107 research outputs found
Samuel Goodenough, Berners Street, [London], to Sir James Edward Smith
No full textHopes Smith received the barrels of oysters he sent. Has not seen [Aylmer Bourke] Lambert for a fortnight, a private report says that Mrs [Catherine] Lambert is "quite deranged". Sir Joseph Banks unwell. The "famous American serpent [...] of immense size and length", mentioned by Aldrovandus [(1522-1605), Italian naturalist] now ascertained to exist after being seen by 300 people at once, and will hopefully be caught soon. Calls in north-west Yorkshire for military patrols following reports of radicals going about publicly armed; Goodenough thinks this "feverish anxiety" will come to a crisis soon, especially as [William] Cobbett [(1763-1835), political writer] has just landed with bones of Thomas Paine [(1737-1809), author and revolutionary]
Samuel Goodenough to James Edward Smith, Norwich, [Norfolk]
No full textComments on Smith's Latinity in the "Flora Graeca" and justifies his use of "etc." for saving the trouble of listing every author of authority who has written on Greek flora. Advice on the delination of [John] Sibthorp's name. Small alteration to title page, and to the title of "Prodromus Florae Graecae".
Longs to hear when Smith will be in London. Attended Linnean Society meeting in March, "where to my astonishment, [Richard] Salisbury presented his printed squib against "E[nglish] Botany", ["Generic characters of "English Botany"]". Does not believe [William George] Maton, who was in the chair, should have allowed it to be read. [James] Dickson, [Thomas] Marsham, [Alexander] Macleay, and Sir T[homas Gery] Cullum were all of Goodenough's opinion that the Linnean Society "was not the arena on which any of its members ought to engage". [Jonas] Dryander also agrees with Goodenough. Pointed out to several fellows the weakness and impotency of the attack
Samuel Goodenough to James Edward Smith, at Robert Reeve's Esq, Lowestoft, [Suffolk]
No full textDiscusses etymology and usage of 'Atho' in "Flora Graeca". Reassures Smith he read and sent a letter on Smith's "Introduction to Botany". Advocates revival of exhibits of material at Linnean Society meetings. Thinks Smith correct about Dr [Samuel] Johnson's [(1709-1784), author] "shard-born beetle". Sick of attending the "tiresome, ill-conducted debates" at the House of Lords
Samuel Goodenough to James Edward Smith, at Robert Reeve's Esq, Lowestoft, [Suffolk]
No full textDiscusses etymology and usage of 'Atho' in "Flora Graeca". Reassures Smith he read and sent a letter on Smith's "Introduction to Botany". Advocates revival of exhibits of material at Linnean Society meetings. Thinks Smith correct about Dr [Samuel] Johnson's [(1709-1784), author] "shard-born beetle". Sick of attending the "tiresome, ill-conducted debates" at the House of Lords
James Edward Smith to Samuel Goodenough
No full textHis need to vent with Goodenough like the Suffolk baronet and wife of their acquaintance, who when apart write to each other every day with minimal formalities, and when Sir Thomas Frankland used to write to him with the "most delightful epistolia" of the moment. Recollects the day he spent with Yeates and Broussonet in the woods of Corby Castle, near Carlisle, where he caught and gave to [Thomas] Marsham 'Elater cuprens' and 'Scarabaeus arvicola', wonders why Marsham has only named Yorkshire for the former species and not mentioned him [in "Entomologica Britannia"]. Found 'Elater pectinicornis' on Cromford Moor near Matlock. Noticed that Dr [Samuel] Johnson [(1709-1784), author] explains the "shard-born beetle" of the poets as born or produced among broken stones or pots, Smith thinks it must mean "borne, or flying about, on shards, or shells (testae)".
