102 research outputs found
An Introduction of the Book mat'la and it's Posion in the Rhetorical Works
No full text Abstract
"Mat'la" is one of the rhetorical and prosodic works of the seventeenth century in Iran which was written by a literary minister called Razi-al-din Mohammad Ibn Mohammad Shafii Mostofi. He wrote the book by order of Caliph Sultan Mazandarani, one of the Safavid ministers and dedicated to him. The topic of the book revolves around figures of speech including rhetoric, prosody and rhyme. The author of the book has been influenced by the previous works on this subject, including "Me'yar-al-Ash'ar"," Meyar-e-Jamali" and "Hadayeq-al-Sehr". This study can clarify the missing link in between Teimouria and Qajar Period rhetoric in Iran . It can also be a contribution to the direction that rhetorical books have taken
Â
Retrospective from departing UM Provost Pardis Mahdavi
No full textThis week\u27s guest is Dr. Pardis Mahdavi, an Iranian-American professor, administrator, outgoing provost at the University of Montana, and the newly named president of the University of La Verne. Pardis is the author of multiple books and served in leadership roles in several prominent universities.
In this episode Justin asks Pardis about her path into academia, what changes to the University of Montana and higher ed more broadly she would like to see and her goals for the new role as president of the University of La Verne.https://scholarworks.umt.edu/anewangle_podcasts/1307/thumbnail.jp
Phyllotetranychus hadii Mahdavi & Latifi & Asadi 2019, sp. nov.
No full text<i>Phyllotetranychus hadii</i> Mahdavi, Latifi and Asadi sp. nov. <p>(Figs 1–9)</p> <p> <b>Type material.</b> Holotype, female, <b>IRAN,</b> Manujan-Kerman Province, 27°19′ N 57°30′ E, ex. <i>Washingtonia filifera</i> (Arecaceae), 20 September 2018, coll. S. M. Mahdavi.</p> <p>Paratypes. Seven females, one male and one larva, same data as holotype.</p> <p> <b>Type deposition.</b> All type specimens were deposited at SBUK except one female paratype deposited at ACASI.</p> <p> <b>Diagnosis.</b> Female: most dorsal setae broadly orbicular to ovate, leaf-like; all dorsal setae with pseudovenation; dorsal setae <i> v 2</i> , <i> c 1</i> , <i> c 3, d 1, e 1,</i> and <i> h 1</i> large, elongate (with <i> e 1</i> shortest of these), lanceolate, tapering setae <i> h 1</i> are much longer than, and obviously dissimilar in shape to, setae <i> h 2</i> ; <i> c 2</i> larger than <i> d 2</i> and <i> e 2</i> ; prodorsum cuticle with strong transverse pattern medially and fine oblique striae laterally; dorsal opisthosomal cuticle with irregular pattern medially, with cells formed in some areas; setation of legs I–IV: coxae 1-1-0-0; trochanters 1-1-1- 1; femora 4-4-0-0; genua 2-2-0-0; tibiae 4-4-2-2; tarsi 9(1 <i>ω</i>)-9(1 <i>ω</i>)-5-5; femur and genu I–II with small, broad, orbicular dorsal seta <i>d</i>, tibia I–II with dorsal seta <i>d</i> elongate, narrow, lanceolate. Male: anterior dorsal body setae (<i> v 2</i> to setal row D) orbicular, posterior dorsal setae (setal row E to posterior) becoming elongate, lanceolate; Setation of legs I–IV: coxae 1-1-0-0; trochanters 1-1-1-1; femora 4-4-0-0; genua 2-2-0-0; tibiae 4-4-4-3; tarsi 10(2 <i>ω</i>)-10(2 <i>ω</i>)- 5-5; femur and genu I–II with dorsal seta <i>d</i> orbicular to obovate, tibia I–II with dorsal seta <i>d</i> elongate, narrow, lanceolate, tibia III–IV with dorsal seta <i>d</i> orbicular to obovate.