Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Boundary issues in academia are rarely addressed by college or university policy despite the risk of problematic or unethical faculty-student interactions (Owen and Castro 2007). These twelve tips are suggested for the development of an institutional boundary guideline and training program and are based on the outcomes and feedback from an existing institutional boundary training program. For this work, we developed and administered a survey to faculty and staff both before a group discussion session and again after the training session. Based on a review of the literature and the survey responses, these 12 “tips” or best practices to mitigate possible ethical and legal issues that can arise between faculty/staff and students are suggested as guidance for developing an institutional boundary policy.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Boundary issues in academia are rarely addressed by college or university policy despite the risk of problematic or unethical faculty-student interactions (Owen and Castro 2007). These twelve tips are suggested for the development of an institutional boundary guideline and training program and are based on the outcomes and feedback from an existing institutional boundary training program. For this work, we developed and administered a survey to faculty and staff both before a group discussion session and again after the training session. Based on a review of the literature and the survey responses, these 12 “tips” or best practices to mitigate possible ethical and legal issues that can arise between faculty/staff and students are suggested as guidance for developing an institutional boundary policy.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Comprehensive dataset of 75 dating styles categorized into 10 core areas: Love, Safety, Relationship Roles, Trust, Body, Belonging, Reality, Loss, Boundaries, Conflict
In 2020, a total share of 27 percent of Poles believed that relationships between co-workers should be kept strictly within the professional boundaries.
Presentation given as part of a Minisymposium at BEER 2015.
Overview The Office of the Geographer and Global Issues at the U.S. Department of State produces the Large Scale International Boundaries (LSIB) dataset. The current edition is version 11.4 (published 24 February 2025). The 11.4 release contains updated boundary lines and data refinements designed to extend the functionality of the dataset. These data and generalized derivatives are the only international boundary lines approved for U.S. Government use. The contents of this dataset reflect U.S. Government policy on international boundary alignment, political recognition, and dispute status. They do not necessarily reflect de facto limits of control. National Geospatial Data Asset This dataset is a National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDAID 194) managed by the Department of State. It is a part of the International Boundaries Theme created by the Federal Geographic Data Committee. Dataset Source Details Sources for these data include treaties, relevant maps, and data from boundary commissions, as well as national mapping agencies. Where available and applicable, the dataset incorporates information from courts, tribunals, and international arbitrations. The research and recovery process includes analysis of satellite imagery and elevation data. Due to the limitations of source materials and processing techniques, most lines are within 100 meters of their true position on the ground. Cartographic Visualization The LSIB is a geospatial dataset that, when used for cartographic purposes, requires additional styling. The LSIB download package contains example style files for commonly used software applications. The attribute table also contains embedded information to guide the cartographic representation. Additional discussion of these considerations can be found in the Use of Core Attributes in Cartographic Visualization section below. Additional cartographic information pertaining to the depiction and description of international boundaries or areas of special sovereignty can be found in Guidance Bulletins published by the Office of the Geographer and Global Issues: https://data.geodata.state.gov/guidance/index.html Contact Direct inquiries to internationalboundaries@state.gov. Direct download: https://data.geodata.state.gov/LSIB.zip Attribute Structure The dataset uses the following attributes divided into two categories: ATTRIBUTE NAME | ATTRIBUTE STATUS CC1 | Core CC1_GENC3 | Extension CC1_WPID | Extension COUNTRY1 | Core CC2 | Core CC2_GENC3 | Extension CC2_WPID | Extension COUNTRY2 | Core RANK | Core LABEL | Core STATUS | Core NOTES | Core LSIB_ID | Extension ANTECIDS | Extension PREVIDS | Extension PARENTID | Extension PARENTSEG | Extension These attributes have external data sources that update separately from the LSIB: ATTRIBUTE NAME | ATTRIBUTE STATUS CC1 | GENC CC1_GENC3 | GENC CC1_WPID | World Polygons COUNTRY1 | DoS Lists CC2 | GENC CC2_GENC3 | GENC CC2_WPID | World Polygons COUNTRY2 | DoS Lists LSIB_ID | BASE ANTECIDS | BASE PREVIDS | BASE PARENTID | BASE PARENTSEG | BASE The core attributes listed above describe the boundary lines contained within the LSIB dataset. Removal of core attributes from the dataset will change the meaning of the lines. An attribute status of “Extension” represents a field containing data interoperability information. Other attributes not listed above include “FID”, “Shape_length” and “Shape.” These are components of the shapefile format and do not form an intrinsic part of the LSIB. Core Attributes The eight core attributes