Gusev and Isidis show _***clear ***_evidence of water and only Gusev shows strong evidence for ponding of water.

## Science Goals

***Is site favorable for preservation of possible prebiotic or biotic processes?***
- YES.  Gusev and Terra Meridiani are the best sites for preservation of such material.  Materials at Gusev could be exposed by impacts.

## Science Goals

***What geologic materials are available?***
- Paleolake sediments.
- Impact materials.
- Sediments probably contain highland materials.
- Hydrothermal materials from Thyra.

## Conclusions

- Gusev meets the safety requirements and science goals of the MER-A landing site.
- It is the only site which _***clearly***_ shows evidence of surface processes involving ancient water and strong potential for preservation of possible prebiotic or biotic processes.
- Gusev is the strongest MER-A candidate site meeting all of these requirements.
# Presentation: 114759

## Minority Institution/Cancer Center Partnership Program (MICCP)

-               **-  Basic Principles**
-               **-  Ultimate Goals/Rationale**
**                ****-  MICCP versus Other Opportunities **
**                    **
**               **

## Basic Principles

**             ****-  Equal partnerships/mutual benefit**
**             ****-  Generation of mainstream competitive,**
**                 ****peer-reviewed support**
**             ****-  Regular External Monitoring/NCI involvement**
**             ****-  Evolution of the Program**

## Ultimate Goals/Rationale

**Build and stabilize *****competitive *****research, career development and training programs *****in MSIs***
**Create stable long-term *****collaborative relationships***** between MSIs and NCI Cancer Centers that address disproportionate cancer incidence and mortality in minority populations**
***Improve effectiveness of Cancer Center***** research, training, career development, education and outreach designed to benefits minority populations**
***Export successful approaches***** in addressing the disproportionate burden of cancer to other NCI Programs**

## MICCP versus other opportunities

**                      ****-  MICCP**
**                      ****-  EXPORT (NCMHD)**
-                    **-   RCMI (NCRR)**
**                      ****-   MBRS (NIGMS)**
# Presentation: 649562

## Unit 7 - Import

## Unit Objectives

- Describe the various types of data imported into ROSS.
- Identify who does the data imports.

## ROSS Data Import

- Data types:
- Qualifications data.
- IQS  –   Incident Qualification System        		      (State).
- IQCS – Incident Qualification and 	             	      Certification System (Federal).

## ROSS Data Import

- Data types:
- Aircraft data.
- OAS source list – NIFC import.
- Airports and VORs.
- FAA – 56 day cycle – Auto FAA import.
- Military routes and special airspace.
- NGA – 28-day cycle – NIFC import.

## ROSS Data Import

- Data types:
- Cache data.
- 	ICBS interface.
- ICBS national cache inventories.

## Review Unit Objectives

- Describe the various types of data imported into ROSS.
- Identify who does the data imports.

## Unit 7 - ImportQuestions?
# Presentation: 549005

## MI/NuMI instrumentation issues

-  Upgrade of MI BPM system
-  Upgrade of MI Beam Loss Monitor system
-  Batch by batch intensity measurements
-  Tune measurement system
-  MI beam quality signal for NuMI Beam permit System

## BPM system upgrade

-  The present front-end system is 20+ years old. Some parts are no longer commercially available (e.g. clock-chips used to decode MI events, we have ~ 200 in hand). The computer interface is based on Z80s.
-  the present BPM system is not working with 6 batches positioned as required by simultaneous antiproton stacking and NuMI operation
-  batch by batch position measurements are currently not available
-  ***upgrade of Main Injector BPM scheduled to be done by november ’05 (cost ~ $900K)***

## Beam Loss Monitors upgrade

-  the present system is using for some of his functions the same multi-bus system used in the current BPM system, which we are in the process of replacing
-  the present electronics can provide integrated losses over the acceleration cycle for only 1 BPM/house (typically 1/10)
-  when running multi-batch at high intensity we need to keep a record (datalog) of beam losses in MI at least for all the Lambertson locations  so we need integrated signals for a good fraction of the loss monitors
-  ***we are in the process of establishing updated specifications for the system in order to proceed with a plan to upgrade the electronics***
*** ******a similar effort is ongoing for the Tevatron system***
*** ******to be done by ??? (cost ~ $250K)***

