Classification conflicts

Highly contradictory reports on the degree of delocalization in the complex have been published, with many techniques being used in an attempt to distinguish between the two possible classifications. Conflicting ir 6- 9.502,504-506 photoelectron spectroscopy, " Ru Mossbauer, resonance Raman, H NMR, powder ESR (8-50 K), single crystal ESR... 

All these may be in harmony but there may be occasions when there is conflict. To avoid any confusion you should classify all failures to meet these four requirements as nonconformities and then assign classification so as to treat each according to its merits. 

The flashpoint experimental data overlap each other. Notice in anticipation that there is a limit of 93°C, which leads to a change in the NFPA classification code (inflammability from 1 to 2) showing how sometimes the level of error can have important consequences on risk evaluation. This example shows up another concern, which is in considering a comparison of the approach by Hilado with the author s variant, since there is a conflict between the methods on the calculation of stoichiometric concentration. 

However, environmental awareness, in addition to commercial and technical exploitation, has resulted in considerable activity in this area, leading to a greatly expanded range of products in recent years, as well as some conflicting statements with regard to their environmental properties. The scheme of classification adopted here is as follows ... 

Repeated skin contact in mice with fuel oils has caused skin cancer, although information is conflicting. The lARC has determined that residual (heavy) fuels and marine diesel fuel are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B classification). The lARC has also determined that occupational exposure to fuel oils during... 

With regard to these outcomes risk management may either face a situation of unanimity, i.e. all relevant actors agree with how a given risk situation should be qualified, or a situation of conflict in which major actors challenge the classification undertaken by others. The degree of controversy is one of the drivers for selecting the appropriate instruments for risk prevention or risk reduction. 

A counterbalance to the positive roles that pharmacists play is the increase in the amount of time that we spend on reimbursement and payment issues. Pharmacists in ambulatory care play a role in adjudication of third party claims and often bring the news to patients that a drug ordered for them is not covered by their pharmacy benefit. This often places us in conflict with the patient and their physician in a system that is not our creation. The difficult financial condition of many hospifals places the pharmacist in roles of assuring reimbursemenf for pharmaceuticals for both inpatient and ambulatory care. The Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) system is intricate and terribly complex and pharmacists must be directly involved in some aspect of fhe coding to assure paymenf. These roles do not represent the optimal use of our scarce manpower. 

Positive effects seen in either humans or animals will normally justify classification. Evidence from animal studies is usually much more reliable than evidence from human exposure. However, in cases where evidence is available from both sources, and there is conflict between the results, the quality and reliability of the evidence from both sources must be assessed in order to resolve the question of classification on a case-by-case basis. Normally, human data are not generated in controlled experiments with volunteers for the purpose of hazard classification but rather as part of risk assessment to confirm lack of effects seen in animal tests. Consequently, positive human data on contact sensitization are usually derived from case-control or other, less defined studies. Evaluation of human data must therefore be carried out with caution as the frequency of cases reflect, in addition to the inherent properties of the substances, factors such as the exposure situation, bioavailability, individual predisposition and preventive measures taken. Negative human data should not normally be used to negate positive results from animal studies. 

The classification rests on a firmer foundation and can become more robust, when mere characters are involved. However, this does certainly not imply that decisionii are easier then. Sometimes parts of the character analysis do not (seem to) conform. The weighing process becosws more difficult then and often a solution is expected from a broader factual basis including a different Kind of characters, in the hope that the causes of the "conflicting evidence" will become clear and that the conflict will disappear. 

The amount of difficulty encountered by the teachers in carrying out this task was somewhat surprising. Indeed, two of them had scores of 0 on the task. This contrasts with the sixth graders performance. The lowest score in the accelerated class was 8, and the lowest in the slower class was 3. One reason for the lack of cohesion in the teachers classifications may be the time constraint. They received information about all five situations at one time. It is possible that some of them simply did not understand but would do so if they had more instruction. Another reason may be that they have much more prior knowledge about story problems than did the students. Perhaps they experienced some conflict between certain parts of this prior knowledge and their newly acquired knowledge. 

With two neurons (6.9) and (7.8), a conflict occurs Both neurons were occupied by steroid as well as cycloaliphatic derivatives. Any unknown compound that would hit this neuron could not be assigned properly to one the classes defined in the training. A conflict can be resolved by increasing the size of the network or by separating the classes by using multiple networks, each of which is solving its own classification task. 

Evaluation of results and classification into (i) positive results, (ii) negative results, and (iii) inconsistent, conflicting, or equivocal results. 

The classification of situations and classes of action required is illustrated in Figure 1. Every eventuality is covered by a rule and there are no conflicting rules for any situation. In PROLOG a rule takes the form ... 

Inadequate evidence leads to a group D - Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity classification. Either no data, insufficient data, or conflicting studies may lead EPA to conclude that the data cannot be interpreted, and a D classification would be appropriate. If "two adequate animal... 

---