Argues for his new 'Hookeria' [after William Jackson Hooker] and 'Brodiaea' genera being put forward in spite of [Richard] Salisbury having already published Smith's 'Brodiaea' as 'Hookera' [in "Paradisus Londinensis", after William Hooker (1779-1832), botanical artist]: wrote his papers on 'Hookeria' and 'Brodiaea' before hearing of Salisbury's intention for 'Hookera' and would not normally object except that Salisbury's Hooker is not a botanist and an associate "in an infamous fraud" on Sir Joseph Banks [stealing figures of 'Byblis' and other plants and presenting them as their own]. Urges Goodenough to read his letter in the "Monthly Magazine" [April 1808 edition] which addresses an erroneous statement in the botanical report in [the February 1808] issue of the magazine conjecturing on the nature of the dispute between himself and Salisbury, which is independent of botany
James Edward Smith to Samuel Goodenough
No full textHis need to vent with Goodenough like the Suffolk baronet and wife of their acquaintance, who when apart write to each other every day with minimal formalities, and when Sir Thomas Frankland used to write to him with the "most delightful epistolia" of the moment. Recollects the day he spent with Yeates and Broussonet in the woods of Corby Castle, near Carlisle, where he caught and gave to [Thomas] Marsham 'Elater cuprens' and 'Scarabaeus arvicola', wonders why Marsham has only named Yorkshire for the former species and not mentioned him [in "Entomologica Britannia"]. Found 'Elater pectinicornis' on Cromford Moor near Matlock. Noticed that Dr [Samuel] Johnson [(1709-1784), author] explains the "shard-born beetle" of the poets as born or produced among broken stones or pots, Smith thinks it must mean "borne, or flying about, on shards, or shells (testae)".
Argues for his new 'Hookeria' [after William Jackson Hooker] and 'Brodiaea' genera being put forward in spite of [Richard] Salisbury having already published Smith's 'Brodiaea' as 'Hookera' [in "Paradisus Londinensis", after William Hooker (1779-1832), botanical artist]: wrote his papers on 'Hookeria' and 'Brodiaea' before hearing of Salisbury's intention for 'Hookera' and would not normally object except that Salisbury's Hooker is not a botanist and an associate "in an infamous fraud" on Sir Joseph Banks [stealing figures of 'Byblis' and other plants and presenting them as their own]. Urges Goodenough to read his letter in the "Monthly Magazine" [April 1808 edition] which addresses an erroneous statement in the botanical report in [the February 1808] issue of the magazine conjecturing on the nature of the dispute between himself and Salisbury, which is independent of botany
Relación entre los resultados de la prueba de inteligencia de goodenough y los resultados académicos de los estudiantes repitentes de primaria de la IED Rodolfo Llinás año 2016.
No full text110 páginas : ilustraciones, gráficos.Florance Goodenough created the Goodenough infant intelligence test. The author affirms: the child, when drawing the human figure on a paper, does not draw what he sees but what he knows and therefore does not make an aesthetic work but an intellectual work; it offers not an expression of his artistic capacity but of his intellectual repertoire.
This research project makes a relationship between the achivements of the Goodenough infant intelligence test and the academic achivements of the students who repits a grade of elementary at Rodolfo Llinas school in 2016. From 35 students who repeat 6 of them re fail the academic year for the second time. According to the SIE these students can not be re-enrolled. This sample shows 3 students with normal intelligence, 1 with slow intelligence and 2 with superior intelligence. It shows that there is not any relationship between the achivements of the Intelligence Childhood Test of Goodenough and the academic achivements. However, the drawings of the human figure from these repeating students shows various emotional indicators such as: poor integration among the body parts; incline figure, small figure, hands sectioned or ommited, among others. Koppitz finds a relationship between low achivements and emotional indicators.Florance Goodenough creó el test de inteligencia infantil del Goodenough. La autora afirma: el niño, al dibujar la figura humana sobre un papel no dibuja lo que ve sino lo que sabe y por tanto no efectúa un trabajo estético sino un trabajo intelectual; ofrece no una expresión de su capacidad artística sino de su repertorio intelectual.
Este trabajo de investigación relaciona los desempeños del test de inteligencia de Goodenough con los desempeños académicos de estudiantes repitentes de primaria del colegio Rodolfo Llinas del año lectivo 2016. De 35 estudiantes repitentes ó vuelven a reprobar el año por segunda vez. Según el SIE estos estudiantes no se pueden volver a matricular en la institución. Se encuentra que en esta muestra: 3 estudiantes con inteligencia normal, 1 con inteligencia lenta y 2 con inteligencia superior. Siendo así no existe relación entre desempeños en el test de Goodenough y desempeños académicos. Sin embargo, en los dibujos de la figura humana de estos repitentes se evidencia varios indicadores emocionales como: integración pobre de las partes de la figura humana; brazos cortos; figura inclinada; figura pequeña, manos seccionadas u omitidas entre otros. Koppitz encuentra relación entre bajos desempeños e indicadores emocionales.MaestríaMagíster en Evaluación y Aseguramiento de la Calidad de la Educació
Il test della figura umana: confronto tra i metodi di valutazione di Goodenough- Harris e di Koppitz
No full textIl Test della figura umana è una delle tecniche più usate dagli psicologi che lavorano con i bambini; è stato validato come test di intelligenza da Goodenough (1926). Un’altra autrice che ha a lungo studiato i disegni dei bambini allo scopo di esplorarne lo stadio di sviluppo mentale, è stata Koppitz (1968), secondo la quale nel disegno è possibile individuare sia una struttura di base, tipica dell’età e della maturazione cognitiva del bambino, sia alcune caratteristiche di stile tipiche di ogni singolo individuo in quel momento della sua vita. L'autrice ha proposto un sistema di scoring che permette di utilizzare un numero ridotto di item (30) per analizzare il disegno del bambino, sia che egli disegni un uomo che una donna.
