327,488 research outputs found
Letter from C. R. Proctor to S. B. Simmons
No full textLetter from C. R. Proctor to S. B. Simmons, concerning visit to Oxford Orphanage
Letter from S. B. Simmons to Rev. C. R. Proctor
No full textLetter from S. B. Simmons to Rev. C. R. Proctor, thanking him for assistance with livestock judging contest
Safety Review of the Existing Roads
No full textA road safety audit is a formal safety examination of a proposed change to an existing road, or a new highway scheme which is carried out throughout the design and construction period. In the audit, an independent, qualified team reports on the project’s accident potential and makes recommendations for improvement. When the audit process is applied to an existing road it is called a ‘road safety review’. Road safety audits were first developed in the United Kingdom in the early 1980's for checking the safety performance of new road designs and improvement schemes, and some of the principles have now been extended to apply to existing roads. The main objective of in service safety reviews is to identify the technical, geometric and functional characteristics that may increase the number and/or the severity of accidents. Safety reviews may be part of a national comprehensive road safety strategy since they represent a low cost method for the periodic evaluation of network safety performance, and the programming of safety improvements. In countries where accident data are not collected and “blackspot” remedial programs are not in use, safety reviews are a suitable methodology for starting systematic safety improvements programs, whereas in countries with more evolved safety management the review can be used to support blackspot analysis. In the paper, a formal methodology for both carrying out safety reviews and integrating safety reviews into a national comprehensive road safety strategy is described. The methodology has been tested during road safety audits in Italy and has been systematically applied in the safety review of rural road networks
Safety Review of the Existing Roads
No full textA road safety audit is a formal safety examination of a proposed change to an existing road, or a new highway scheme which is carried out throughout the design and construction period. In the audit, an independent, qualified team reports on the project’s accident potential and makes recommendations for improvement. When the audit process is applied to an existing road it is called a ‘road safety review’. Road safety audits were first developed in the United Kingdom in the early 1980's for checking the safety performance of new road designs and improvement schemes, and some of the principles have now been extended to apply to existing roads. The main objective of in service safety reviews is to identify the technical, geometric and functional characteristics that may increase the number and/or the severity of accidents. Safety reviews may be part of a national comprehensive road safety strategy since they represent a low cost method for the periodic evaluation of network safety performance, and the programming of safety improvements. In countries where accident data are not collected and “blackspot” remedial programs are not in use, safety reviews are a suitable methodology for starting systematic safety improvements programs, whereas in countries with more evolved safety management the review can be used to support blackspot analysis. In the paper, a formal methodology for both carrying out safety reviews and integrating safety reviews into a national comprehensive road safety strategy is described. The methodology has been tested during road safety audits in Italy and has been systematically applied in the safety review of rural road networks
Letter from S. B. Simmons to Rev. G. K. Proctor, Superintendent, Oxford Orphanage
No full textLetter from S. B. Simmons to Rev. G. K. Proctor, Superintendent of the Oxford Orphanage, concerning judging contest
Road Safety Audit Checklists: Current Practice and Future Developments
No full textRoad Safety Audit is a relatively new tool, available to assist road agencies in lowering potential collision risk on new road schemes or highway improvements. The principles can also be extended to cover analysis of existing roads, particularly where accident data is poor or non-existent. Audit Teams often use checklists, which prompt the auditor to consider factors which could lead to road accidents. Checklists are a useful tool aimed at helping the Audit Team during the assessment of the safety problems since they provide a good reminder of issues which need to be reviewed. However, they cannot be expected to cover all the issues which may arise in every Audit and cannot be a substitute for the safety auditor’s skills and safety background. Although checklists are helpful and are included in almost all the international Road Safety Audit guidelines, they have several drawbacks which restrict their effectiveness and use. Checklists can never cover all the safety aspects, and as checklists become more voluminous in order to be comprehensive, they become intimidating and overwhelming. Experienced Safety Audit Teams typically find such checklists redundant since the lists miss the interactivity between design elements, and threaten some of the independent and intelligent creativity of the auditor. It is important that safety auditors base their work on sound safety experience, and where possible, have the means to back up the recommendations from documented sources. Accident control data can be used to assist safety auditors by means of effective and accessible data-bases. This assists with both the identification of problems, and with the recommendations for improvement. This paper describes the potential for a new tool aimed at improving checklists, and at improving the effectiveness of the Road Safety Audit procedure. The tool involves the development of a computer based decision supporting system (DSS) which combines interactive checklists and control data