## Batch by batch intensity measurements

-  we have instrumentation (DCCT, Toroids) to measure total beam intensity in MI
-  we need batch by batch intensity measurements along the acceleration ramp when running in multibatch mode
-  we plan to use a Fast Bunch Integrator system coupled to an existing Toroid detector to provide the measurements
-  ***to be commissioned by May 2004 (?)***

## Tune measurements

-  in order to cope with the large intensity increases in MI to support the NuMI project, we need to have a fast and reliable way to measure tunes
-  the transverse damper system is capable to provide a bunch by bunch tune measurements
-  the plan is to establish a tune measurement system utilizing the dampers (***by May 2004***)
-  we need to recalibrate tune and chromaticity tables (***by May 2004***)

## MI beam quality signal inputs to BPS

-  **No beam present during the rise time of the NuMI kickers**
-  the “no beam present” signal can be provided by a Fast Bunch Integrator System, which is going to be necessary in MI to measure batch by batch intensities
-  **MI beam quality**
-  we want to set an upper threshold on the analog signal of 2 loss monitors in MI at flattop, to be sampled after the pbar batch extraction
-  these will be two dedicated loss monitors, one in the 608 region next to the extraction Lambertsons, and the other at Q612 in a high dispersion region
** ****Extraction position, both horizontal and vertical, within 2 mm **
-  set a 2 mm window on position signals of BPMs HP608/606 and VP607/605
# Presentation: 707924

## American Health Information Community Chronic Care Workgroup 

**Secure Messaging: Evidence Summary and Analysis for Payment Policy **
**David R. Hunt, MD, FACS**
**Office of the National Coordinator**
**April 9, 2008**

## 2006 Secure Messaging Recommendation

- CC 1.0
- HHS should develop and regularly update the evidence base for informed reimbursement policies with respect to secure messaging between clinicians and their patients
- CC 1.1
- HHS should compile and assess the effect of various reimbursement methodologies for secure messaging on clinician workflow

## More than conducting the pilot study

- ...develop an evidence database, and to summarize and integrate the available research findings

## Publications

| Publication Types | 1307 |
| --- | --- |
| Clinical Trial | 324 |
| Comparative Study | 609 |
| Controlled Clinical Trial | 37 |
| Guideline | 20 |
| Meta-Analysis | 8 |
| Randomized Controlled Trial | 309 |

## Key literature references

- Whitten P,Kingsley C,Grigsby J,. **Results of a meta-analysis of cost-benefit research: is this a question worth asking?. **Journal of telemedicine and telecare; May 25 2000 Vol:6 Suppl 1 Issue: Pages: S4-6
- Zhou Y, Garrido T, Chin H, Wiesenthal A, Liang L. **Patient Access to an Electronic Health Record With Secure Messaging**: Impact on Primary Care Utilization. Am J Manag Care 2007;13:418.

## Whitten et. al. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare

- Object: Determine cost-effectiveness of telemedicine
- Study design: Meta-analysis.
- Methods: Meta-analysis 551 english language publications. Thirty-eight articles contained cost data. One-third based on asynchronous services.
- Results: Insufficient data quality to complete meta-analysis.
- Conclusion: Premature for any statements to be made, either positive or negative regarding the cost-effectiveness.

## Zhou et. al.; American J of Man. Care

- Objective: To determine whether patient access to secure messaging affects annual adult primary care office visit and documented contact rates.
- Study Design: Retrospective cohort and matched-control studies with pre-post analysis.
- Methods: 4686 adult patients, 3201 matched-controls
- Results: _**Annual office visit rates decreased 6.7%**_ compared to control.
- Conclusion: Patient access to secure messaging was associated with decreased rates of primary care office visits and telephone contacts.
# Presentation: 718446

## Infrared Air Temperature RadiometerOPHIR CorporationLittleton, CO

- Innovation:
-   Infrared Air Temperature Radiometer

- Accomplishments:
- Two critical U.S. patents have been issued  for our innovations in this field (No.4,394,575         and 4,874,572).
- New U.S. Patent filed in October 1999
- We  have completed a Phase I  feasibility study  and have designed, built and tested a   prototype under Phase II.
- Major aerospace company providing flight test evaluation support.

