775 research outputs found
Smarter choices ?changing the way we travel. Case study reports
No full textThis report accompanies the following volume:Cairns S, Sloman L, Newson C, Anable J, Kirkbride A and Goodwin P (2004)Smarter Choices ? Changing the Way We Travel. Report published by theDepartment for Transport, London, available via the ?Sustainable Travel? section ofwww.dft.gov.uk, and from http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/archive/00001224/
Resonantly enhanced Faraday rotation in a microcoil current sensor
No full textA proof-of-principle experimental demonstration with theoretical modeling is presented for resonantly enhanced Faraday rotation in a microcoil current sensor. The recirculation of resonant light within the coil gives rise to an accumulated polarization rotation and thus improved responsivity. According to simulations, microcoil resonators with sharper resonances could offer significantly larger enhancements. This new type of current sensor has the potential to be ultrafast, compact, and low-cost
Parameters behind "nonparametric" statistics: Kendall's tau,Somers' D and median differences
No full textSo-called "nonparametric" statistical methods are often in fact based on population parameters, which can be estimated (with confidence limits) using the corresponding sample statistics. This article reviews the uses of three such parameters, namely Kendall's tau, Somers' D and the Hodges-Lehmann median difference. Confidence intervals for these are demonstrated using the somersd package. It is argued that confidence limits for these parameters, and their differences,are more informative than the traditional practice of reporting only p-values. These three parameters are also important in defining other tests and parameters, such as the Wilcoxon test, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, Harrell's C, and the Theil median slope. Copyright 2002 by Stata Corporation.confidence intervals, Gehan test, Harrell's C , Hodges-Lehmann median difference, Kendall's tau, nonparametric methods, rank correlation, rank-sum test, ROC area, Somers' D, Theil median slope, Wilcoxon test
On the central role of Somers' D
No full textSomers' D and Kendall's tau-a are parameters behind rank or nonparametric statistics, interpreted as differences between proportions. Given two bivariate data pairs (X1, Y1) and (X2, Y2), Kendall’s tau-a parameter tau-XY is the difference between the probability that the two X–Y pairs are concordant and the probability that the two X–Y pairs are discordant, and Somers' D parameter DYX is the difference between the corresponding conditional probabilities, given that the X-values are ordered. The somersd package computes confidence intervals for both parameters. The Stata 9 version of somersd uses Mata to increase computing speed and greatly extends the definition of Somers' D, allowing the X and/or Y variables to be left- or right-censored and allowing multiple versions of Somers' D for multiple sampling schemes for the X–Y pairs. In particular, we may define stratified versions of Somers' D, in which we compare only X–Y pairs from the same stratum. The strata may be defined by grouping a Rubin–Rosenbaum propensity score, based on the values of multiple confounders for an association between exposure variable X and an outcome variable Y . Therefore, rank statistics can have not only confidence intervals but also confounder-adjusted confidence intervals. Usually, we either estimate DYX as a measure of the effect of X on Y , or we estimate DXY as a measure of the performance of X as a predictor of Y, compared with other predictors. Alternative rank-based measures of the effect of X on Y include the Hodges–Lehmann median difference and the Theil–Sen median slope, both of which are defined in terms of Somers' D.
Inspection of electrical wires for insulation faults and current surges using sliding temperature sensor based on optical Microfibre coil resonator
No full textWe present a compact and robust temperature sensor based on an optical microfiber coil resonator packaged around a Teflon tube. The probe can efficiently slide along electrical wires to map the local temperature for locating insulation faults and reporting high current surges. A temperature responsivity of 95 pm/°C up to ~80 °C was demonstrated. This sensor is potentially low cost and simple to fabricate, making it attractive for domestic and industrial applications
Optical fibre microwire sensors
No full textThis paper reviews sensing applications of optical fibre microwires and nanowires. In addition to the usual benefits of sensors based on optical fibres, these sensors are extremely compact and have fast response speeds. In this review sensors will be grouped in three categories according to their morphology: linear sensors, resonant sensors and tip sensors. While linear and resonant sensors mainly exploit the fraction of power propagating outside the microwire physical boundary, tip sensors take advantage of the extreme light confinement to sense chemicals within minute areas
Akram Khan, Lloyd Newson, and the Challenges of British Multiculturalism
No full textIn a climate riven by national insecurities, anti-immigration movements and competing visions of a post-Brexit future, this paper examines the contentious space multiculturalism has inhabited in 21st-century British choreography. It analyses acclaimed works by Akram Khan and Lloyd Newson to explore starkly differing perspectives on cultural diversity in the UK. Khan’s contribution to the London 2012 Olympics Opening Ceremony (Abide with Me) emphasised the nation’s post-imperialist and cosmopolitan profile. By contrast, Newson’s contemporaneous work Can We Talk about this? (2011/12) was highly critical of current models of multiculturalism and in particular attitudes towards Islam. This paper compares the two choreographies using a theoretical framework that draws on both political thought and dance analysis, to evaluate their contributions to debates around culture, tolerance and diasporic identities and illustrate the broader entanglement between British dance and contemporary politics.@ 2018, Edinburgh University Press. The attached document is an author produced version of a paper accepted for publication in Dance Research, uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. Some minor differences between this version and the final published version may remain. Once published, we suggest you refer to the final published version (Version of Record) should you wish to cite from it
Newson, W. F.
