28 research outputs found
Mapping quantum algorithms to multi-core quantum computing architectures
No full textCurrent monolithic quantum computer architectures have limited scalability. One promising approach for scaling them up is to use a modular or multi-core architecture, in which different quantum processors (cores) are connected via quantum and classical links. This new architectural design poses new challenges such as the expensive inter-core communication. To reduce these movements when executing a quantum algorithm, an efficient mapping technique is required. In this paper, a detailed critical discussion of the quantum circuit mapping problem for multi-core quantum computing architectures is provided. In addition, we further explore the performance of a mapping method, which is formulated as a partitioning over time graph problem, by performing an architectural scalability analysis.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.QCD/Feld GroupQCD/Almudever LabQuantum Circuit Architectures and Technolog
Characterizing the spatio-temporal qubit traffic of a quantum intranet aiming at modular quantum computer architectures
No full textQuantum many-core processors are envisioned as the ultimate solution for the scalability of quantum computers. Based upon Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) chips interconnected in a sort of quantum intranet, they enable large algorithms to be executed on current and close future technology. In order to optimize such architectures, it is crucial to develop tools that allow specific design space explorations. To this aim, in this paper we present a technique to perform a spatio-temporal characterization of quantum circuits running in multi-chip quantum computers. Specifically, we focus on the analysis of the qubit traffic resulting from operations that involve qubits residing in different cores, and hence quantum communication across chips, while also giving importance to the amount of intra-core operations that occur in between those communications. Using specific multi-core performance metrics and a complete set of benchmarks, our analysis showcases the opportunities that the proposed approach may provide to guide the design of multi-core quantum computers and their interconnects. 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.QCD/Feld GroupQCD/Almudever LabQuantum Circuit Architectures and Technolog
Thinking locally: Exploring the importance of a subsidiary-centered model of FDI-related spillovers in Brazil
No full textThis paper investigates FDI-related spillovers in Brazil for the period 1996-2005. In contrast to most previous recent studies, which have failed to identify any significant effects in emerging economies, we found that horizontal spillovers did arise in Brazil. However, they did not arise simply as a consequence of general FDI-mediated technology transfer from MNC headquarters, as the standard approach presumes. Nor were they associated with expected inter-industry differences in technological intensity, or with differences in domestic firms’ absorptive capability. Instead, spillovers were associated with the existence of particular kinds of localized knowledge-creation activities undertaken by subsidiaries. We discuss the theory and policy implications that emerge from these results.FDI spillovers, subsidiaries, heterogeneity, localized innovation, Brazil, productivity, innovation
Explaining the Diversification Path of Exporters in Brazil: How Similar and Sophisticated are New Products?
No full textA stylised fact of the economic literature suggests that export diversification is good for economic growth and is associated with economic development. In addition, there is evidence suggesting that the level of sophistication of countries’ exports “matters” for growth and development. This paper contributes to this literature by analysing two unexplored dimensions of export diversification: the degree of relatedness (similarity) and sophistication of new products in relation to existing ones. The objective of this paper is to understand the mechanisms through which firms are able to diversify to less related and more sophisticated activities. We do so using a unique dataset that links data on exports, innovation and firms’ characteristics at the firm level in Brazil. The main findings suggest that i) diversification occurs in very closely related activities, where firms have some core competences, ii) most diversification occurs in new products with lower level of sophistication than existing exports, iii) the degree of diversification and innovativeness of the production basket, and the position that the firm has developed in the domestic market appear to matter for diversification towards more or less distant products.Diversification; Relatedness; Sophistication; Trade; Innovation; Brazil
Author Correction: A multi-country test of brief reappraisal interventions on emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
No full textCorrection to: Nature Human Behaviour https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01173-x, published online 2 August 2021.In the version of this article initially published, the following authors were omitted from the author list and the Author contributionssection for “investigation” and “writing and editing”: Nandor Hajdu (Institute of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest,Hungary), Jordane Boudesseul (Facultad de Psicología, Instituto de Investigación Científica, Universidad de Lima, Lima, Perú), RafałMuda (Faculty of Economics, Maria Curie-Sklodowska University, Lublin, Poland) and Sandersan Onie (Black Dog Institute, UNSWSydney, Sydney, Australia & Emotional Health for All Foundation, Jakarta, Indonesia). In addition, Saeideh FatahModares’ name wasoriginally misspelled as Saiedeh FatahModarres in the author list. Further, affiliations have been corrected for Maria Terskova (NationalResearch University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia), Susana Ruiz Fernandez (FOM University of Applied Sciences,Essen; Leibniz-Institut fur Wissensmedien, Tubingen, and LEAD Research Network, Eberhard Karls University, Tubingen, Germany),Hendrik Godbersen (FOM University of Applied Sciences, Essen, Germany), Gulnaz Anjum (Department of Psychology, Simon FraserUniversity, Burnaby, Canada, and Department of Economics & Social Sciences, Institute of Business Administration, Karachi, Pakistan).<br/
