162,756 research outputs found
Waterpipe tobacco and cigarette smoking among university students in Jordan
No full textSETTING: While waterpipe and cigarette smoking have been well studied in Syria and Lebanon, data from Jordan are limited. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the relative prevalence of waterpipe tobacco and cigarette smoking among university students in Jordan, and to compare the demographic and environmental factors associated with each form of tobacco use. DESIGN: We surveyed 1845 students randomly recruited from four universities in Jordan. We used multivariable logistic regression controlling for clustering of individuals within universities to determine associations between demographic and environmental covariates and waterpipe tobacco and cigarette use. RESULTS: Waterpipe tobacco smoking rates were 30percent in the past 30 days and 56percent ever, while cigarette smoking rates were 29percent in the past 30 days and 57percent ever. Past 30-day waterpipe tobacco smoking rates were 59percent for males and 13percent for females. Females had substantially lower odds than males of being current waterpipe (OR 0.12, 95percentCI 0.10-0.15) or cigarette (OR 0.08, 95percentCI 0.05-0.14) smokers. Current cigarette smoking was more significantly associated with markers of high socioeconomic status (SES) than waterpipe tobacco smoking. CONCLUSION: Waterpipe tobacco smoking is as common as cigarette smoking among Jordanian university students. While cigarette smoking is consistently associated with high SES, waterpipe tobacco smoking is more evenly distributed across various populations. © 2012 The Union.Afifi RA, 2010, EUR J PUBLIC HEALTH, V20, P456, DOI 10.1093-eurpub-ckp173; Akl EA, 2010, INT J EPIDEMIOL, V39, P834, DOI 10.1093-ije-dyq002; Almerie MQ, 2008, INT J TUBERC LUNG D, V12, P1085; Al Rashidi M, 2008, FOOD CHEM TOXICOL, V46, P3546, DOI 10.1016-j.fct.2008.09.007; Azab M, 2010, NICOTINE TOB RES, V12, P606, DOI 10.1093-ntr-ntq055; Barnett TE, 2009, AM J PUBLIC HEALTH, V99, P2014, DOI 10.2105-AJPH.2008.151225; Cobb C, 2010, AM J HEALTH BEHAV, V34, P275; Dar-Odeh NS, 2010, HARM REDUCT J, V7, DOI 10.1186-1477-7517-7-10; Dugas E, 2010, PEDIATRICS, V125, P1184, DOI 10.1542-peds.2009-2335; Eissenberg T, 2009, AM J PREV MED, V37, P518, DOI 10.1016-j.amepre.2009.07.014; Eissenberg T, 2008, J ADOLESCENT HEALTH, V42, P526, DOI 10.1016-j.jadohealth.2007.10.004; Jensen PD, 2010, SUBST USE MISUSE, V45, P1245, DOI 10.3109-10826081003682909; Khabour OF, 2011, ENVIRON MOL MUTAGEN, V52, DOI 10.1002-em.20601; Khader Y. S., 2008, Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, V14, P897; Knishkowy B, 2005, PEDIATRICS, V116, pE113, DOI 10.1542-peds.2004-2173; Lee D, 2007, ADDICT BEHAV, V32, P332, DOI 10.1016-j.addbeh.2006.05.002; Mandil Ahmed, 2010, J Infect Public Health, V3, P179, DOI 10.1016-j.jiph.2010.10.003; Maziak W, 2009, NICOTINE TOB RES, V11, P806, DOI 10.1093-ntr-ntp066; Maziak W, 2004, INT J TUBERC LUNG D, V8, P882; Maziak W, 2004, TOB CONTROL, V13, P327, DOI 10.1136-tc.2004.008169; Memon A, 2000, B WORLD HEALTH ORGAN, V78, P1306; Mohammed H. R., 2010, Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, V16, P1115; Neergaard J, 2007, NICOTINE TOB RES, V9, P987, DOI 10.1080-14622200701591591; Noar SM, 2005, HEALTH EDUC RES, V20, P275, DOI 10.1093-her-cyg113; Parna K, 2008, BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, V8, DOI 10.1186-1471-2458-8-392; Primack BA, 2010, J ADOLESCENT HEALTH, V46, P45, DOI 10.1016-j.jadohealth.2009.05.004; Primack BA, 2009, PEDIATRICS, V123, pE282, DOI 10.1542-peds.2008-1663; Primack BA, 2008, ANN BEHAV MED, V36, P81, DOI 10.1007-s12160-008-9047-6; Saade Georges, 2009, J Med Liban, V57, P243; Sepetdjian E, 2008, FOOD CHEM TOXICOL, V46, P1582, DOI 10.1016-j.fct.2007.12.028; Shafagoj YA, 2002, INT J CLIN PHARM TH, V40, P249; Shihadeh A, 2005, FOOD CHEM TOXICOL, V43, P655, DOI 10.1016-j.fct.2004.12.013; Smith-Simone S, 2008, NICOTINE TOB RES, V10, P393, DOI 10.1080-14622200701825023; Tamim H, 2003, ADDICTION, V98, P933, DOI 10.1046-j.1360-0443.2003.00413.x; Ward KD, 2006, TOB CONTROL, V15, pi248111
[Report to Chief J. E. Curry, by an unknown author #1]
No full textReport to Chief J. E. Curry, by an unknown author. The report contains a list of officers who gave depositions to the United States Attorney
[Report to Chief J. E. Curry, by an unknown author #2]
No full textReport to Chief J. E. Curry, by an unknown author. The report contains a list of officers who gave depositions to the United States Attorney
Murder on the mountain: author talk with Peter J. Wosh
No full textAuthor talk by Peter J. Wosh on May 5th, 2022, on his book, "Murder on the Mountain: crime, passion, and punishment in gilded age New Jersey.