listed above contain unique information which, when combined with the line geometry, comprise the LSIB dataset. These Core Attributes are further divided into Country Code and Name Fields and Descriptive Fields. County Code and Country Name Fields “CC1” and “CC2” fields are machine readable fields that contain political entity codes. These are two-character codes derived from the Geopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes Standard (GENC), Edition 3 Update 18. “CC1_GENC3” and “CC2_GENC3” fields contain the corresponding three-character GENC codes and are extension attributes discussed below. The codes “Q2” or “QX2” denote a line in the LSIB representing a boundary associated with areas not contained within the GENC standard. The “COUNTRY1” and “COUNTRY2” fields contain the names of corresponding political entities. These fields contain names approved by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) as incorporated in the ‘"Independent States in the World" and "Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty" lists maintained by the Department of State. To ensure maximum compatibility, names are presented without diacritics and certain names are rendered using common cartographic abbreviations. Names for lines associated with the code "Q2" are descriptive and not necessarily BGN-approved. Names rendered in all CAPITAL LETTERS denote independent states. Names rendered in normal text represent dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, or are otherwise presented for the convenience of the user. Descriptive Fields The following text fields are a part of the core attributes of the LSIB dataset and do not update from external sources. They provide additional information about each of the lines and are as follows: ATTRIBUTE NAME | CONTAINS NULLS RANK | No STATUS | No LABEL | Yes NOTES | Yes Neither the "RANK" nor "STATUS" fields contain null values; the "LABEL" and "NOTES" fields do. The "RANK" field is a numeric expression of the "STATUS" field. Combined with the line geometry, these fields encode the views of the United States Government on the political status of the boundary line. ATTRIBUTE NAME | | VALUE | RANK | 1 | 2 | 3 STATUS | International Boundary | Other Line of International Separation | Special Line A value of “1” in the “RANK” field corresponds to an "International Boundary" value in the “STATUS” field. Values of ”2” and “3” correspond to “Other Line of International Separation” and “Special Line,” respectively. The “LABEL” field contains required text to describe the line segment on all finished cartographic products, including but not limited to print and interactive maps. The “NOTES” field contains an explanation of special circumstances modifying the lines. This information can pertain to the origins of the boundary lines, limitations regarding the purpose of the lines, or the original source of the line. Use of Core Attributes in Cartographic Visualization Several of the Core Attributes provide information required for the proper cartographic representation of the LSIB dataset. The cartographic usage of the LSIB requires a visual differentiation between the three categories of boundary lines. Specifically, this differentiation must be between: International Boundaries (Rank 1); Other Lines of International Separation (Rank 2); and Special Lines (Rank 3). Rank 1 lines must be the most visually prominent. Rank 2 lines must be less visually prominent than Rank 1 lines. Rank 3 lines must be shown in a manner visually subordinate to Ranks 1 and 2. Where scale permits, Rank 2 and 3 lines must be labeled in accordance with the “Label” field. Data marked with a Rank 2 or 3 designation does not necessarily correspond to a disputed boundary. Please consult the style files in the download package for examples of this depiction. The requirement to incorporate the contents of the "LABEL" field on cartographic products is scale dependent. If a label is legible at the scale of a given static product, a proper use of this dataset would encourage the application of that label. Using the contents of the "COUNTRY1" and "COUNTRY2" fields in the generation of a line segment label is not required. The "STATUS" field contains the preferred description for the three LSIB line types when they are incorporated into a map legend but is otherwise not to be used for labeling. Use of the “CC1,” “CC1_GENC3,” “CC2,” “CC2_GENC3,” “RANK,” or “NOTES” fields for cartographic labeling purposes is prohibited. Extension Attributes Certain elements of the attributes within the LSIB dataset extend data functionality to make the data more interoperable or to provide clearer linkages to other datasets. The fields “CC1_GENC3” and “CC2_GENC” contain the corresponding three-character GENC code to the “CC1” and “CC2” attributes. The code “QX2” is the three-character counterpart of the code “Q2,” which denotes a line in the LSIB representing a boundary associated with a geographic area not contained within the GENC standard. To allow for linkage between individual lines in the LSIB and World Polygons dataset, the “CC1_WPID” and “CC2_WPID” fields contain a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID), version 4, which provides a stable description of each geographic entity in a boundary pair relationship. Each UUID corresponds to a geographic entity listed in the World Polygons dataset. These fields allow for linkage between individual lines in the LSIB and the overall World Polygons dataset. Five additional fields in the LSIB expand on the UUID concept and either describe features that have changed across space and time or indicate relationships between previous versions of the feature. The “LSIB_ID” attribute is a UUID value that defines a specific instance of a feature. Any change to the feature in a lineset requires a new “LSIB_ID.” The “ANTECIDS,” or antecedent ID, is a UUID that references line geometries from which a given line is descended in time. It is used when there is a feature that is entirely new, not when there is a new version of a previous feature. This is generally used to reference countries that have dissolved. The “PREVIDS,” or Previous ID, is a UUID field that contains old versions of a line. This is an additive field, that houses all Previous IDs. A new version of a feature is defined by any change to the
