25,355 research outputs found
Possible signature of the Baryon Symmetric Universe in the diffuse radiation and lifetime of antiprotons
No full textThe construction of Karen Karnak: The multi-author-function
No full textThis thesis is situated within the comparatively recent developments of Web 2.0 and the emergence of interactive WikiMedia, and explores the mode of authorship within a Read/Write culture compared to that of a Read/Only tradition. The hypothesis of this study is that the role of the audience has become merged with the author, and as such, represents new functions and attributes, distinct from a more conventional concept of authorship, in which the roles of audience and author are more separate. Read/Write and participatory culture, as defined by this study, is focused on collaboration, and includes the influences of D.I.Y. culture, Open-Source practices and the production of text by multiple authors. Multi-authorship presents a re-thinking of several concepts which support the notion of the individual author, since the focus of multi-authorship is not on attribution and ownership of a finished text, but on the continued malleability of a text. Modes of multi-authorship, demonstrated in the use of the pseudonyms Alan Smithee and Karen Eliot, represent declarative authors whose names signify multiple origins, whilst concurrently indicating a distinct body of work. The function of these names form an important context to this study, since primary research involves the construction of an experimental mode of multi-authorship utilising WikiMedia technology and the interaction of thirty nine participants, who are invited to create a body of work under the collective pseudonym Karen Karnak. The data generated by this experiment is analysed using aspects of Michel Foucault's author-function to identify and determine power structures inherent in the WikiMedia context. The interplay of power structures, including concepts such as identity, ownership and the body of work, affect the resulting mode of authorship and contribute to the construction of Karen Karnak, suggesting further areas of research into the emerging multi-author
The Poems of James Stephens
No full textCe livre rassemble tous les poèmes, y compris donc ceux que Stephens avait omis ou écartés pour la publication des Collected Poems (1954). Le travail de l’éditeur est remarquable et fournit donc un excellent outil de travail : ordre chronologique par recueil et version révisée des poèmes, conformes aux souhaits de l’auteur ; préface rédigée par Stephens avant sa mort en 1950 ; indication en note des textes exclus en 1954 ; ajout d’une rubrique « Additional poems » ; absence salutaire de comme..
Intraseasonal variation in reproductive effort: Young males finish last
No full textAge-dependent reproductive timing has been observed in females of a number of species; older females often breed earlier in the season and experience higher reproductive success as a result. However, to date, evidence for within-season variation in reproductive effort (RE) for males has been relatively weak. Males are expected to time RE in light of intraseasonal variations in the availability of receptive females and competition with other males. Young males, which are typically smaller and less experienced, might benefit from breeding later in the season, when male-male competition is less intense. Using a long-term data set of Alpine chamois Rupicapra rupicapra, we sought to evaluate the hypothesis that younger males allocate highest RE late in the breeding season, at a time when older male RE has decreased substantially. Our results support this hypothesis, which suggests that intraseasonal variation in RE may be an adaptive life-history trait for males as well as females. © 2012 by The University of Chicago
Language Change and SA-OT: The case of sentential negation
No full textSimulated Annealing for Optimality Theory (SA-OT) updates Optimality Theory by adding a model of performance to a theory of linguistic competence. Our aim is to show that SA-OT can contribute to language change simulations. Performance "errors" are considered to be one of the causes of variation and change. We have chosen to model the evolution of sentential negation (SN). The descriptive background adopts Jespersen's Cycle, according to which the evolution of sentential negation follows three main stages (1. pre-verbal, 2. discontinuous, and 3. post-verbal). Therefore, we advance a novel model for SN, based on SA-OT. It reproduces the three pure and the two observed mixed stages, whereas it correctly predicts the lack of an intermediate stage between 3 and 1. The success of the approach corroborates the computational, performance-based approach to the data. Finally, we employ the iterated learning paradigm to reproduce historical changes in a "simulated corpus study". This enterprise turns out to be more difficult than one would naively believe.Appeared open access as: Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal (CLIN), vol. 1 (2011), pp. 21-40, and is available at http://www.clinjournal.org/sites/default/files/Lopopolo.pdfA. Lopopolo and Biró, T., “Language Change and SA-OT. The case of sentential negation”, Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal, vol. 1, pp. 21-40, 2011.Peer Reviewe