- Commercialization:
- OPHIR was awarded a NASA Phase I contract through NASA Glenn Research Center to further develop the Air Temperature Radiometer. The proposed Phase II effort utilized MEMS technology to implement most of the optical detection package.  According to one reviewer “The use of MEMS technology will significantly reduce the size, weight, power requirements of the sensor system.”  The reviewer goes on to say “The proposed sensor development in Phase II is a good example of the types of innovative sensor systems that NASA will need in the future to accomplish mission objectives.”
- At this time, representatives of six DoD and NASA programs have contacted OPHIR Corporation concerning the suitability of our Air Temperature Radiometer (ATR) technology for meeting their performance, weight, volume and cost requirements. Proprietary Data Agreements have been signed with several large Aerospace companies. A MOEMS implementation of our technology is currently required by each of these programs.  Additionally, Letters of Support  have been received.

- Government/Science Applications
- Highly accurate and high-speed air temperature  measurements from stealth platforms
- Improved fuel efficiency measurements from commercial aircraft
- Remote detection of atmosphere thermal anomalies
- Remote detection of clear air turbulence and other flight hazards

- Points of Contact:
-    -  NASA (Rodney Bogue 661-258-3193)
-     -  Ophir (Martin O’Brien, 303- 933-2200)
- 1993  SBIR Phase II; NAS 4 50035; SS4 004

- Dryden Flight Research Center
- January 27, 2000

**Prototype 15 ********m Air Temperature Radiometer**
# Presentation: 825099

## Trigger

- A.Nappi
- TB 2/10/05

## Trigger (1.2.7) status

- Coarse evaluation (work in progress ) of effect of
- Removing trigger dedicated digitizers (assuming 16 channel boards for WFD)
-  : digitizers, crates, cables, crate and readout interfaces
- + : additional number of module collectors to perform calorimeter strip sums
- Assume
- PR : 8 strips/view-module
- CAL: quadrant region matching prerad: 1616 shashlik
- Other consequences of reduction in radius not evaluated yet. Expect
- some effect on # of clock receivers
- Negligible effects on veto counter logic
- Beware of side effects:
- PR digitizer crates would have to house calorimeter “strip summers” + mount custom backplane
- Increase by 2 in number of PR WFD crates ( accounted in my estimate)
- Custom backplane costed in trigger

## Trigger (1.2.7) with digitizers (12 ch)

| WBS # | Description | Phys.
m×y | Eng. 
m×y | Tech.
m×y | Equip.
k$ | Tot.
k$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ...1 | Def. architecture | 1.21 | 0.26 | - | - | 37 |
| ...2 | Interconn. boards | 0.17 | 0.48 | 0.35 | 55 | 161 |
| ...3 | Digitizers | 0.30 | 0.52 | 1.21 | 378 | 588 |
| ...4-7 | Routing/collectors | 2.08 | 2.61 | 2.38 | 362 | 999 |
| ...8-11 | Logic modules | 1.64 | 2.07 | 1.64 | 154 | 632 |
| ...12 | Trigger supervisor | 1.47 | 1.90 | 1.21 | 130 | 535 |
| ...13 | Clock | 0.17 | 0.92 | 0.56 | 385 | 580 |
| ...14 | Infrastructure | - | - | 0.26 | 605 | 634 |
| ...15-16 | Commissioning+LV3 | 1.51 | 0.35 | - | - | 49 |

- Total k$                                       1285   861     2069  4215

## Trigger (1.2.7) without digitizers

| WBS # | Description | Phys.
m×y | Eng. 
m×y | Tech.
m×y | Equip.
k$ | Tot.
k$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ...1 | Def. architecture | 1.21 | 0.26 | - | - | 37 |
| ...2 | Interconn. boards | 0.17 | 0.48 | 0.35 | 55 | 161 |
| ...3 | Digitizers | - | - | - | - | - |
| ...4-7 | Routing/collectors | 2.08 | 2.61 | 2.46 | 362 | 1184 |
| ...8-11 | Logic modules | 1.64 | 2.07 | 1.64 | 154 | 632 |
| ...12 | Trigger supervisor | 1.47 | 1.90 | 1.21 | 130 | 535 |
| ...13 | Clock | 0.17 | 0.92 | 0.56 | 385 | 580 |
| ...14 | Infrastructure | - | - | 0.26 | 605 | 222 |
| ...15-16 | Commissioning+LV3 | 1.51 | 0.35 | - | - | 49 |