This map shows the relationship between major cites with a population greater than 1.5 million people and the plate tectonics which include convergent,divergent, transform, and unknown boundaries. To make this map easier for people to read I made the major city have a filter so that only cities with over 1.5 million people will show up on the map. I also made the major city dot bigger, red and a transparency of 40% so it is easier for people to see. I made it 40% transparent so people can still see the plate boundaries that cross paths with the major city dots. I changed the plate tectonic boundary lines to a darker color, a thicker line, and also made the lines 25% transparent so people can still see the map and cities under it. I also added arrows pointing to major cities that cross paths with transform boundaries. Most major cites are right on top of a transform plate tectonic boundaries which can cause a great effect to the people who live in those popular cities. Transform plates are mostly likely to cause damage and have a effect with major populated cities. Transform plate boundaries are more likely to have a great effect than the over boundaries like convergent and divergent because more cities seem to fall right on top of transform boundaries than the other boundaries. The pattern that seems to be present is that transform boundaries have a strong relationship with cities over 1.5 million people, while other plate boundaries do not have as many cities on them as the transform boundary does.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
This dataset is about books. It has 2 rows and is filtered where the book is At personal risk : boundary violations in professional-client relationships. It features 7 columns including author, publication date, language, and book publisher.
The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national filewith no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independentdata set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The Address Range / Feature Name Relationship File (ADDRFN.dbf) contains a record for each address range / linear feature name relationship. The purpose of this relationship file is to identify all street names associated with each address range. An edge can have several feature names; an address range located on an edge can be associated with one or any combination of the available feature names (an address range can be linked to multiple feature names). The address range is identified by the address range identifier (ARID) attribute that can be used to link to the Address Ranges Relationship File (ADDR.dbf). The linear feature name is identified by the linear feature identifier (LINEARID) attribute that can be used to link to the Feature Names Relationship File (FEATNAMES.dbf).
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Several studies have explored the relationship between socially constructed neighbourhood boundaries (henceforth social boundaries) and ethnic tensions. To measure these relationships, studies have used area-level demographic data to predict the location of social boundaries and their characteristics. The most common approach uses areal wombling to locate neighbouring areas with large differences in residential characteristics. Areas with large differences (or higher boundary values) are used as a proxy for well-defined social boundaries. However, to date, the results of these predictions have never been empirically validated. This article presents results from a simple discrete choice experiment designed to test whether the areal wombling approach to boundary detection produces social boundaries that are recognisable to local residents and experts as such. We conducted a small feasibility trial with residents and experts in Rotherham, England. Our results shows that participants were more likely to recognise boundaries with higher boundary values as local community borders. We end with a discussion on the scalability of the design and suggest future improvements.
The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national filewith no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independentdata set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The Address Range / Feature Name Relationship File (ADDRFN.dbf) contains a record for each address range / linear feature name relationship. The purpose of this relationship file is to identify all street names associated with each address range. An edge can have several feature names; an address range located on an edge can be associated with one or any combination of the available feature names (an address range can be linked to multiple feature names). The address range is identified by the address range identifier (ARID) attribute that can be used to link to the Address Ranges Relationship File (ADDR.dbf). The linear feature name is identified by the linear feature identifier (LINEARID) attribute that can be used to link to the Feature Names Relationship File (FEATNAMES.dbf).