</p> <p> <b>Description. FEMALE (Holotype). (n=7; Figs 1–3).</b> Length of idiosoma (<i> v 2 –h 1</i> ) 221–227 (225); width of idiosoma 185–193 (187).</p> <p> <i>Dorsum</i> (Fig. 1): Dorsum with 16 pairs of setae broad orbicular to ovate, with pseudovenation; prodorsum cuticle with strong transverse pattern medially and fine oblique striae laterally; dorsal opisthosomal cuticle with irregular pattern medially, with cells formed in some areas; dorsal setae <i> v 2</i> and <i> h 1</i> elongate, lanceolate-falcate, tapering; setae <i> h 1</i> are much longer than, and obviously dissimilar in shape to, setae <i> h 2</i> and <i> v 2</i> longer than longitudinal distance between setae <i> v 2 –c 1</i> ; setae <i> c 1</i> , <i> c 3, d 1</i> and <i> e 1</i> elongate (with <i> e 1</i> shortest of these), lanceolate, tapering; setae <i> c 2</i> larger than <i> d 2</i> and <i> e 2</i> ; setae <i> v 2</i> are longest and <i> e 2</i> are the shortest dorsal setae; dorsolateral setae mostly orbicular; anterior margin of prodorsum with two pairs of prodorsal projections. Lengths of setae: <i> v 2</i> 116– 119 (118), <i> sc 1</i> 50–54 (53), <i> sc 2</i> 37–38 (37), <i> c 1</i> 114–121 (114), <i> c 2</i> 41–42 (41), <i> c 3</i> 68–135 (120), <i> d 1</i> 103–104 (104), <i>d</i> <i> 2</i> 31– 33 (32), <i> d 3</i> 66–69 (67), <i> e 1</i> 90–105 (91), <i> e 2</i> 27 (27), <i> e 3</i> 59 –62 (62), <i> f 2</i> 51–53 (53), <i> f 3</i> 40–43 (42), <i> h 1</i> 109–155 (111), <i> h 2</i> 47–49 (47). Distances between dorsal setae: <i> v 2 –v 2</i> 58 –59 (59), <i> sc 1 –sc 1</i> 99 (99), <i> sc 2 –sc 2</i> 161–163 (161), <i> c 1 –c 1</i> 57–62 (62), <i> c 2 –c 2</i> 121–126 (122), <i> c 3 –c 3</i> 175–177 (176), <i>d</i> <i> 1 –d 1</i> 62–75 (62), <i>d</i> <i> 2 –d 2</i> 96–98 (97), <i> d 3 –d 3</i> 168–169 (167), <i> e 1 – e 1</i> 46 (46), <i> e 2 –e 2</i> 99–98 (99), <i> e 3 –e 3</i> 159–162 (160), <i> f 2 –f 2</i> 151–154 (151), <i> f 3 –f 3</i> 129–131 (129), <i> h 1 –h</i> <i> 1</i> 26–29 (27), <i> h 2 –h 2</i> 83–90 (84). <i>Venter</i> (Fig. 2b) with broadly spaced coarse transverse striae between <i>1a–4a</i>, and fine transverse striae between <i>4a–ag</i>; one pair of aggenital setae (<i>ag</i>); two pairs of each genital setae (<i> g 1–2</i> ) and pseudanal setae (<i> ps 1–2</i> ). Lengths of setae: <i>1a</i> 74–77 (76), <i>3a</i> 12–16 (13), <i>4a</i> 13–15 (13), <i>ag</i> 16–18 (18), <i>g</i> <i> 1</i> 24–25 (24), <i>g</i> <i> 2</i> 21–24 (24), <i>ps</i> <i> 1</i> 10–11 (10), <i>ps</i> <i> 2</i> 11–12 (11). Distances between setae: <i>1a–1a</i> 24–25 (25), <i>3a–3a</i> 53–55 (53), <i>4a–4a</i> 40–43 (40), <i>ag– ag</i> 13 (13), <i> g 1 –g</i> <i> 1</i> 12–14 (12), <i> g 2 –g</i> <i> 2</i> 27–31 (27). <i>Gnathosoma</i> (Fig. 2a): Palp two-segmented; palp tibio-tarsus with one eupathidium <i>ul'ζ</i> 4–5 (5) and two tactile setae, palp femorogenu with one serrate seta (<i>d</i>). Ventral infracapitulum without any setae. <i>Legs</i> (Fig. 3): Setation of legs I–IV: coxae 1(<i>1b</i>)–1(<i>2b</i>)–0–0; trochanters 1(<i>v'</i>)– 1(<i>v'</i>)–1(<i>v'</i>)–1(<i>v'</i>); femora 4(<i>d</i>, <i>bv"</i>, <i>v'</i>, <i>l'</i>)–4(<i>d, bv", v', l'</i>)–0–0; genua 2(<i>d, l'</i>)–2(<i>d, l'</i>)–0–0; tibiae 