917 resultados para 2nd-row Elements
Resumo:
Top Row: Pat Shaw, Tim Bell, Sam Duran, Mark Foster, Phil Stotz, Dave Heikkinen, Lynn Dobosy, Bob Maistros.
5th Row: Randy Foss, John McHugh, Mark Conner, Doug Hennigar, Mike McMahon, Tom Schmidt, John Risk, Dave Furst.
4th Row: Wally Barnowski, Mark Bohlke, Jay Anstaett, Jim Stokes, Jeff Swanson, Bill Schaeffer, James Grace, Bob Scheper.
3rd Row: Bill Donakowski, Andy Johnson, Abe Butler, Rob Lytle, Greg Meyer, Mike McGuire, st. mngr. Mike D'Agostino, trainer Len Paddock.
2nd Row: asst. coach Ron Warhurst, asst. coach Greg Syphax, Ed Kulka, Kevin Briggs, George Przygodski, Terry Hart, Steve Thiry, Quincy Evans, Jeff McLeod.
Front Row: Geoff LePlatte, Jesse Myers, Doug Gibbs, Bob Mills, head coach Jack Harvey, Jim Howe, Jim Simpson, Dave Williams, Jon Cross.
Resumo:
Front Row, L-R: Andrea McDonald, Kelly Carfora, Beth Wymer, Heather Kabnick, Dianna Ranelli; Lauren LaBranche
2nd Row: May May Leung, Li Li Leung
Row 3: Wendy Marshall, Autumn Donati, Tina Miranda,
Top Row: Debbie Berman, Carrie Zickus
Resumo:
Front Row: Molly Lori, Katy Hollbacher, Jackie Concaugh, Jennifer Barber, Michelle Spannagel, Ebony McClain, Monika Black, Tearza Johnson, Tanya Broad, Julie Copley, Amy Parker, Christie Wilson
2nd Row: Trainer Jean Lett, Abbie Schaefer, Jen Stuht, Debbie Mans, Jessica Kluge, Chris Szabo, Jayna Greiner, Kelly Chard, Ronda Meyers, Mayrie Richards, Linda Stuck, Kathy Tomko, Theresa Hall, Christi Foster, Tanya Clay, Bryn Gerich
3rd Row: Rachel Mann, Karen Harvey, Courtney Babcock, Colette Savage, Laura Jerman, Alexis Collins, Richelle Webb
4th Row: Kristine Westerby, Kristi Wink, Amy Buchholz, Lisa Adams Top Row: Molly McClimon, Julie Victor
Resumo:
Top Row: Leo Cunningham, James Grissen, Joseph Bosza, Ralph Fritz, Robert Ingalls, Harry Anderson, Norman Call
5th Row: Harlin Fraumann, Milko Sukup, Robert Westfall, Robert Zimmerman, Edward Czak, Clifford Wise, Harold Lockard, Robert Kolesar, George Hildebrandt
4th Row: Rudolph Sengel, Albert Wistert, Reuben Kelto, Jack Butler, Tom Harmon, Holbrooke Seltzer, Glen Ireland, George Ceithaml
3rd Row: William Melzow, John Laine, Joseph Rogers, Paul Gannatal, Harry Kohl, Wallace Keating, Philip Sharpe, Rudy Smeja
2nd Row: Charles Schmeling, David Nelson, Michael Megregian, Fred Dawley, John Karwales, Louis Woytek, Clarence Hall, Robert Flora
Front Row: Frank Day, Robert Smith, Larry Wichter. Ted Kennedy, Forest Evashevski, Robert Kresja, Otto Chady, Elmer Madar
Resumo:
Top Row: Ted Kress, Dave Williams, William McKinley, Larry Cox, Dave Hill, Dick Kolesar, Van Schoick, Earl Johnson, Bob Ames.
6th Row: Tony Branoff, Ed Hickey, Don Bennett, Dick Vorenkamp, Tom Hendricks, Doug Murray, Charles Ritter, Mike Orend, Carl Kamhout, Jim Kirby, Joe Krahl.
5th Row: Don Dugger, Jack Wheeler, Wilbur Brown, Jerry Gonser, Bob Sriver, Jim Bates, Ray Donohoe, Dick Strozewski, Dave Rentschler, John Kuchka, George Corey, Phil Endres.