The 2023 cartographic boundary shapefiles are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. Census tracts are small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county or equivalent entity, and were defined by local participants as part of the 2020 Census Participant Statistical Areas Program. The Census Bureau delineated the census tracts in situations where no local participant existed or where all the potential participants declined to participate. The primary purpose of census tracts is to provide a stable set of geographic units for the presentation of census data and comparison back to previous decennial censuses. Census tracts generally have a population size between 1,200 and 8,000 people, with an optimum size of 4,000 people. When first delineated, census tracts were designed to be homogeneous with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions. The spatial size of census tracts varies widely depending on the density of settlement. Physical changes in street patterns caused by highway construction, new development, and so forth, may require boundary revisions. In addition, census tracts occasionally are split due to population growth, or combined as a result of substantial population decline. Census tract boundaries generally follow visible and identifiable features. They may follow legal boundaries such as minor civil division (MCD) or incorporated place boundaries in some states and situations to allow for census tract-to-governmental unit relationships where the governmental boundaries tend to remain unchanged between censuses. State and county boundaries always are census tract boundaries in the standard census geographic hierarchy. In a few rare instances, a census tract may consist of noncontiguous areas. These noncontiguous areas may occur where the census tracts are coextensive with all or parts of legal entities that are themselves noncontiguous. For the 2010 Census and beyond, the census tract code range of 9400 through 9499 was enforced for census tracts that include a majority American Indian population according to Census 2000 data and/or their area was primarily covered by federally recognized American Indian reservations and/or off-reservation trust lands; the code range 9800 through 9899 was enforced for those census tracts that contained little or no population and represented a relatively large special land use area such as a National Park, military installation, or a business/industrial park; and the code range 9900 through 9998 was enforced for those census tracts that contained only water area, no land area.
The 2023 cartographic boundary shapefiles are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. Census tracts are small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county or equivalent entity, and were defined by local participants as part of the 2020 Census Participant Statistical Areas Program. The Census Bureau delineated the census tracts in situations where no local participant existed or where all the potential participants declined to participate. The primary purpose of census tracts is to provide a stable set of geographic units for the presentation of census data and comparison back to previous decennial censuses. Census tracts generally have a population size between 1,200 and 8,000 people, with an optimum size of 4,000 people. When first delineated, census tracts were designed to be homogeneous with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions. The spatial size of census tracts varies widely depending on the density of settlement. Physical changes in street patterns caused by highway construction, new development, and so forth, may require boundary revisions. In addition, census tracts occasionally are split due to population growth, or combined as a result of substantial population decline. Census tract boundaries generally follow visible and identifiable features. They may follow legal boundaries such as minor civil division (MCD) or incorporated place boundaries in some states and situations to allow for census tract-to-governmental unit relationships where the governmental boundaries tend to remain unchanged between censuses. State and county boundaries always are census tract boundaries in the standard census geographic hierarchy. In a few rare instances, a census tract may consist of noncontiguous areas. These noncontiguous areas may occur where the census tracts are coextensive with all or parts of legal entities that are themselves noncontiguous. For the 2010 Census and beyond, the census tract code range of 9400 through 9499 was enforced for census tracts that include a majority American Indian population according to Census 2000 data and/or their area was primarily covered by federally recognized American Indian reservations and/or off-reservation trust lands; the code range 9800 through 9899 was enforced for those census tracts that contained little or no population and represented a relatively large special land use area such as a National Park, military installation, or a business/industrial park; and the code range 9900 through 9998 was enforced for those census tracts that contained only water area, no land area.
The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The Address Ranges Relationship File (ADDR.dbf) contains the attributes of each address range. Each address range applies to a single edge and has a unique address range identifier (ARID) value. The edge to which an address range applies can be determined by linking the address range to the All Lines Shapefile (EDGES.shp) using the permanent topological edge identifier (TLID) attribute. Multiple address ranges can apply to the same edge since an edge can have multiple address ranges. Note that the most inclusive address range associated with each side of a street edge already appears in the All Lines Shapefile (EDGES.shp). The TIGER/Line Files contain potential address ranges, not individual addresses. The term "address range" refers to the collection of all possible structure numbers from the first structure number to the last structure number and all numbers of a specified parity in between along an edge side relative to the direction in which the edge is coded. The address ranges in the TIGER/Line Files are potential ranges that include the full range of possible structure numbers even though the actual structures may not exist.
Analysis and charts with boundary flow relationship development and data outputs.