4(<i>d, v', v", l'</i>)–4(<i>d, v', v", l'</i>)–2(<i>d, v'</i>)–2(<i>v'</i>, <i>v"</i>); tarsi 9(<i>ft', ft", ω", u', u", p'ζ, p"ζ, tc', tc"</i>)–9(<i>ft', ft", ω", u', u", p'ζ, p"ζ, tc', tc"</i>)–5(<i>ft', u', u", tc', tc"</i>)–5(<i>ft', u', u", tc', tc"</i>); solenidion on tarsus I <i>ω"</i> 8–9 (8), solenidion on tarsus II <i>ω"</i> 6–7 (7); dorsal seta <i>d</i> on femora and genua I–II orbicular; dorsal seta <i>d</i> on tibia I–II narrow, lanceolate; all pretarsi with true claws uncinate and empodium pad-like. Variation in setal counts on tibia III–IV as follows: tibia III with 3(<i>d, v', v"</i> present; <i>l"</i> absent) setae (n=1); tibia IV with 1(<i>v'</i>) setae (n=2).</p> <p> <b>MALE. (n=1; Figs 4–6):</b> Length of idiosoma (<i> v 2 –h 1</i> ) 142; width of idiosoma 131.</p> <p> <i>Dorsum</i> (Fig. 4): Prodorsum with smooth cuticle; opisthosoma with mostly smooth cuticle, except with band of transverse striae between setal rows D and E; anterior dorsal body setae (<i> v 2</i> to setal row D) orbicular, posterior dorsal setae (setal row E to posterior) becoming elongate, lanceolate; anterior margin of prodorsum smoothly rounded, without prodorsal projections. Lengths of setae: <i> v 2</i> 30, <i> sc 1</i> 35, <i> sc 2</i> 22, <i> c 1</i> 33, <i> c 2</i> 21, <i> c 3</i> 25, <i> d 1</i> 22, <i> d 2</i> 19, <i> d 3</i> 36, <i> e 1</i> 33, <i> e 2</i> 25, <i> e 3</i> 50, <i> f 2</i> 43, <i> f 3</i> 58, <i> h 1</i> 43, <i> h 2</i> 58. Distances between dorsal setae: <i> v 2 –v 2</i> 49, <i> sc 1 –sc 1</i> 78, <i> sc 2 –sc 2</i> 122, <i> c 1 –c 1</i> 62, <i> c 2 – c 2</i> 106, <i> c 3 –c 3</i> 123, <i> d 1 –d 1</i> 61, <i> d 2 –d 2</i> 93, <i> d 3 –d 3</i> 112, <i> e 1 – e 1</i> 22, <i> e 2 –e 2</i> 87, <i> e 3 –e 3</i> 96, <i> f 2 –f 2</i> 50, <i> f 3 –f 3</i> 64, <i> h 1 –h 1</i> 5, <i> h 2 –h 2</i> 40. <i>Venter</i> (Fig. 5): with broadly spaced coarse transverse striae between <i>1a–3a</i> and between <i>4a–ag</i>, with band of fine transverse striae level with <i>3a–3a</i>, and regions of smooth cuticle between coxae IV–IV and posterior to setae <i>ag</i>. Lengths of setae: <i>1a</i> 58, <i>3a</i> 14, <i>4a</i> 17, <i>ag</i> 15, <i> g 1</i> 18, <i> g 2</i> 20, <i> ps 1</i> 18, <i> ps 2</i> 17. Distances between setae: <i>1a–1a</i> 21, <i>3a–3a</i> 45, <i>4a–4a</i> 39, <i>ag–ag</i> 7, <i> g 1 –g 1</i> 8, <i> g 2 –g 2</i> 17. Length of aedeagus 290 (Fig. 5c). <i>Gnathosoma</i>: (Fig. 5b) similar to female with one eupathidium <i>ul'ζ</i> (4). <i>Legs</i> (Fig. 6): Setation of legs I–IV: coxae 1(<i>1b</i>)–1(<i>2b</i>)–0–0; trochanters 1(<i>v'</i>)–1(<i>v'</i>)–1(<i>v'</i>)– 1(<i>v'</i>); femora 4(<i>d, bv", v', l'</i>)– 4(<i>d, bv", v', l'</i>)–0–0; genua 2(<i>d, l'</i>)–2(<i>d, l'</i>)–0–0; tibiae 4(<i>d, v', v", l'</i>)–4(<i>d, v', v", l'</i>)– 4(<i>d, v', v", l'</i>)– 3(<i>d, v', v"</i>); tarsi 10(<i>ft', ft", ω", ω', u', u", p'ζ, p"ζ, tc', tc"</i>)–10(<i>ft', ft", ω", ω', u', u", p'ζ, p"ζ, tc', tc"</i>)–5(<i>ft', u', u", tc', tc"</i>)–5(<i>ft', u', u", ω', tc"</i>); solenidia on tarsus I <i>ω"</i> (9), <i>ω'</i> (11), solenidia on tarsus II <i>ω"</i> (9), <i>ω'</i> (11); femur and genu I–II with dorsal seta <i>d</i> obovate; tibia I–II with dorsal seta <i>d</i> narrow, lanceolate; tibia III–IV with dorsal setae broad; all pretarsi with true claws uncinate and empodium pad-like.