Road Safety Audit Checklists: Current Practice and Future Developments
No full textRoad Safety Audit is a relatively new tool, available to assist road agencies in lowering potential collision risk on new road schemes or highway improvements. The principles can also be extended to cover analysis of existing roads, particularly where accident data is poor or non-existent. Audit Teams often use checklists, which prompt the auditor to consider factors which could lead to road accidents. Checklists are a useful tool aimed at helping the Audit Team during the assessment of the safety problems since they provide a good reminder of issues which need to be reviewed. However, they cannot be expected to cover all the issues which may arise in every Audit and cannot be a substitute for the safety auditor’s skills and safety background. Although checklists are helpful and are included in almost all the international Road Safety Audit guidelines, they have several drawbacks which restrict their effectiveness and use. Checklists can never cover all the safety aspects, and as checklists become more voluminous in order to be comprehensive, they become intimidating and overwhelming. Experienced Safety Audit Teams typically find such checklists redundant since the lists miss the interactivity between design elements, and threaten some of the independent and intelligent creativity of the auditor. It is important that safety auditors base their work on sound safety experience, and where possible, have the means to back up the recommendations from documented sources. Accident control data can be used to assist safety auditors by means of effective and accessible data-bases. This assists with both the identification of problems, and with the recommendations for improvement. This paper describes the potential for a new tool aimed at improving checklists, and at improving the effectiveness of the Road Safety Audit procedure. The tool involves the development of a computer based decision supporting system (DSS) which combines interactive checklists and control data
Making mentoring matter: the 'proctor process' of faculty mentoring in higher education
No full textOver the past few years, there have been a number of student protests at major institutions rallying for inclusion and equity. A primary demand is increasing faculty diversity. According to the 2012 National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates, Blacks comprised fewer doctorate recipients than Whites, Asians, and Hispanics. African Americans pursuing doctoral education have various sociological and institutional challenges. In light of the challenges facing African Americans, mentoring has been seen as a critical part of doctoral education for any student. This dissertation project explored a historical mentoring model of African American doctoral students using the late Rev. Dr. Samuel DeWitt Proctor as the unit of analysis. Dr. Proctor (1921 – 1997) was a theologian and educator who was brought to Rutgers University in 1969 to assist in the advancement of diversity and social justice issues and to increase the number of students of color in graduate programs. During his tenure, he has been noted for producing the most African American doctorates in the history of Rutgers. Using a hybrid approach combining oral history and narrative inquiry, this dissertation addresses the following research questions: 1. Was there an identifiable “Proctor process” of African American doctoral student mentorship? If so, what practices did it entail? 2. How might the Proctor process serve as a model for mentorship of African American doctoral students today? Primary and secondary sources were used in conjunction with an oral history of six graduate students mentored by Proctor at Rutgers between 1969 and 1984. These interviews were transcribed and analyzed to highlight emerging themes. An exploration of the influence of religion and theology on mentoring for social change was incorporated as well. The data led to the development of the Proctor Model of Mentoring, and challenges the literature to consider effective faculty mentoring, intentional mentoring models for graduate students of color, and unique approaches to penetrating the doctoral pipeline in higher education.Ph.D.Includes bibliographical referencesby Atiya S. Strother
Proctor, A, VX55551
No full textThis record was harvested from a previous catalogue system and will be withdrawn in 2025. Information in this record may be superseded or incomplete. Visit this record in UMA's new catalogue at: https://archives.library.unimelb.edu.au/nodes/view/411810Surname: PROCTOR. Given Name(s) or Initials: A. Military Service Number or Last Known Location: VX55551. Missing, Wounded and Prisoner of War Enquiry Card Index Number: 12546.227521
Item: [2016.0049.44074] "Proctor, A, VX55551
- …