Author Correction: perceptions of the appropriate response to norm violation in 57 societies
No full textThis article corrects the following: "Perceptions of the appropriate response to norm violation in 57 societies", https://hdl.handle.net/2134/31007536The original version of this Article contained an error in the author affiliations. Cecilia Reyna was incorrectly associated with ‘Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (UNC). Facultad de Psicología (UNC), Ciudad Universitaria, Bv. de la Reforma esquina, Enfermera Gordillo s/n, Córdoba, Argentina.’ instead of the correct ‘Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas (IIPsi), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), CABA, República Argentina.’ This has now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.</p
A bibliometric investigation on translator and interpreter training publications (2001-2020)
No full textThe aim of this project is to analyze the evolution of translator and interpreter training from 2001 to 2020 from a bibliometric perspective. Very few studies have employed bibliometric procedures to picture the trends and patterns emerging from publications dealing with translator and interpreter training. Historical accounts based on literature reviews have been more frequent (see, e.g., Hurtado Albir 2019; Kelly 2019; Moser-Mercer 2005; Nam 2015), but such approaches cannot offer systematic results based on large amounts of publications. Orlando (2019, 217) highlights that the differences in translator and interpreter training views and approaches are due to many variables, such as the contexts of training, the impact of technology, educational policies, and the academic and vocational ideologies of trainers. According to the author, such variables do not allow for a clear definition of specific training models, but the existing literature can be used to picture the developments and trends in this area of translation studies. We believe that bibliometrics can be of help here as it allows for systematizing large amounts of information.
To the best of our knowledge, the first bibliometric study on translator and interpreter training was conducted by Yan, Pan, and Wang (2015). This article was re-published in 2018 (Yan, Pan, and Wang 2018c) in a monograph on bibliometric studies on translator and interpreter training, and therefore it will be discussed in a subsequent paragraph.
Franco Aixelá (2016), who used the Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation (BITRA; Franco Aixelá 2001) as the main source of data. Franco Aixelá provided a diachronic account of the evolution of translator and interpreter training based on the almost 6,500 publications on this topic that were covered in BITRA at that time for the period comprising 1991 to 2015. His results focused on: (1) the proportion of translator and interpreter trainer in translation and interpreting studies (TIS) over time, (2) publication formats, (3) most productive and cited authors, and (4) modes and specializations for which training was proposed.
Two years later, Yan, Pan, and Wang (2018c) published a volume dedicated to bibliometrics and translator and interpreter training, which contained four bibliometric-oriented studies. In the first one, Yan, Pan, and Wang (2018e) extracted 323 articles devoted to translator and interpreter training from 10 journals covering a period from 2000 to 2012. Their results focused on the evolution of the number of articles devoted to this topic, their themes (teaching, learning, and assessment), the research methods used in the studies reported, and the authorship and geographical distribution of the articles.
In a second study, Yan, Pan, and Wang (2018d) extracted 284 articles devoted to translator training from 8 journals covering a period from 2000 to 2014. Here, the authors focused on the themes (teaching, learning, and assessment), sub-themes, and their continental distribution. The third study (Yan, Pan, and Wang 2018b) pursued the same aims as the previous one, but it focused in interpreter training. Here, the authors extracted 180 articles devoted to this topic from 10 journals using the same period (2000-2014). The last study by these authors (Yan, Pan, and Wang 2018a) focused on the 98 articles on translator and interpreter training published in Meta from 2000 to 2014. Here, the authors compared Meta to the other nine journals included in their first study in terms of the distribution of publications over time and that of themes and sub-themes.
The last bibliometric-oriented study we were able to identify was published one year later by Sawyer, Austermühl, and Enríquez Raído (2019). The authors extracted 100 publications devoted to curriculum-related topics of translator and interpreter training from BITRA and Translation Studies Bibliography (TSB; Gambier and van Doorslaer 2021) covering a period from 2000 to 2017. They focused on the distribution of publications over time and produced word clouds based on the titles and the abstracts of the selected publications. They also investigated the types of investigations that were reported on (empirical, theoretical, or non-specified) and the level of studies (undergraduate, postgraduate, both, or non-specified).