Singing from the Grave: DNA from a 180 Year Old Type Specimen Confirms the Identity of Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens)
No full textCopyright: © 2015 Price et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. The attached file is the published version of the article.NHM Repositor
“Snatched from oblivion”: John L. Stephens, wilderness, and Maya history
No full textLe savoir scientifique du colonisateur et le savoir indigène se sont souvent trouvé en conflit l’un contre l’autre. À travers l’exemple de John L. Stephens, l’objectif de cette contribution est de comprendre les paradoxes que les scientifiques et naturalistes voyageurs ont incarné dans leurs récits de voyages, une forme d’écriture extrêmement populaire aux 18e et 19e siècles. En 1841, John L. Stephens, un voyageur et diplomate américain, publie Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan, réédité douze fois en quinze ans. En 1843, il publie un ouvrage complémentaire, Incidents of Travel in Yucatan. Selon plusieurs commentateurs du XXe siècle, ces deux livres, illustrés par Frederick Catherwood, constituent le fondement de la recherche scientifique sur les Mayas. A l’époque des voyages de Stephens, une longue tradition de voyageurs naturalistes américains était établie. Pourtant, Stephens se démarquait par sa conception de la nature, qu’il voyait davantage comme un obstacle à la connaissance scientifique. En cela, il était en phase avec l’évolution de la perception de la nature aux Etats-Unis, dans le contexte de la conquête de l’Ouest, où la « wilderness » devait être apprivoisée afin de laisser place à la « civilisation ». Ses voyages reproduisirent la geste colonisatrice des explorateurs qui, aux siècles précédents, avaient exploré ce qui deviendrait les Etats-Unis. Il rencontra les populations locales et écouta leur savoir territorial, mais ne le prit guère en considération pour imposer plutôt sur les territoires explorés une vision états-unienne et colonisatrice. Le travail de Stephens illustre donc une ancienne ambiguïté, toujours actuelle, au cœur de l’exploitation des savoirs indigènes à travers le monde : la science libère en même temps des puissances d’émancipation et de soumission. Pour Stephens, la végétation luxuriante qui recouvre les vestiges mayas et le savoir de ses employés mayas ont un point commun : ils empêchent la science d’éclairer le monde.Western scientific knowledge and indigenous knowledge have often been at odds. This paper aims to illustrate, through the example of John L. Stephens, the paradoxes that scientific travelers and traveling naturalists have embodied in the narratives they left of their travels, a form of writing that found huge audiences in the 18th and the 19th centuries. In 1841, John L. Stephens, a U.S. traveler and diplomat, published Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan, twelve editions of which were published in fifteen years. Two years later, he published a complementary work, Incidents of Travel in Yucatan. These two books, both illustrated by Frederick Catherwood, are said to be the groundwork for Maya studies. At the time of Stephens’s travels, there had been a long tradition in America of naturalist travelers. However, if Stephens was a traveler for sure, he was hardly a naturalist. As a matter of fact, to him vegetation was only an obstacle to overcome in order to uncover the ruins concealed underneath. As a typical 19th-century American explorer, Stephens did not see nature in any other way than a wilderness to conquer. Stephens reenacted the imperialist gesture that was at the time the national mantra at home. As a scientist coming from a colonizing nation travelling through a colonized one, he played a similar role that the 18th-century English naturalists played when they explored the territories that would become the United States. He encountered indigenous people and heard of their territorial knowledge, but dismissed it in order to impose his own Western and colonizing worldview. Thus, Stephens’ work illustrates an old ambiguity that is not yet clarified today, as regards the exploitation of indigenous knowledge throughout the world: science wields power both of emancipation and of submission. In Stephens’s work, one can see an equation between clearing out the vegetation off the ruins and subduing his Maya employee’s knowledge of them. To the explorer, they both plunged science into darkness
“Snatched from oblivion”: John L. Stephens, wilderness, and Maya history