La ricerca presentata è stata realizzata con l’obiettivo di verificare l’attendibilità e la validità del sistema di siglatura proposto da Koppitz, su un campione italiano di bambini (N=1096) di età compresa tra i 6 e gli 11 anni. Oltre al test della figura umana, ai bambini sono state proposte anche le matrici progressive di Raven. Dall’analisi dei dati emergono correlazioni molto alte (da r=. 51 a r=.85) tra le due la siglatura di Koppitz (30 item) e quella di Goodenough-Harris (71/73 item), a sostegno del fatto che lo scoring proposto da Koppitz, possa essere utilizzato come valida alternativa. Inoltre il test discrimina bene le competenze dei bambini nelle diverse fasce di età, che infatti aumentano fino ai 10 anni, per poi arrestarsi. Non sono state rilevate differenze significative tra i maschi e le femmine. Non sono state trovare inoltre correlazioni molto alte con le matrici progressive di Raven, a conferma del fatto che più ch un indicatore dello sviluppo intellettivo, il test della figura umana rappresenta un indice di adattamento di sviluppo e di maturazione dei concetti. Rimane quindi consigliabile utilizzare questo test come un primo screening di maturazione cognitiva e di adattamento sociale, vista la sua buona capacità discriminativa nelle diverse fasce di età, da approfondire però, in caso di un punteggio al di sotto della media del gruppo di età di riferimento, con una indagine clinica e con la somministrazione di test di intelligenza più validi.The human figure test is one of children evaluation system used by psychologists. It was validated by Goodenough (1926) as a intelligence test. Later, Koppitz (1968) studied children's drawings, in order to explore their mental stage. She believed that through drawings was possible to identify both cognitive maturation of children, and typical charateristichs of a specific age. The author proposed a scoring system with a reduced number of items (30), used to analyze the drawings, when the child draws man that a woman.
The present study want to verify the reliability and validity of the scoring system proposed by Koppitz, in Italian children (N=1096) from 6 to 11 years. Also, the subjects were also assessed with Raven Progressive Matrices. Analysis of data shows very high correlations (from r=.51 to r=.85) between two evaluation systems, by Koppitz (30 items) and by Goodenough-Harris (71/73 items), supporting the fact that the scoring proposed by Koppitz can be used as a valid and faster alternative. Furthermore, human figure test discriminates skills of children in different age. In fact, scores increase from six to ten years, and then stop. No significant differences have been found between males and females. There were not found high correlations between human figure test and Raven Progressive Matrices, confirming the fact that this test provide an adaptation index of development and of conceptual maturation, and not an index of cognitive development. Therefore, is important to use this test only as first screening of cognitive maturation. If a child obtains a score below the average for its age group, are necessary a clinical evaluation and an assessment with more valid intelligence tests
Distributing entanglement in quantum networks
No full textThe research presented in this thesis focused on the problem of entanglement distribution. Simply put, the two main problems facing (practical) implementation of entanglement distribution over quantum networks are loss and noise. Quantum repeaters are meant to overcome the effects of loss, but in practice their implementation always comes at the cost of more incurred noise. This additional noise can be overcome by the use of entanglement distillation.In the first two chapters, we focused on the assessment of a basic building block for quantum networks, a single quantum repeater. We then considered finding schemes for the concatenation of multiple such quantum repeaters, along with the inclusion of basic distillation protocols. Finally, we considered a systematic way of optimising over a relevant class of (more complex) distillation protocols.QID/Wehner Grou
- …