Mr. Melvin J. Collier, RWWL AUC, June 2011
No full textThis video is a conversation with Mr. Melvin J. Collier. Mr. Collier talks about his book, "From Mississippi to Africa: A Journey of Discovery". Daniel Le, AUC Woodruff Library, is the interviewer
A Tripartite Post-Recession Rebalancing
No full textIn this latest Advance & Rutgers Report, entitled “A Tripartite Post-Recession Rebalancing,” Dean James W. Hughes and Professor Joseph J. Seneca deliver an incisive assessment of the current market conditions and obstacles in the path of our economic recovery. They offer a statistical cautionary tale that the private and public sector need to hear and acknowledge in order for the economy to make continued progress.This report was published as Issue Paper Number 7, November 2011, in Advance & Rutgers Report
Evidence for the decay B0→J/ψω and measurement of the relative branching fractions of meson decays to J/ψη and J/ψη′
No full textFirst evidence of the B 0 → J / ψ ω decay is found and the B s 0 → J / ψ η and B s 0 → J / ψ η ′ decays are studied using a dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 1.0 fb -1 collected by the LHCb experiment in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of sqrt(s) = 7 TeV. The branching fractions of these decays are measured relative to that of the B 0 → J / ψ ρ 0 decay:frac(B (B 0 → J / ψ ω), B (B 0 → J / ψ ρ 0)) = 0.89 ± 0.19 (stat) - 0.13 + 0.07 (syst),frac(B (B s 0 → J / ψ η), B (B 0 → J / ψ ρ 0)) = 14.0 ± 1.2 (stat) - 1.5 + 1.1 (syst) - 1.0 + 1.1 (frac(f d, f s)),frac(B (B s 0 → J / ψ η ′), B (B 0 → J / ψ ρ 0)) = 12.7 ± 1.1 (stat) - 1.3 + 0.5 (syst) - 0.9 + 1.0 (frac(f d, f s)), where the last uncertainty is due to the knowledge of f d / f s, the ratio of b-quark hadronization factors that accounts for the different production rate of B 0 and B s 0 mesons. The ratio of the branching fractions of B s 0 → J / ψ η ′ and B s 0 → J / ψ η decays is measured to befrac(B (B s 0 → J / ψ η ′), B (B s 0 → J / ψ η)) = 0.90 ± 0.09 (stat) - 0.02 + 0.06 (syst)
The vanishing author in computer-generated works: a critical analysis of recent Australian case law
No full textAbstract
The use of software is ubiquitous in the creation of many copyright works, yet the requirement in copyright law that every work have a human author who engages in independent intellectual effort means that its use may prevent copyright subsistence. Several recent Australian cases have refocused attention on authorship as an essential criterion of copyright subsistence, and these cases suggest that much computer-produced output may be authorless and thus lack copyright protection. This article, the first in a two-part series, analyses how each case deals with the question of authorship of computer-produced works and why the use of software diminishes copyright protection for a significant number of computer-generated works. The article critiques the application of conventional notions of human authorship developed in the pre-computer age to modern productions and suggests alternative approaches to authorship that satisfy both the major objectives of copyright policy and the need to adapt to the computer age. The article argues that, without a broader judicial approach to authorship of computer-generated works, Parliament must remedy the lacuna in protection for these ‘authorless’ works. Possible solutions for reform are suggested. In a forthcoming article, the author comprehensively examines those reform proposals
- …