Our project aims to complement and expand the investigations carried out by Franco Aixelá, Yan, Pan, and Wang, and Sawyer, Austermühl, and Enríquez Raído, even if the specific aims (see below) and the period under study (2001-2020) differ. The specific aims of the project are the following:
1. To identify the most productive authors in translator/interpreter training from 2001 to 2020, both synchronically (for the whole period) and diachronically (in 5-year periods, i.e., 2001-2005, 2006-2010, 2011-2015, and 2016-2020).
2. To identify the publications with the highest impact (i.e., citations) in translator/interpreter training from 2001 to 2020, both synchronically and diachronically.
3. To characterize translator/interpreter training publications in terms of publication format, publication language, and access type (open or toll-access) from 2001 to 2020, both synchronically and diachronically.
4. To characterize both synchronically and diachronically translator/interpreter training publications from 2001 to 2020 in relation to various aspects of their training proposals: (a) types (i.e., didactic proposal, assessment of a given proposal, etc.); (b) aspects being trained; (c) training tools used; (d) didactic methods; (e) translation/interpreting modes (i.e., written translation, consecutive interpreting, dialogic interpreting, etc.); (f) specializations (e.g., legal, scientific, etc.); (g) training levels (e.g., undergraduate, postgraduate, etc.); (h) trainees (i.e., students, professionals, etc.); (i) language pairs included in the proposal, and (j) countries in which the proposal is applied.
5. To describe how the most frequently trained aspects have been operationalized in training proposals in translator/interpreter training from 2001 to 2020.
6. To describe how the most frequently used didactic methods have been applied in translator/interpreter training from 2001 to 2020.
7. To compare the emerging patterns in translator and in interpreter training based on the bibliometric aspects covered in the previous aims.
To achieve these aims, a bibliometric study has been devised using the Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation (BITRA, Franco Aixelá 2001) as the main source of bibliometric and bibliographic data. This project intends to provide a panoramic view of translator/interpreter training since the beginning of the 21st century.
Dr Olalla-Soler and Dr Galán-Mañas will be in charge of the study on translator training, and Dr Olalla-Soler and Dr Spinolo will be in charge of that on interpreter training. The three authors will be in charge of the comparison between translator and interpreter training
A bibliometric investigation on translator and interpreter training publications (2001-2020)
No full textThe aim of this project is to analyze the evolution of translator and interpreter training from 2001 to 2020 from a bibliometric perspective. Very few studies have employed bibliometric procedures to picture the trends and patterns emerging from publications dealing with translator and interpreter training. Historical accounts based on literature reviews have been more frequent (see, e.g., Hurtado Albir 2019; Kelly 2019; Moser-Mercer 2005; Nam 2015), but such approaches cannot offer systematic results based on large amounts of publications. Orlando (2019, 217) highlights that the differences in translator and interpreter training views and approaches are due to many variables, such as the contexts of training, the impact of technology, educational policies, and the academic and vocational ideologies of trainers. According to the author, such variables do not allow for a clear definition of specific training models, but the existing literature can be used to picture the developments and trends in this area of translation studies. We believe that bibliometrics can be of help here as it allows for systematizing large amounts of information.
To the best of our knowledge, the first bibliometric study on translator and interpreter training was conducted by Yan, Pan, and Wang (2015). This article was re-published in 2018 (Yan, Pan, and Wang 2018c) in a monograph on bibliometric studies on translator and interpreter training, and therefore it will be discussed in a subsequent paragraph.
Franco Aixelá (2016), who used the Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation (BITRA; Franco Aixelá 2001) as the main source of data. Franco Aixelá provided a diachronic account of the evolution of translator and interpreter training based on the almost 6,500 publications on this topic that were covered in BITRA at that time for the period comprising 1991 to 2015. His results focused on: (1) the proportion of translator and interpreter trainer in translation and interpreting studies (TIS) over time, (2) publication formats, (3) most productive and cited authors, and (4) modes and specializations for which training was proposed.
Two years later, Yan, Pan, and Wang (2018c) published a volume dedicated to bibliometrics and translator and interpreter training, which contained four bibliometric-oriented studies. In the first one, Yan, Pan, and Wang (2018e) extracted 323 articles devoted to translator and interpreter training from 10 journals covering a period from 2000 to 2012. Their results focused on the evolution of the number of articles devoted to this topic, their themes (teaching, learning, and assessment), the research methods used in the studies reported, and the authorship and geographical distribution of the articles.
