I want to know which dataset will be appropriate for my work. I want to exclude the negated assertions before sanitizing the medical document, which will improve the utility of document. I have noted in the literature of de-identification of the medical document that Privacy models perform unnecessary sanitization by sanitizing the negated assertions, (“AIDS negative”). I am working on the topic "Utility Enhancement for Textual Document redaction and Sanitization". What are the other regions facing remenance of crop residue burning affecting both farmland and homeland?.What are those methods being adopted for restricting the potential harmful effects of the ‘waste sink’ and, wherever possible of converting ‘waste’ into wealth ?.What is the current status of commercialization of such farm wastes converted into a variety of products for nutrient source for crop ?.What are the important value added but cost effective products that can be developed from agricultural farm wastes using in-situ techniques ?.In this backdrop, I am anticipating some educative responses from our RG colleagues on following issues: In synchrony to this issue, the other issues like rural sanitation, recycling and utilization of such wastes, otherwise is a huge potential economic value for the crops to be raised with residues, provided converted into a biological amendment. The system can be used for a minimum of 1 week during floodsĭisposal of farm waste, either from farm as residues or from crop residues, has always been an issue to dispose them, after crop residues are consumed as fodder by the livestocks, besides posing an invitable environmental threat, popularly known as crop residue burning.The technology selected should be within the economic and financial reach of the household and government budgets 7.
Acceptable cost: this does not mean necessarily that the system is cheap. Up-gradable: in the future “step-by-step” (incremental) improvements and extensions are possible 6. Long-lasting with minimal maintenance: a long technical lifetime and only occasional maintenance, i.e. Simple to operate: the daily operation is minimal and only requires simple and safe routines 4. The facility is a short walking distance from the house and can be used safely by women, girls and elder people, also at night 3. Convenient and safe: there are limited odours and unsightly conditions. In areas where the people depend on ground- or surface-water as a resource for drinking water, the ground- or surface-water should not be polluted 2. The handling of fresh excreta is avoided. The wastewater is not accessible to flies, mosquitoes, rodents, etc. Environmentally acceptable safe from a public health point of view: the wastewater is handled in such a way that it cannot affect human beings. The technologies proposed in the framework of SANTE should be Appropriate, Acceptable and Applicable in flood prone areas’, which means: 1. eg, -1.5 is half a world more use than is sustainable (1.0). Now, in contrast, on the negative side of the scale, given how it is constructed, some comparisons cab be made since the measure is indicating how much of the world of nature is being consumed. But 2.0 isn't "twice" as sustainable, or even more sustainable. As a result, and depending on how you create the outcome scale, you might (but not necessarily) be able to say neighborhood A is twice as sustainable as neighborhood B.as an example, consider how ecological footprints work, where, based on prior knowledge, the footprint indicator means a specific thing, EG, EF = 1.0 or greater = sustainable. That would imply that the scores are relative to one another. So, if that is correct, on your scale you only know what a (eg) neighborhood measures on a scale where the top of the scale is objectively/absolutely meaningless. From your description, it does not seem that your created a scale before hand from some pre-existing standard that defined sustainability.