24,331 research outputs found
Shapiro, Karl : Elliston lecture number 9 : the greatest living author; April 9th, 1959
No full textDescription on Reel Box: Reel #1 Speed: 3 3/4
Elliston Poet 1959 - Karl Shapiro
Lecture #9 - April 9, 1959
"The Greatest Living Author"Contents:
Track 01 The Greatest Living Author [complete]Digital Projects SAN: Folder and disc location for wav file: 20120222/Box2/Disc 5. Folder and disc location for mp3 file: 20120222/Box2/Disc
Elliott S. Shapiro biographical materials 1964, 1966, 1969, 2003
No full textFolder contains articles and an obituary from the New Yorker and New York Times, a summary of Nat Hentoff's book "Our Children Are Dying," and seating arrangements and a souvenir program for a testimonial dinner given in honor of Shapiro in 1964Ellen ShapiroDr. Elliott S. Shapiro served as the principal of New York Public School 119 located in Central Harlem from 1954-1966; he later became district superintendent for School District 3 in lower Manhatta
Shapiro-Wilk test results for the residuals by subgroup, variable and timepoint of measurement.
No full textShapiro-Wilk test results for the residuals by subgroup, variable and timepoint of measurement.</p
Carol S. Kekst Papers (Box 1, Folder 1)
No full textThe papers of the American Soviet Jewry movement activist Carol Schapiro Kekst focus on the activities of the Committee of Concerned Scientists, of which Kekst was a vice-chair, in order to protect the Soviet Jewish Refusenik scientists from state persecution and discrimination, and to defend their right to emigrate. The papers contains background information on the Soviet state discrimination against Jewish scientists in the USSR, on some individual Soviet Jewish Refusenik scientists and dissidents, including Victor Brailovsky, Yuri Orlov, Anatoly Sharansky, Andrei Sakharov, Ilya Piatetsky-Shapiro, Alexander Lerner, Eugene Levich, and others.Digital ImageDigital finding aid:reviewe
Carol S. Kekst Papers (Box 1, Folder 2)
No full textThe papers of the American Soviet Jewry movement activist Carol Schapiro Kekst focus on the activities of the Committee of Concerned Scientists, of which Kekst was a vice-chair, in order to protect the Soviet Jewish Refusenik scientists from state persecution and discrimination, and to defend their right to emigrate. The papers contains background information on the Soviet state discrimination against Jewish scientists in the USSR, on some individual Soviet Jewish Refusenik scientists and dissidents, including Victor Brailovsky, Yuri Orlov, Anatoly Sharansky, Andrei Sakharov, Ilya Piatetsky-Shapiro, Alexander Lerner, Eugene Levich, and others.Digital ImageDigital finding aid:reviewe
The Role of Procedural Controls in OSHA's Ergonomics Rulemaking
No full textFew, if any, regulations over the past decade have received the publicity or engendered the controversy of OSHA’s ergonomics regulation. Some may see the ergonomics rule as the paradigmatic instance of procedural hurdles holding up and eventually destroying a regulation. The purpose of this article is to examine the role that procedure played in the ergonomics rulemaking. To draw lessons from the ergonomics rulemaking I have conducted analyses of the four publicly available versions and conducted interviews with seven high ranking officials at OSHA and the Small Business Administration. I find that of the procedural hurdles faced by OSHA, the notice and comment requirement had the largest impact on the final rule. OMB review and requirements to conduct a cost benefit analysis served largely as a fire alarm to political overseers and the required small business panel had largely symbolic effects. The more traditional control of Congressional budgetary oversight had the greatest effect by delaying the rule for three years which eventually doomed OSHA’s attempts to regulate.Peer reviewe
Defragmenting the Regulatory Process
No full textThe regulatory process is often criticized for being cumbersome and slow, much like a computer whose hard drive is fragmented by files no longer used or useful. Like such a computer, the regulatory process contains many requirement of dubious utility. These include the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and numerous executive orders. While other parts of the regulatory process such as notice and comment and cost-benefit analysis have received much more academic attention, these other parts of the process deserve examination as well. This paper argues that such an examination will reveal that these statutes and executive orders add little of value to the regulatory process while consuming agency resources. An improved requirement for cost-benefit analysis with distributional analysis could easily replace virtually all of these requirements and improve regulations while reducing the time needed to promulgate regulations.Peer reviewe
An Evaluation of the Bush Administration Reforms to the Regulatory Process
No full textThe Bush Administration has implemented more reforms to the regulatory process than any of its predecessors. These reforms are often stereotyped as anti-regulatory. This article examines the reforms as a whole and asks which interests have been empowered by the Bush Administration regulatory reforms. I believe this method is a more effective way of assessing the impact of the reforms. I find that in addition to adding potential costs to the regulatory process, the reforms are likely to empower powerful interest groups and the presidency. Whether the impact of these reforms is pro-regulation or anti-regulation will depend on how a future administration more dedicated to regulatory protections uses them. I also lay out a research agenda to better empirically assess the impact of these regulatory reforms.Peer reviewed"Issue published online: 11 APR 2007. Article first published online: 11 APR 2007"--Publisher website
Does the amount of participation matter? Public comments, agency responses and the time to finalize a regulation
No full textThe notice and comment rulemaking process is a fundamental part of how agencies write regulations. While this process is starting to receive more empirical attention, the question of how the number of comments that an agency receives affects its decision-making process has received little examination. This paper uses Boolean analysis to examine nine rules from two agencies at the Department of Health and Human Services and evaluates the impact of a high volume of comments on agency changes to proposed rules and the time an agency takes to finalize a proposed rule. These nine cases suggest that agencies are most likely to change their proposals when they receive a high volume of comments on highly complex rules that are not very politically salient. Highly complex rules are also likely to take a long time to finalize when there are many public comments however it is often other factors that cause a long delay between proposed and final rules.Peer reviewedThe final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11077-007-9051-
Letter Written by Marty Shapiro to the Bryant College Service Club Dated December 23, 1942
No full text[Transcription begins] MARTY SHAPIRO S 2/c CO 1353 S.K. School U.S.N.T.S. NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND
December 23, 1942
Dear friends,
I want to thank you for the two boxes of candy which you sent me awhile back. The boys and myself made short work of them. I was happy to know I was still remembered.
I also received the school papers and I will say they did recall some remembrances of those college days. It was quite impressive to know that so many of the boys from school are in the service. I, for one, can say that my schooling is helping me get ahead. You can be sure that I’m learning a lot more, though it may not all come under the head of schooling.
Marty Shapiro Class of ‘42 [Transcription ends
- …