</p> <p> <b>LARVA. (n=1; Figs 7–9):</b> Length of idiosoma (<i> v 2 –h 1</i> ) 127; width of idiosoma 121.</p> <p> <i>Dorsum</i> (Fig. 7): full complement of 16 dorsal setae similar to the adult; only dorsal setae <i> v 2</i> are broadly orbicular, with pseudovenation; setae <i> c 1</i> and <i> d 1</i> narrowly lanceolate, and remaining dorsal setae small to minute, clavate. Prodorsum cuticle with striations transverse medially and longitudinal laterally; anterior margin of prodorsum with a pair of prodorsal projections. Lengths of setae: <i> v 2</i> 28, <i> sc 1</i> 6, <i> sc 2</i> 6, <i> c 1</i> 21, <i> c 2</i> 5, <i> c 3</i> 6, <i> d 1</i> 18, <i> d 2</i> 4, <i> d 3</i> 4, <i> e 1</i> 5, <i> e 2</i> 3, <i> e 3</i> 3, <i> f 2</i> 3, <i> f 3</i> 3, <i> h 1</i> 4, <i> h 2</i> 4. Distances between dorsal setae: <i> v 2 –v 2</i> 39, <i> sc 1 –sc 1</i> 67, <i> sc 2 –sc 2</i> 103, <i> c 1 –c 1</i> 44, <i> c 2 –c 2</i> 100, <i> c 3 –c 3</i> 111, <i> d 1 –d 1</i> 40, <i> d 2 –d 2</i> 89, <i> d 3 –d 3</i> 91, <i> e 1 – e 1</i> 30, <i> e 2 –e 2</i> 60, <i> e 3 –e 3</i> 64, <i> f 2 –f 2</i> 29, <i> f 3 –f 3</i> 32, <i> h 1 –h 1</i> 9, <i> h 2 –h 2</i> 13. <i>Venter</i> (Fig. 8): cuticle with fine transverse striations between setae <i>1a</i> to coxa III. Lengths of setae: <i>1a</i> 40, <i>3a</i> 9, <i> ps 1</i> 2, <i> ps 2</i> 2. Distances between intercoxal setae: <i>1a–1a</i> 29, <i>3a–3a</i> 60. <i>Gnathosoma</i> (Fig. 8a): similar to female with one eupathidium <i>ul'ζ</i> (3). <i>Legs</i> (Figs. 9): Setation of legs I–III: coxae 0–0–0; trochanters 0–0–0; femora 3(<i>d, bv", v'</i>)– 2(<i>bv", v'</i>)–0; genua 1(<i>l'</i>)–1(<i>l'</i>)–0; tibiae 4(<i>d, v', v", l'</i>)–4(<i>d, v', v", l'</i>)–2(<i>d, v'</i>); tarsi 7(<i>ft', ft", ω", u', u", p'ζ, p"ζ</i>)–7(<i>ft', ft", ω", u', u", p'ζ, p"ζ</i>)–3(<i>ft', u', u"</i>); solenidion on tarsus I <i>ω"</i> (4), solenidion on tarsus II <i>ω"</i> (3); tibia I–II with dorsal seta <i>d</i> narrowly lanceolate; all pretarsi with true claws uncinate and empodium pad-like.</p> <p> <b>DEUTONYMPH, PROTONYMPH.</b> Unknown.</p> <p> <b>Etymology.</b> This species is named in honor of Mr. Sayed Hadi Mahdavi, brother of the senior author for his helpful comments about new methods of computer drawings.</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> <i>Phyllotetranychus hadii</i> is easily separated from other species of this genus as follows: Female, 1. Dorsal setae <i> v 2</i> are elongate, lanceolate-falcate, tapering in <i>P. hadii</i> <b>sp. nov.</b>, whereas setae <i> v 2</i> are broad and strongly ovate to rhombic in <i>P. aegyptium</i> and <i>P. gawadii</i>, and narrowly oblong in <i>P. romaine</i>; setae <i> c 3</i> and <i> h 1</i> are lanceolatefalcate, tapering in <i>P. hadii</i> vs. setae <i> c 3</i> and <i> h 1</i> broadly orbicular to weakly falcate in the other three species. 2. Dorsal setae <i> h 1</i> are much longer than, and obviously dissimilar in shape to, setae <i>h</i> <i> 2</i> in <i>P. hadii</i>, vs. setae <i> h 1</i> and <i> h 2</i> of similar shape and size to each other in the other species. 3. Setae <i> c 3</i> and <i> d 3</i> are dissimilar in shape and length to each other in <i>P. hadii</i>, vs. setae <i> c 3</i> and <i> d 3</i> of similar shape and length to each other in the other species. 