This resource is a subset of the LNWB Ch10 Stream Flow Collection Resource.
Attribution 2.5 (CC BY 2.5)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
License information was derived automatically
The 1991 Census Expanded Community Profiles present 44 tables comprising more detailed information than that of the basic community profiles which provide characteristics of persons and/or dwellings for Statistical Local Areas (SLA) in Australia.
This table contains data relating to relationship in household by age and sex. Counts are of all persons (a), based on place of enumeration on census night which; includes overseas visitors; excludes Australians overseas; and excludes adjustment for under-enumeration. The data is by SLA 1991 boundaries. Periodicity: 5-Yearly.
This data is ABS data (cat. no. 2101.0 & original geographic boundary cat. no. 1261.0.30.001) used with permission from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The tabular data was processed and supplied to AURIN by the Australian Data Archives. The cleaned, high resolution 1991 geographic boundaries are available from data.gov.au.
For more information please refer to the 1991 Census Dictionary.
Please note:
The 2022 cartographic boundary KMLs are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. Census tracts are small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county or equivalent entity, and were defined by local participants as part of the 2020 Census Participant Statistical Areas Program. The Census Bureau delineated the census tracts in situations where no local participant existed or where all the potential participants declined to participate. The primary purpose of census tracts is to provide a stable set of geographic units for the presentation of census data and comparison back to previous decennial censuses. Census tracts generally have a population size between 1,200 and 8,000 people, with an optimum size of 4,000 people. When first delineated, census tracts were designed to be homogeneous with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions. The spatial size of census tracts varies widely depending on the density of settlement. Physical changes in street patterns caused by highway construction, new development, and so forth, may require boundary revisions. In addition, census tracts occasionally are split due to population growth, or combined as a result of substantial population decline. Census tract boundaries generally follow visible and identifiable features. They may follow legal boundaries such as minor civil division (MCD) or incorporated place boundaries in some states and situations to allow for census tract-to-governmental unit relationships where the governmental boundaries tend to remain unchanged between censuses. State and county boundaries always are census tract boundaries in the standard census geographic hierarchy. In a few rare instances, a census tract may consist of noncontiguous areas. These noncontiguous areas may occur where the census tracts are coextensive with all or parts of legal entities that are themselves noncontiguous. For the 2010 Census and beyond, the census tract code range of 9400 through 9499 was enforced for census tracts that include a majority American Indian population according to Census 2000 data and/or their area was primarily covered by federally recognized American Indian reservations and/or off-reservation trust lands; the code range 9800 through 9899 was enforced for those census tracts that contained little or no population and represented a relatively large special land use area such as a National Park, military installation, or a business/industrial park; and the code range 9900 through 9998 was enforced for those census tracts that contained only water area, no land area.
Crosswalk tables allow data analyses across decennial census boundaries. This crosswalk allows census tract-level data, created using 2020 decennial census boundaries, to be compared to data created using 2010 decennial census boundaries.
Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Love Without Boundaries Inc
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Several studies have explored the relationship between socially constructed neighbourhood boundaries (henceforth social boundaries) and ethnic tensions. To measure these relationships, studies have used area-level demographic data to predict the location of social boundaries and their characteristics. The most common approach uses areal wombling to locate neighbouring areas with large differences in residential characteristics. Areas with large differences (or higher boundary values) are used as a proxy for well-defined social boundaries. However, to date, the results of these predictions have never been empirically validated. This article presents results from a simple discrete choice experiment designed to test whether the areal wombling approach to boundary detection produces social boundaries that are recognisable to local residents and experts as such. We conducted a small feasibility trial with residents and experts in Rotherham, England. Our results shows that participants were more likely to recognise boundaries with higher boundary values as local community borders. We end with a discussion on the scalability of the design and suggest future improvements.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Boundary issues in academia are rarely addressed by college or university policy despite the risk of problematic or unethical faculty-student interactions (Owen and Castro 2007). These twelve tips are suggested for the development of an institutional boundary guideline and training program and are based on the outcomes and feedback from an existing institutional boundary training program. For this work, we developed and administered a survey to faculty and staff both before a group discussion session and again after the training session. Based on a review of the literature and the survey responses, these 12 “tips” or best practices to mitigate possible ethical and legal issues that can arise between faculty/staff and students are suggested as guidance for developing an institutional boundary policy.