4h Row: Gerry Williams, Gordon Barnes, Edgar Meads, Charles Krahnke, Fred Baer, Stanley Knickerbocker, Jim Fox, John Peckham, John Morrow, Dick Rex, Coach J. T. White.
3rd Row: Coach Don Robinson, Don Drake, Joe Shomsky, Lou Baldacci, Salvatore DiMucci, George Dutter, Ray Kenaga, George Muellich, Jim Bowman, Ted Cachey, Coach Bill Orwig.
2nd Row: Cliff Keen, Dean Ludwig, Duncan McDonald, Ken Shields, Peri Gagalis, Pete Wolgast, Bob Milligan, Ron Geyer, Dick Beison, Dan Cline, Art Walker, Coach Matt Patanelli.
Front Row: Wally Weber, John Veselenak, Tad Stanford, Gene Knutson, Dick Balzhiser, Captain Dick O'Shaughnessy; Head Coach Bennie Oosterbaan; Bob Marion, Bob Topp, Ray VanderZeyde, Ron Williams, Jim Balog, Jack Blott.
Resumo:
3rd row, 3rd from left = Kenneth Russell Smoot; 2nd row, 3rd from right = Frederick Somers Bell
Resumo:
Back Row: Jack A. Green, William W. Hannan, David DeTar, Charles A. Mitchell, Frank Reed, Albert S. Pettit
2nd Row: Irving K. Pond, Tom R. Edwards, John Chase, Charlie H. Campbell
Front Row: Collins H. Johnson, Richard Guy Depuy, Edmund Barmore
Resumo:
Correct specification of the simple location quotients in regionalizing the national direct requirements table is essential to the accuracy of regional input-output multipliers. The purpose of this research is to examine the relative accuracy of these multipliers when earnings, employment, number of establishments, and payroll data specify the simple location quotients.^ For each specification type, I derive a column of total output multipliers and a column of total income multipliers. These multipliers are based on the 1987 benchmark input-output accounts of the U.S. economy and 1988-1992 state of Florida data.^ Error sign tests, and Standardized Mean Absolute Deviation (SMAD) statistics indicate that the output multiplier estimates overestimate the output multipliers published by the Department of Commerce-Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) for the state of Florida. In contrast, the income multiplier estimates underestimate the BEA's income multipliers. For a given multiplier type, the Spearman-rank correlation analysis shows that the multiplier estimates and the BEA multipliers have statistically different rank ordering of row elements. The above tests also find no significant different differences, both in size and ranking distributions, among the vectors of multiplier estimates. ^
Resumo:
Correct specification of the simple location quotients in regionalizing the national direct requirements table is essential to the accuracy of regional input-output multipliers. The purpose of this research is to examine the relative accuracy of these multipliers when earnings, employment, number of establishments, and payroll data specify the simple location quotients. For each specification type, I derive a column of total output multipliers and a column of total income multipliers. These multipliers are based on the 1987 benchmark input-output accounts of the U.S. economy and 1988-1992 state of Florida data. Error sign tests, and Standardized Mean Absolute Deviation (SMAD) statistics indicate that the output multiplier estimates overestimate the output multipliers published by the Department of Commerce-Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) for the state of Florida. In contrast, the income multiplier estimates underestimate the BEA's income multipliers. For a given multiplier type, the Spearman-rank correlation analysis shows that the multiplier estimates and the BEA multipliers have statistically different rank ordering of row elements. The above tests also find no significant different differences, both in size and ranking distributions, among the vectors of multiplier estimates.