4. Setation of coxae, femora and tibiae are different between <i>P. hadii</i> and <i>P. gawadii</i>. Male, 1. With dorsal body setae <i> c 1, d 1</i> and <i> e 1</i> similar in shape and size to each other in <i>P. hadii</i>, <i>P. aegyptium</i> and <i>P</i>. <i>gawadii</i> vs. setae <i> c 1</i> , <i> d 1</i> , <i> e 1</i> dissimilar in shape and size to each other in <i>P. romaine</i>. 2. Dorsal body setae <i> f 2</i> are smaller than <i>f</i> <i> 3</i> in <i>P. hadii</i> vs. similar in shape and size in <i>P. aegyptium</i> and <i>P. gawadii</i>. The setation of the legs of <i>P. gawadii</i> needs further attention as some setae reported present or absent for that species, and the differences between males and females, are unusual. Our attempt to borrow the types was unsuccessful.</p> <p> It seems likely that <i>P. gawadii</i> is a junior synonym of <i>P. aegyptium</i>. Both species are from date palm in northern Egypt, so share the same type host and general type locality. According to Halawa <i>et al</i>. (2015), the species are separated by the shape of setae <i> v 2</i> in females, the shape of setae <i> c 1</i> and <i>d</i> <i> 1</i> in males, and the size of setae <i>sc</i> <i> 1</i> in larvae; leg chaetotaxy is also stated as being completely different.</p> <p> The shape and size of dorsal setae are prone to some variation. This may be natural, but setae vary in size and shape due to slide-mounting variation, especially for these broad setae found in <i>Phyllotetranychus</i>, which may be flattened to different degrees during slide-mounting. This variation and possible synonymy warrants further studies including examination of types and consideration of more material on date palms. Furthermore, the claimed differences in leg chaetotaxy are highly unlikely to be real as leg chaetotaxy was not studied in <i>P. aegyptium</i>. Also, the authors state that <i>P. aegyptium</i> has only one nymphal stage and that <i>P. gawadii</i> has three. Zaher <i>et al</i>. (1969) claimed that <i>P. aegyptium</i> had one nymphal stage, but all flat mites have a larva and two nymphal stages, so this deserves further attention. Halawa <i>et al.</i> (2015) make the unusual claim that <i>P. gawadii</i> has retained the tritonymph. However, it seems more likely that <i>P. gawadii</i> has sexual dimorphism of the deutonymph, as noted by Beard <i>et al.</i> (2018) for the closely related genus <i>Raoiella.</i></p>Published as part of <i>Mahdavi, Sayed Mosayeb, Latifi, Malihe & Asadi, Mahdieh, 2019, A new species of Phyllotetranychus (Acari: Tenuipalpidae) from Iran, pp. 566-578 in Zootaxa 4565 (4)</i> on pages 567-577, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4565.4.10, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/2591261">http://zenodo.org/record/2591261</a>
A comparison of projected and actual energy performance of buildings after thermal retrofit measures
No full textnone see english versionThis article addresses the discrepancies between projected and actual energy performance
of thermally retrofitted buildings. Toward this end, we use detailed data and
observations pertaining to seven residential buildings in Austria that were thermally retrofitted
recently. These include five multifamily residences in Vorarlberg, the upper level
of a duplex house in Lower-Austria, and a residential complex for the elderly in Styria.