No full textSee entry in Dale County volume 1, page 37: https://digital.archives.alabama.gov/digital/collection/voter/id/87
Ancestral and Authorial Voices in Lloyd Newson and DV8's 'Strange Fish'
No full textLloyd Newson has worked in Europe for some twenty-three years with DV8 Physical Theatre, creating powerful socio-political pieces which address sexuality and interpersonal relationships. These works are generally created with performers through workshop processes and collaboratively with composers. London's experimental dance and theatre scenes in the 1980s and early 1990s provided a challenging context for Lloyd Newson's early creative endeavours. Here, Janet Lansdale takes one work, Strange Fish, as the locus of her discussion on narrative positions in relation to dominant forms of modern dance and issues of sexuality, homophobia, and politics within physical theatre. She conceptualizes and contextualizes ‘voices’ as ‘authorial’ and ‘ancestral’, and traces their manifestation in readings of the work. Complementary and sometimes competing voices from author, text, reader, and cultural history are articulated through a range of intertextual perspectives. This is the second in a series of articles on this work. Janet Lansdale is Distinguished Professor in Dance Studies at the University of Surrey, where she was Head of Department, and later Head of the School of Performing Arts. She is the author and editor of four books on dance theory, history, and analysis, the most recent being Dancing Texts: Intertextuality in Interpretation (1999).</p
Clinical Ethics Case Study 10: For the record: Should our patient’s relatives be able to record her treatment?
No full textA referral to the CEC from the manager of the Accident and Emergency Department F, a 67-year-old woman, was brought in to the Accident and Emergency (A&E) Department by ambulance on a busy Friday night with acute chest pain. Her family (husband and adult daughter) arrived soon afterwards. F was not in good general health: she had diabetes and severe asthma, although these were well managed and F was compliant with ongoing treatment. She was also obese and involved in a weight loss programme through her local health centre. 2 Soon after her arrival in the A&E Department, F went into cardiac arrest and stopped breathing. A resuscitation trolley arrived in good time and a team began to work to try and resuscitate F. At this point, F's adult daughter H entered the treatment area. She retrieved her mobile phone from her bag and began to film the resuscitation attempt. This behaviour alarmed the multidisciplinary team treating F and H was asked to cease recording. The reasons for their request for H to stop were: that the team were becoming distracted and concerned that this intervention could disrupt the care they were providing to F; the effect H's filming may have on other patients and visitors; and how such footage might be interpreted in the future. Nevertheless, H was determined to continue filming. She claimed that: ‘It's our right to film our mother. If she dies, this will help the rest of our family to say goodbye. Plus, if we're worried she hasn't received the best possible treatment, this will help us later on’. H was, however, asked again to stop filming and reluctantly did so. F's resuscitation was successful and she was moved from A&E to the cardiac care ward, where she remains unconscious but slowly improving. Three days later, I (the manager of the A&E Department) received a written complaint from H and F's husband T, saying that they should have been allowed to continue filming the A&E staff resuscitating F. Through some background investigation, H had established that there was no Trust policy on relatives filming patients, or indeed any policy about patients themselves recording consultations and treatment. H claimed that: ‘several of my friends record their medical consultations to help them remember everything, and what we wanted to do is no different from that’. She also stated that ‘this is no different to family members taking photos of their loved ones to remember them by’. On behalf of the A&E Department, I am therefore approaching the CEC for assistance before responding to H's complaint. We are worried that while some people may seek to record or film consultations as an aide memoire in times of stress or for personal reassurance, others may do so for more litigious or unusual purposes (such as making the material available on the Internet). We are also concerned about how such material may be interpreted by an inexpert audience. Further, we worry about patient consent to this filming and the disruptive nature of the practice. On contacting the Trust's communications department, we have established that there seems to be a gap in hospital policy regarding this kind of recording activity, as the only relevant policy is one relating to requests from the press to film on site – with requests for filming or photographs needing to be approved by the Trust's director of communications. The communications department has received requests for clarification as to whether this policy would cover the use of phones or other hand-held devices for recording. From speaking to colleagues in other departments I have also heard anecdotal reports that such attempts at recording are on the increase – from both relatives and patients themselves. Some patients have also apparently attempted to take photographs of other patients with whom they have shared a ward, with claims that this has taken place with verbal consent. We are approaching the ethics committee with the following questions in mind: 1. Should H have been allowed to continue filming? 2. Is H's claim that filming resuscitation is akin to recording other more routine consultations defensible? 3 3. If a patient is unconscious, should a family member be able to record them, or should recording only be possible if a patient consents in advance? What should happen if a patient specifically requested such filming? Or, should recording not be permitted at all? (This is also interesting in relation to giving birth.) 4. Is Trust policy on this issue, to cover and protect both patients and staff, needed? If so, how might such a policy be structured? How could it be implemented in the hospital?This article was written by Dr Ainsley Newson during the time of her employment with the University of Bristol, UK (2006-2012). Self-archived in the Sydney eScholarship Repository with permission of Bristol University, Sept 2014
- …