In a second study, Yan, Pan, and Wang (2018d) extracted 284 articles devoted to translator training from 8 journals covering a period from 2000 to 2014. Here, the authors focused on the themes (teaching, learning, and assessment), sub-themes, and their continental distribution. The third study (Yan, Pan, and Wang 2018b) pursued the same aims as the previous one, but it focused in interpreter training. Here, the authors extracted 180 articles devoted to this topic from 10 journals using the same period (2000-2014). The last study by these authors (Yan, Pan, and Wang 2018a) focused on the 98 articles on translator and interpreter training published in Meta from 2000 to 2014. Here, the authors compared Meta to the other nine journals included in their first study in terms of the distribution of publications over time and that of themes and sub-themes.
The last bibliometric-oriented study we were able to identify was published one year later by Sawyer, Austermühl, and Enríquez Raído (2019). The authors extracted 100 publications devoted to curriculum-related topics of translator and interpreter training from BITRA and Translation Studies Bibliography (TSB; Gambier and van Doorslaer 2021) covering a period from 2000 to 2017. They focused on the distribution of publications over time and produced word clouds based on the titles and the abstracts of the selected publications. They also investigated the types of investigations that were reported on (empirical, theoretical, or non-specified) and the level of studies (undergraduate, postgraduate, both, or non-specified).
Our project aims to complement and expand the investigations carried out by Franco Aixelá, Yan, Pan, and Wang, and Sawyer, Austermühl, and Enríquez Raído, even if the specific aims (see below) and the period under study (2001-2020) differ. The specific aims of the project are the following:
1. To identify the most productive authors in translator/interpreter training from 2001 to 2020, both synchronically (for the whole period) and diachronically (in 5-year periods, i.e., 2001-2005, 2006-2010, 2011-2015, and 2016-2020).
2. To identify the publications with the highest impact (i.e., citations) in translator/interpreter training from 2001 to 2020, both synchronically and diachronically.
3. To characterize translator/interpreter training publications in terms of publication format, publication language, and access type (open or toll-access) from 2001 to 2020, both synchronically and diachronically.
4. To characterize both synchronically and diachronically translator/interpreter training publications from 2001 to 2020 in relation to various aspects of their training proposals: (a) types (i.e., didactic proposal, assessment of a given proposal, etc.); (b) aspects being trained; (c) training tools used; (d) didactic methods; (e) translation/interpreting modes (i.e., written translation, consecutive interpreting, dialogic interpreting, etc.); (f) specializations (e.g., legal, scientific, etc.); (g) training levels (e.g., undergraduate, postgraduate, etc.); (h) trainees (i.e., students, professionals, etc.); (i) language pairs included in the proposal, and (j) countries in which the proposal is applied.
5. To describe how the most frequently trained aspects have been operationalized in training proposals in translator/interpreter training from 2001 to 2020.
6. To describe how the most frequently used didactic methods have been applied in translator/interpreter training from 2001 to 2020.
7. To compare the emerging patterns in translator and in interpreter training based on the bibliometric aspects covered in the previous aims.
To achieve these aims, a bibliometric study has been devised using the Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation (BITRA, Franco Aixelá 2001) as the main source of bibliometric and bibliographic data. This project intends to provide a panoramic view of translator/interpreter training since the beginning of the 21st century.
Dr Olalla-Soler and Dr Galán-Mañas will be in charge of the study on translator training, and Dr Olalla-Soler and Dr Spinolo will be in charge of that on interpreter training. The three authors will be in charge of the comparison between translator and interpreter training
Author Correction: Perceptions of the appropriate response to norm violation in 57 societies (Nature Communications, (2021), 12, 1, (1481), 10.1038/s41467-021-21602-9)
No full textThe original version of this Article contained an error in the author affiliations. Cecilia Reyna was incorrectly associated with ‘Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (UNC). Facultad de Psicología (UNC), Ciudad Universitaria, Bv. de la Reforma esquina, Enfermera Gordillo s/n, Córdoba, Argentina.’ instead of the correct ‘Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas (IIPsi), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), CABA, República Argentina.’ This has now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article
X-ray Birefringence in highly Anisotropic Materials
No full textInternational audienceBirefringence is the dependence of a material's refractive index on the direction of linear polarization. It induces a phase shift between two perpendicular polarization directions and thus couples linear and circular polarization states. Birefringence in x-ray absorption is as common as linear dichroism but is rarely discussed in the literature. We outline a mathematical framework for describing experiments on birefringence and illustrate the importance of the phenomenon with three examples