During the heating season 2009-2010 (1st October-30th April), indoor temperature
and relative humidity levels were measured and logged in these buildings. For each
building, the actual energy use during this period was derived based on bills for gas and
electrical power. Additionally, we obtained and examined existing energy calculations
(energy certificates) for these buildings. In six cases out of seven, we found a large discrepancy
between projected and actual space heating demand. To explore possible reasons
for this discrepancy, we generated for each of the buildings an energy certificate
and performed detailed thermal simulations. Thereby, we took the main input parameters
for energy calculations into consideration (air change rate, indoor air temperature,
outside air temperature, and internal gains). If we use standard (default) values as
suggested by Austrian standards for these parameters, the above-mentioned discrepancy
cannot be explained. Measurements in the buildings, as well as interviews with
the building's inhabitants implied that standard-based input data assumptions were not
reliable. A subsequent multi-factor study suggested that specifically the assumptions
Department of Building Physics and Building Ecology, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
AQ3
Corresponding author:
A Mahdavi, Department of Building Physics and Building Ecology, Vienna University of Technology, Karlsplatz
13, 1040 Vienna, Austria.
Email: [email protected]
AQ4
regarding air change rates might be responsible for the large deviations of the calculated
values from the actual heating demand
3D Habitat Mapping Using High-Resolution Optical Satellite and Lidar Data
No full textRemote sensing datasets are great resources to map habitat types. In this study, 3D habitat maps were generated using high-resolution multispectral imagery and a LiDAR-derived digital surface model (DSM). Two study areas in the United Kingdom (UK) were selected to investigate the potential of the developed models in habitat classification. The overall classification accuracies for the two study areas were high (91% and 82%), indicating the satisfactory performance of the developed approach for habitat mapping in the study areas. Overall, it was observed that a synergy of high-resolution multi-spectral imagery and LiDAR data could provide reliable 3D information on habitat types.Green Open Access added to TU Delft Institutional Repository 'You share, we take care!' - Taverne project https://www.openaccess.nl/en/you-share-we-take-care Otherwise as indicated in the copyright section: the publisher is the copyright holder of this work and the author uses the Dutch legislation to make this work public.Geo-engineerin
Interoperable data models for infrastructural artefacts - a novel IFC extension method using RDF vocabularies exemplified with quay wall structures for harbors
No full textCurrently, only a limited number of dedicated data models for infrastructural artefacts exist. To cover information exchange and interoperability requirements, a number of international initiatives have been started under the umbrella of the buildingSMART organization to extend the predominant IFC model. In this paper, we are introducing a light-weight approach that allows the flexible extension of the IFC model with RDF vocabularies and ontologies. Using real-world quay wall models from the port of Rotterdam we show how information from multiple networked data sources can be seamlessly integrated with IFC models as the main carrier of geometric representation. We demonstrate how these semantically enriched models can be used with unmodified legacy software systems to facilitate a number of interoperability scenarios throughout different lifecycle phasesUrbanismArchitecture and The Built Environmen
Comparison of container classes and normal classrooms : a case study
No full textThe main topic of research within this work comprises of climatic differences between container classes and ordinary classrooms.The chosen schools are all located in Lower-Austria and were either newly built or have been renovated during the last nine years. Temperature and relative humidity variations over a period of five months of February till June 2011 and indoor carbon dioxide levels during June 2011, make up the main bulk of the experimental data. These factors were chosen for their significant influence on the performance of the pupils and teachers. The outdoor -temperature and -humidity was obtained from the Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik and the rest of the required data such as the absolute humidity and operative temperature were calculated by the author. The teachers in each school were handed a questionnaire containing information such as their ventilation method, air quality, temperature comfort and the degree of the humidity in the classrooms.During the heating season, an excessive heating of the container schools was observed. In general the normal (non-container) schools had all acceptable temperature values except during the early morning hours, where the heating system still had not managed to warm up the air to the standard temperature. The absolute humidity and CO2 values in June show that the ventilation of the schools and the container-based schools in particular, had not been as effective as necessary. The measured values indicated that the temperature and also the carbon dioxide values of the container classes vary considerably during the school opening hours.These findings about the container classes were made more obvious through the psychrometric charts and the high percentages of data points which lay out of the range specified by Austrian norms