- Total k$                                       1212   734     1454  3400

## Scrubbing status

- Dictionary + details of estimate complete for un-scaled option, but
- cannot hide that all there is to it is board counting.
- Expressions like
*conventional lump cost of “medium complexity” board*
- A substantial problem* *
- WFD specs for trigger have to be agreed upon
- Could it be that simpler outputs are sufficient ?
- Problem exacerbated by incomplete status of trigger simulations
- Stick to the scenario where maximum amount of info is transferred from WFD to trigger ?
# Presentation: 677282

## DC Fort Worth, TX

**DC Fort Worth, TX**
- _                         __Qty              TL_
- Water -            168,050 ltrs   9
- Meals-               80,640         4
- SPR-                 80,252      130
- Gens-                 27

**RSA Lufkin, TX**
- _                         __Qty          TL_
- Cots -            5,528           7
- Blankets -    25,695          2
- Meals -      319,680         15
- Comfort
- Kits-            19,185

**NLSA Atlanta, GA**
- _                      __Qty____   TL_
- Meals-         46,872          2
- Blue Roof -  6,408 rolls  10
- Blankets -    77,222        17
- Cots-           10,276        15
- Gens-          127

**NLSA Carville, LA**
- _                         __Qty              TL_
- Water -         810,000 ltrs     45
- Meals-           127,872            6
- Blue Roof      3,696 rolls        6
- Tarps -          46,400            23
- Gens -           123
_*Inbound *_
- Meals (9/11)   745,920         35
- Tarps (9/11)   169,500         85

**RSA Port Barre, LA**
- _                         __Qty            TL_
- Water -           266,544 ltrs 15
- Meals-            579,016       28

**RSA San Antonio, TX**
- _                         __Qty          TL_
- Meals -       404,646         19
- Blankets-    130,779           7
- Cots-          123,972       147
- Towels-      112,500
_*Inbound*_
- Towels              187,500
- Hygiene
- Kits  (9/11)        25,000
- Meals (9/11)      21,312       1
- MHE Kit (9/11)
- Blankets           140,265    32
- Cots                   65,270    76

**NLSA Camp Beauregard, LA**
- _                     __Qty               TL_
- Meals -      575,424           27
- Water -      630,000 ltrs     35
- Ice -           1,240,000 lbs  31

**NLSA Meridian, MS**
- _                         __Qty           TL_
- Water-          900,000 ltrs  45
- Meals -         384,192        18
_*Inbound*_
- Water           127,008 ltrs     7

- As of -  091208 0730 EDT

**NLSA Ft Sam Houston**
- _                         __Qty                         TL_
- MDRC                                             8
- Meals               84000                     4
- Water               540,000 ltr            30
- Blue Roof         2,688                      4
- Generators       51                          6
- Gens High end  2
_*Inbound*_
*MDRC                             4                         *
- Meals (9/12)            745,000          35
- Meals (9/11-12)      916,000           39
- Meals (9/12-13)    1,000,000          54
- Water (9/11)         2,253,000 ltrs   125
- Water (9/12)            963,000 ltrs     54
- Tarps (9/12)              16,000            7
- Blue Roof (9/12)         4,032 rolls    6
- Gens (9/12)                     19
- Gens High End (9/11)      15    Drivers/Powers (9/12)      60
# Presentation: 943102

## Unstable vref for 1 sift on board 667 (1B7) 

- Board was removed and inspected by M. Matulik, nothing wrong was found on the board, board was re-inserted.
- Vref change: last_calibration-previous_calibration

## Unstable vref for 1 sift on board 667 (1B7)

- Unstable vref causes spike on hot map for fps

## Unstable vthres for board 557 (6A5)

- Hot region developed on 3/11:

## Unstable vthres for board 557 (6A5)

- Board was re-calibrated on 3/11, change of vthres with repect to the previous calibration:
- Board stable since 3/11

## New "latched" VLPC, 3B1

- Now 7 "latched" VLPCs in the system.

