Academic literature on the topic 'Core criteria'

Abstract The effects of filling the core box cavity and sand compaction in processes of core production by blowing methods (blowing, shooting) depend on several main factors. The most important are: geometrical parameters of cavity and complexity of its shape, number, distribution and shape of blowing holes feeding sands as well as the venting of a technological cavity. Values of individual parameters are selected according to various criteria, but mostly they should be adjusted to properties of the applied core sand. Various methods developed by several researchers, including the authors own attempts, allow to assess core sands properties on the basis of special technological tests projecting the process into a laboratory scale. The developed criteria defining a degree or a filling ability factor provide a better possibility of assessing the core sand behavior during flowing and core box filling, which indicate the value and structure of the obtained compacting decisive - after hardening - for strength and permeability. The mentioned above aspects are analyzed - on the basis of authors’ own examinations - in the hereby paper.

Objectives:The aim of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) project is to develop a criteria list for assessment of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. The criteria list resulting from this CHEC project should be regarded as a minimum standard.Methods:The criteria list has been developed using a Delphi method. Three Delphi rounds were needed to reach consensus. Twenty-three international experts participated in the Delphi panel.Results:The Delphi panel achieved consensus over a generic core set of items for the quality assessment of economic evaluations. Each item of the CHEC-list was formulated as a question that can be answered by yes or no. To standardize the interpretation of the list and facilitate its use, the project team also provided an operationalization of the criteria list items.Conclusions:There was consensus among a group of international experts regarding a core set of items that can be used to assess the quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. Using this checklist will make future systematic reviews of economic evaluations more transparent, informative, and comparable. Consequently, researchers and policy-makers might use these systematic reviews more easily. The CHEC-list can be downloaded freely fromhttp://www.beoz.unimaas.nl/chec/.