Retraction Note: Novel green synthesis and antioxidant, cytotoxicity, antimicrobial, antidiabetic, anticholinergics, and wound healing properties of cobalt nanoparticles containing Ziziphora clinopodioides Lam leaves extract (Scientific Reports, (2020), 10, 1, (12195), 10.1038/s41598-020-68951-x)
No full textThe Editors have retracted this article. After publication it was brought to the Editors’ attention that some of the figures in this article contain images duplicated from other sources. Specifically: – Figure 2 appears to be duplicated (with modification to contrast and 90 degrees rotation) from Figure 1 in Rouhollahi et al.1, which reports a different set of experiments. – Panels in Figure 9 appear to be duplicated from panels in Figure 1 in Ghashghaii et al.2, which reports a different set of experiments. – Figure 10 contains internal duplications between panels A and B, and between panels E and F, which all represent different experimental conditions. In addition, Figure 1 appears to have been reused (with alterations to the aspect ratio) from an online source3. The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the integrity of the data presented. Behnam Mahdavi, Sogand Paydarfard, Mohammad Mahdi Zangeneh, Akram Zangeneh, Nastaran Sadeghian, Parham Taslimi and Fatih Sen do not agree with this retraction. Huifang Hou and Vildan Erduran have not responded to any correspondence from the Editors about this retraction. © 2020, The Author(s)
Replication data for: Explaining the Oil Advantage: Effects of Natural Resource Wealth on Incumbent Reelection in Iran
No full textWhy does natural resource wealth prolong incumbency? Using evidence from parliamentary elections in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the author shows that natural resource revenues boost incumbent reelection rates because this revenue is used to provide public or private goods to constituents, which incentivizes voters to reelect incumbents over challengers. To test this hypothesis, the author employs originally assembled data on five parliamentary elections in Iran (1992â2008) in longitudinal hierarchical regression analysis at the district and province levels. By leveraging Iran's mixed-member electoral system, the author shows that the resource-incumbency mechanism works primarily in single-member districts with little evidence of an incumbency advantage for politicians in resource-rich multimember districts. Building on the rentier theory of natural resource wealth, the results suggest that voting for the incumbent is attributable to patronage and public goods distribution. The findings offer new insights into the understudied context of Iranian legislative elections, illustrate the mechanisms driving the relationship between resource wealth and incumbency advantage at the subnational level in a nondemocratic setting, and highlight the mediating effects of electoral institutions on the resource-incumbency relationship
Replication data for: Explaining the Oil Advantage: Effects of Natural Resource Wealth on Incumbent Reelection in Iran
No full textWhy does natural resource wealth prolong incumbency? Using evidence from parliamentary elections in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the author shows that natural resource revenues boost incumbent reelection rates because this revenue is used to provide public or private goods to constituents, which incentivizes voters to reelect incumbents over challengers. To test this hypothesis, the author employs originally assembled data on five parliamentary elections in Iran (1992â2008) in longitudinal hierarchical regression analysis at the district and province levels. By leveraging Iran's mixed-member electoral system, the author shows that the resource-incumbency mechanism works primarily in single-member districts with little evidence of an incumbency advantage for politicians in resource-rich multimember districts. Building on the rentier theory of natural resource wealth, the results suggest that voting for the incumbent is attributable to patronage and public goods distribution. The findings offer new insights into the understudied context of Iranian legislative elections, illustrate the mechanisms driving the relationship between resource wealth and incumbency advantage at the subnational level in a nondemocratic setting, and highlight the mediating effects of electoral institutions on the resource-incumbency relationship
- …