## Non working channels, looking for groups to identify bad VLPCs, sifts

## Non working channels in CFTX3

- Fibers 15-18 and 47-50 are on 6A0, SVX 7 all readout by VLPC 8; board was already swapped, so the problem is inside cassette.

## Non working channels in cft according e-log on 3/4/2003 and 3/13/2003

- CFTX2: 9 fibers between 1347 and 1406, 8 belong to VLPC7 in 9A5  svx0
- CFTX3: 11 fibers between 15 and 50, 8 belong to VLPC8 in 6A0 svx7
- This board was swapped and the problem remains-cassette problem
- CFTX5: 11 fibers between 2183 and 2233, 8B6 MCM7 should be swapped
- CFTX6:  9 fibers between 1167 and 1202, 8 belong to VLPC8 in 5A4 svx7
- CFTX6:  9 fibers between 4611 and 4670, 8 belong to VLPC2 in 7A2 svx7
- Not on list of unbiased VLPCs
- CFTX7: 9 fibers beween 909 and 948, 8 belong to VLPC7 in 6A2 svx7
- CFTX8: 10 fibers between 4237 and 4276, 8 belong to VLPC 7 in 8A6 svx0,
- NEW  ONLY ON 3/13/2003 ! Not on list of unbiased VLPCs
- CFTU3: 8 fibers between 4301 and 4340, all belong to VLPC7 in AA6 svx0
- Not on list of unbiased VLPCs
- CFTU4: 8 fibers between 5412 and 5489,  8B2 and 8B3

## Problems with board 637

- Board 637 in slot 3A7
- Looses bias read-back, needs to be power-cycled to recover bias read-back3A7 board sometimes stops working. We had recently three instances:
-           2/19/2993 eLog 177223
-           2/26/2003 eLog 180308
-           3/13/2003 eLog 184123

## Problems with power suppliesMajor alarm form CFT_LVAFE_PS2-B/+55

## Problems with power supplies

- FPD power supply died over the weekend
- Disabled from alarm system:
- CFT_LVAFE_PSC-A/+12V
- eLog 2/13/2003: readback error
- CFT_LVAFE_PS2-B/+33V
# Presentation: 708703

## Follow-up: NIH Peer Review Scoring Scale

**Dr. Norka Ruiz Bravo**
- Deputy Director for Extramural Research, NIH

**Introduction and Orientation**

**Peer Review Advisory Committee**26 September 2005

## NIH Peer Review System

**The NIH peer review system is one of the best, if not **_***the***_** best, in the world**
** ****It is widely copied**
** ****It has allowed NIH to identify excellent ****  science to fund**
-   The cornerstone of the tremendous success of the NIH      extramural program is peer review
-   NIH-sponsored research has extended and improved      human lives in the United States and around the world

## NIH Peer Review System...It Works!

**~ 407,000 Projected Deaths * **

**200**

**100**

**50**

**0**

**150**

**Deaths Per 100,000**

**50**

**55**

**60**

**65**

**70**

**75**

**80**

**85**

**90**

**95**

**00**

**~ 166,000 Actual Deaths**

**Coronary Heart Disease**
**Age-Adjusted Death Rates:** **241,000 Deaths **
**Prevented in 2000**

**500**

**400**

**300**

**200**

**100**

**0**

**50**

**55**

**60**

**65**

**70**

**75**

**80**

**85**

**90**

**95**

**00**

**Deaths per 100,000**

**Year**

**~ 514,000 Actual Deaths in 2000**

**~ 1,329,000 Projected Deaths**
**	****      ****in 2000**

**Reduction in Stroke     Age-Adjusted Death Rates:** **815,000 Deaths Prevented in 2000**

## NIH Peer Review SystemScoring Scale

**If the system is work well then why are we reconsidering the scoring scale?**
**No system is perfect**
**Needs can change over time**
- Therefore, we should _constantly _and _critically_ ask:
**Has the environment changed?  How does the ****system fit in the present environment?**
**Has the state of the art/science underpinning ****the process changed?**
**What might be improved?**