No full textInternational audienceWestern scientific knowledge and indigenous knowledge have often been at odds. This paper aims to illustrate, through the example of John L. Stephens, the paradoxes that scientific travelers and traveling naturalists have embodied in the narratives they left of their travels, a form of writing that found huge audiences in the 18th and the 19th centuries. In 1841, John L. Stephens, a U.S. traveler and diplomat, published Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan, twelve editions of which were published in fifteen years. Two years later, he published a complementary work, Incidents of Travel in Yucatan. These two books, both illustrated by Frederick Catherwood, are said to be the groundwork for Maya studies. At the time of Stephens’s travels, there had been a long tradition in America of naturalist travelers. However, if Stephens was a traveler for sure, he was hardly a naturalist. As a matter of fact, to him vegetation was only an obstacle to overcome in order to uncover the ruins concealed underneath. As a typical 19th-century American explorer, Stephens did not see nature in any other way than a wilderness to conquer. Stephens reenacted the imperialist gesture that was at the time the national mantra at home. As a scientist coming from a colonizing nation travelling through a colonized one, he played a similar role that the 18th-century English naturalists played when they explored the territories that would become the United States. He encountered indigenous people and heard of their territorial knowledge, but dismissed it in order to impose his own Western and colonizing worldview. Thus, Stephens’ work illustrates an old ambiguity that is not yet clarified today, as regards the exploitation of indigenous knowledge throughout the world: science wields power both of emancipation and of submission. In Stephens’s work, one can see an equation between clearing out the vegetation off the ruins and subduing his Maya employee’s knowledge of them. To the explorer, they both plunged science into darkness.Le savoir scientifique du colonisateur et le savoir indigène se sont souvent trouvé en conflit l’un contre l’autre. À travers l’exemple de John L. Stephens, l’objectif de cette contribution est de comprendre les paradoxes que les scientifiques et naturalistes voyageurs ont incarné dans leurs récits de voyages, une forme d’écriture extrêmement populaire aux 18e et 19e siècles. En 1841, John L. Stephens, un voyageur et diplomate américain, publie Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan, réédité douze fois en quinze ans. En 1843, il publie un ouvrage complémentaire, Incidents of Travel in Yucatan. Selon plusieurs commentateurs du XXe siècle, ces deux livres, illustrés par Frederick Catherwood, constituent le fondement de la recherche scientifique sur les Mayas. A l’époque des voyages de Stephens, une longue tradition de voyageurs naturalistes américains était établie. Pourtant, Stephens se démarquait par sa conception de la nature, qu’il voyait davantage comme un obstacle à la connaissance scientifique. En cela, il était en phase avec l’évolution de la perception de la nature aux Etats-Unis, dans le contexte de la conquête de l’Ouest, où la « wilderness » devait être apprivoisée afin de laisser place à la « civilisation ». Ses voyages reproduisirent la geste colonisatrice des explorateurs qui, aux siècles précédents, avaient exploré ce qui deviendrait les Etats-Unis. Il rencontra les populations locales et écouta leur savoir territorial, mais ne le prit guère en considération pour imposer plutôt sur les territoires explorés une vision états-unienne et colonisatrice. Le travail de Stephens illustre donc une ancienne ambiguïté, toujours actuelle, au cœur de l’exploitation des savoirs indigènes à travers le monde : la science libère en même temps des puissances d’émancipation et de soumission. Pour Stephens, la végétation luxuriante qui recouvre les vestiges mayas et le savoir de ses employés mayas ont un point commun : ils empêchent la science d’éclairer le monde
Innovations and Good Practice in SHARE Education Program
No full textThe contents of this present monograph are the results of a small-scale research conducted by Professor David Stephens of the University of Brighton, UK under contract with SHARE TA. The research analysed and documented six major innovations under the SHARE Education Program in a wider international context. We hope the findings and recommendations of this study will be useful to both polcy makers and practitioners in the field of basic and non-formal education in Bangladesh and countries of similar economic and educational status in the region. SA Chowdury, team Leader SHARE Educational Technical Assistance, March 201
Innovations and Good Practice in SHARE Education Program
No full textThe contents of this present monograph are the results of a small-scale research conducted by Professor David Stephens of the University of Brighton, UK under contract with SHARE TA. The research analysed and documented six major innovations under the SHARE Education Program in a wider international context. We hope the findings and recommendations of this study will be useful to both polcy makers and practitioners in the field of basic and non-formal education in Bangladesh and countries of similar economic and educational status in the region. SA Chowdury, team Leader SHARE Educational Technical Assistance, March 201
- …