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
Objective: This in situ/ex vivo study assessed the effect of titanium tetrafluoride (TiF4) on permanent human enamel subjected to erosion. Design: Ten volunteers took part in this study performed in two phases. In the first phase (ERO), they wore acrylic palatal appliances containing two enamel blocks, divided into two rows: TiF4 (F) and no-TiF4 (no-F). During the 1st day, the formation of a salivary pellicle was allowed. In the 2nd day, the TiF4 solution was applied on one row (ERO + F), whereas on the other row no treatment was performed (ERO + no-F). From 3rd until 7th day, the blocks were subjected to erosion, 4x per day. In the 2nd phase (no-ERO), the volunteers wore acrylic palatal appliances containing one enamel block, during 2 days, to assess the effect of TiF4 only (no-ERO + F). Enamel alterations were determined using profilometry (wear), microhardness (%SMHC) tests, scanning electron microscope and microprobe analysis. The %SMHC and wear were tested using ANOVA and Tukey`s post hoc tests (p < 0.05). Results: The mean of %SMHC and wear ( mu m) values ( +/- S.D.) were, respectively: ERO + F -73.32 +/- 5.16(A)/2.40 +/- 0.60(a); ERO + no-F -83.49 +/- 4.59B/1.17 +/- 0.48(b) and no-ERO + F -67.92 +/- 6.16(A)/0.21:E 0.09(c). In microscope analysis, the no-F group showed enamel with honeycomb appearance. For F groups, it was observed a surface coating with microcracks. The microprobe analysis revealed the presence of the following elements (%) in groups ERO + F, ERO + no-F and no-ERO + F, respectively: Ca (69.9, 72.5, 66.25); P (25.9, 26.5, 26.06); Ti (3.0, 0, 5.93). Conclusions: The TiF4 was unable to reduce dental erosion. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Resumo:
2nd ed
Resumo:
El presente Trabajo de Grado busca caracterizar la cultura organizacional de una empresa del sector Financiero en Colombia y realizar orientaciones de acciones para el cambio organizacional de acuerdo con la estrategia de perdurabilidad establecida por la Alta Dirección de dicha empresa. Para este fin, se realiza una cuidadosa revisión y actualización del estado del arte de los conceptos clave ¨Cultura Organizacional¨ y ¨Cambio Organizacional¨. Es de resaltar que para el primero de ellos, se toma como punto de partida el estado del arte sobre Cultura Organizacional realizado por el profesor Carlos Eduardo Méndez Álvarez y cuyo marco temporal abarca desde los orígenes del concepto en el siglo XIX hasta el año 2006. Asimismo, luego de una cuidadosa revisión de los Modelos de Cambio Organizacional existentes y de la realidad de la empresa objeto de estudio, se adopta el Modelo ADKAR que consta de cinco fases: Conciencia del Cambio, Deseo, Conocimiento, Capacidad – Habilidad y Refuerzo. Asimismo, a partir de la construcción de un fundamento teórico sólido y a través de la aplicación de la metodología para describir la Cultura Organizacional en Colombia MEDECO se busca una aproximación a la Cultura Organizacional de la empresa objeto de estudio con el fin de describir e identificar los rasgos predominantes de su cultura organizacional y entregar una propuesta final con los rasgos necesarios que alientan la consecución exitosa de los procesos de cambio.
Resumo:
Objective: This in situ/ex vivo study assessed the effect of titanium tetrafluoride (TiF4) on permanent human enamel subjected to erosion.Design: Ten volunteers took part in this study performed in two phases. In the first phase (ERO), they wore acrylic palatal appliances containing two enamel blocks, divided into two rows: TiF4 (F) and no-TiF4 (no-F). During the 1st day, the formation of a salivary pellicle was allowed. In the 2nd day, the TiF4 solution was applied on one row (ERO + F), whereas on the other row no treatment was performed (ERO + no-F). From 3rd until 7th day, the blocks were subjected to erosion, 4x per day. In the 2nd phase (no-ERO), the volunteers wore acrylic palatal appliances containing one enamel block, during 2 days, to assess the effect of TiF4 only (no-ERO + F). Enamel alterations were determined using profilometry (wear), microhardness (%SMHC) tests, scanning electron microscope and microprobe analysis. The %SMHC and wear were tested using ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests (p < 0.05).Results: The mean of %SMHC and wear ( mu m) values ( +/- S.D.) were, respectively: ERO + F -73.32 +/- 5.16(A)/2.40 +/- 0.60(a); ERO + no-F -83.49 +/- 4.59B/1.17 +/- 0.48(b) and no-ERO + F -67.92 +/- 6.16(A)/0.21:E 0.09(c). In microscope analysis, the no-F group showed enamel with honeycomb appearance. For F groups, it was observed a surface coating with microcracks. The microprobe analysis revealed the presence of the following elements (%) in groups ERO + F, ERO + no-F and no-ERO + F, respectively: Ca (69.9, 72.5, 66.25); P (25.9, 26.5, 26.06); Ti (3.0, 0, 5.93).Conclusions: The TiF4 was unable to reduce dental erosion. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.