## Today’s Conversation A Critical Look at the Scoring System

**How did NIH arrive at the scoring system that it currently uses?**
- What were the considerations during the most recent examination of the scoring system?
- Why did NIH choose as it did?
**What has changed?**
- Has the field of decision making made advances since the last examination of the scoring scale that should be considered?
- Is information that would be valuable to decision-makers lost in our current system?
**What should NIH do next?**

## Next Steps What Should NIH Do Next?

**Should NIH formally examine its peer review system?  (e.g., Working Group process)**
**What does NIH stand to gain or lose?  What would be the impact of changes?**
**What are the possibilities**
**Report variance of reviewer scores or “votes”?**
**Alter the number of potential bins?**
**Scoring individual review criteria?**
**Other possibilities?**
**Next Steps?**
# Presentation: 047252

## Utility MACT Working Group

- OAQPS/ESD
- July 9, 2002

- Hg:  Accounting forVariation/Error

## Data

- 80 plants
- 3 runs
- 240 data points

## Analysis

- Used SAS VARCOMP (Variance Component) procedure
- Analyzed the following model

##  Where

-  Where
** ***Y**ij* is the observation for the *jth* plant using the *ith* fuel for the *kth* run
-  *μ* is the overall mean,
-  *F* is a fixed effect for the fuel type (e.g. lignite)
-  *P* is a random effect due to a plant,
-  *e* is an error term with all remaining sources of variation

**Notes:**
Each plant uses a fuel but it was not designed into the study what fuel should be used for a particular plant and run

## Results

- Variance component due to plants
- 45.94
- Variance component due to error
- 13.29

## Application

- Variance due to plant for a 3-run mean
- 19.74
- Variance due to error for a 3-run mean
- 4.44
- T-values for 90, 95, and 99 percent, one-tailed confidence interval
- 1.2816
- 1.645
- 3.323

## Application (cont.)

- Mean of best 12% for each fuel type
- Bituminous				0.087
- Sub-bituminous			0.724
- Lignite					2.251

**Notes:**
Bituminous included bituminous, waste bituminous, waste anthracite, bituminous pet coke
Sub-bituminous included sub-bituminous
Lignite included lignite
Whatever fuel used at start of runs was used for all runs 

## Application (cont.)

- Limit will be a one-sided confidence interval of the means of the best 12% percent for each fuel type

## Application (cont.)

- Resulting potential floor levels that incorporate variability (lb/TBtu)
- Fuel			90% limit	95% limit	99% limit
- Bituminous		   5.782	   7.397	  10.409
- Sub-bituminous	   6.419	   8.034	  11.046
- Lignite		   7.946	   9.561	  12.573
# Presentation: 666757

## UWB Emission Limits for GPRs, Wall Imaging, & Medical Imaging Systems

- 0.96

- 1.61

- 1.99

- 3.1

- 10.6

**UWB Emission Limits for GPRs, Wall Imaging, & Medical Imaging Systems**

***Preliminary***

**Operation is limited to law enforcement, fire and rescue organizations, scientific research institutions, commercial mining companies, and construction companies.**

**GPS Band**

## UWB Emission Limits for Thru-wall Imaging & Surveillance Systems

- 0.96

- 1.61

- 1.99

- 10.6

**Operation is limited to law enforcement, fire and rescue organizations.  **
**Surveillance systems may also be operated by public utilities and industrial entities.**

***Preliminary***

- GPS Band

**UWB Emission Limits for Thru-wall Imaging & Surveillance Systems**

## UWB Emission Limit for Indoor Systems

**UWB Emission Limit for Indoor Systems**

- 0.96

- 1.61

- 1.99

- 3.1

- 10.6

***Preliminary***

- GPS Band

## UWB Emission Limit for Outdoor Hand-held Systems

**UWB Emission Limit for Outdoor Hand-held Systems**

- 0.96

- 1.61

- 1.99

- 3.1

- 10.6

***Preliminary***

- GPS Band