155 research outputs found
Quinet (B.), Begue (P.) Étude épidémiologique des enfants migrants : expérience parisienne
No full textCharbit Yves. Quinet (B.), Begue (P.) Étude épidémiologique des enfants migrants : expérience parisienne . In: Revue européenne des migrations internationales, vol. 6, n°3,1990. p. 170
Infrastructure maintenance, regeneration and service quality economics: A rail example
No full textAn earlier draft of 6th October 2010 by Gaudry and Quinet, entitled Optimisation de l’entretien et de la régénération d’une infrastructure: exploration d’hypothèses, benefitted from comments by Bernard Caillaud and Matthieu de Lapparent and was presented without econometric tests at the Kuhmo Nectar Conference on Transportation Economics in Stockholm on 1st July 2011 under the title “Joint optimization of continuous maintenance and periodic renewal”. The authors thank Marc Antoni, Richard Arnott, David Meunier and Yves Puttalaz for discussions or comments, Cong-Liem Tran for computing assistance and are grateful to Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) for financial support and for allowing inclusion in this version of estimates based on databases constructed by Michel Ikonomov and Pascaline Boyer. Exploratory estimates obtained from fixed form regression specifications were presented at the Kuhmo Nectar Conference on Transportation Economics in Berlin on 21st June 2012 through David Meunier’s good offices
La libéralisation des chemins de fer européens au regard de l’histoire
No full textLa table ronde « La libéralisation des chemins de fer européens au regard de l’histoire : avancée, risque ou régression ? » avait pour mission de mettre en perspective historique la libéralisation des chemins de fer européens : son évolution et sa place dans une histoire à long terme, ses résultats, les nouvelles relations que ces mesures ont instituées entre gestionnaires des réseaux et exploitants de transport, entre le secteur des transports et les pouvoirs nationaux, régionaux ou locaux. Après une introduction historique assurée par Michèle Merger, chargée de recherche au CNRS, qui rappelle la directive 91/440 et ses quatre recommandations – séparation juridique et comptable de l’infrastructure des réseaux et de leur exploitation, indépendance de gestion des entreprises ferroviaires, leur assainissement financier et le libre accès de nouvelles entreprises exploitantes à l’infrastructure –, qui ont conduit à une évolution très rapide du secteur en quinze ans, quatre questions sont posées aux participants : quels sont les pays et les acteurs européens les plus réfractaires et les plus favorables à cette évolution, et quels sont leurs arguments respectifs ? Existe-t-il une typologie des réformes entreprises, conduisant à des modèles plus u moins largement diffusés ? Quel type de service ferroviaire attendons-nous et pouvons-nous attendre de cette réforme, en d’autres termes, quel est le devenir du concept de service public ferroviaire ? Qu’en est-il de la revitalisation du fret ferroviaire au lendemain de l’ouverture des corridors de fret favorisés par ces directives, quelle est la nouvelle Europe du fret ferroviaire ? Patrice Leroy, directeur honoraire de la SNCF, ancien secrétaire général adjoint du CEEP, président délégué de l’AHICF anime ensuite le débat qui réunit Yves Crozet, professeur à l’université Lumière-Lyon 2, Michel Lebœuf, directeur Développement à Voyageurs France Europe, SNCF, Hubert du Mesnil, président de RFF et Émile Quinet, professeur émérite à l’École nationale des Ponts et Chaussées.ROUND TABLE with Yves CROZET, Michel LEBŒUF, Patrice LEROY, Michèle MERGER, Hubert du MESNIL and Emile QUINET The purpose of the round table discussion of “The liberalization of European railways from a historical perspective: progress, risk, or regression?” was to put the liberalization of European railways into a historical perspective: the discussants’ goal was to define the place and evolution of this trend in an open-ended history, its results, and the new relationships that such measures have brought about between network managers and transportation operators, as well as between the transportation sector and national, regional, and local authorities. After an historical introduction provided by Michèle Merger, a researcher at the CNRS, who reminded us of the 91/440 directive and its four recommendations—the legal and accounting separation of network infrastructures and their operations, the independent management of the railway companies and their financial streamlining, and open access to the infrastructure for new operating companies—led to a very rapid evolution of the sector in fifteen years, the participants were asked four questions: which European countries and players are the most opposed to and the most in favor of this evolution, and what are their respective arguments? Is there a typology of business reform that leads to more or less widespread models? What kind of railway service is in store for us and what should we expect from such reforms? In other words, what is the future of the concept of public railway service? What will be the impact of the revitalization of rail freight in the aftermath of the opening of freight corridors advantaged by these directives? What will the new Europe of rail freight look like? Patrice Leroy, honorary director of the SNCF, former adjunct secretary general of the CEEP, and Deputy Chairman of the AHICF, then moderated the debate that brought together Yves Crozet, professor at the university Lumière-Lyon 2, Michel Leboeuf, developmental director of Voyageurs France Europe, SNCF, Hubert du Mesnil, President of the RFF, and Emile Quinet, professor emeritus at the Ecole nationale des Ponts et Chaussées
Infrastructure maintenance, regeneration and service quality economics: A rail example
No full textAn earlier draft of 6th October 2010 by Gaudry and Quinet, entitled Optimisation de l’entretien et de la régénération d’une infrastructure: exploration d’hypothèses, benefitted from comments by Bernard Caillaud and Matthieu de Lapparent and was presented without econometric tests at the Kuhmo Nectar Conference on Transportation Economics in Stockholm on 1st July 2011 under the title “Joint optimization of continuous maintenance and periodic renewal”. The authors thank Marc Antoni, Richard Arnott, David Meunier and Yves Puttalaz for discussions or comments, Cong-Liem Tran for computing assistance and are grateful to Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) for financial support and for allowing inclusion in this version of estimates based on databases constructed by Michel Ikonomov and Pascaline Boyer. Exploratory estimates obtained from fixed form regression specifications were presented at the Kuhmo Nectar Conference on Transportation Economics in Berlin on 21st June 2012 through David Meunier’s good offices
Infrastructure maintenance, regeneration and service quality economics: A rail example
No full textAn earlier draft of 6th October 2010 by Gaudry and Quinet, entitled Optimisation de l’entretien et de la régénération d’une infrastructure: exploration d’hypothèses, benefitted from comments by Bernard Caillaud and Matthieu de Lapparent and was presented without econometric tests at the Kuhmo Nectar Conference on Transportation Economics in Stockholm on 1st July 2011 under the title “Joint optimization of continuous maintenance and periodic renewal”. The authors thank Marc Antoni, Richard Arnott, David Meunier and Yves Puttalaz for discussions or comments, Cong-Liem Tran for computing assistance and are grateful to Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) for financial support and for allowing inclusion in this version of estimates based on databases constructed by Michel Ikonomov and Pascaline Boyer. Exploratory estimates obtained from fixed form regression specifications were presented at the Kuhmo Nectar Conference on Transportation Economics in Berlin on 21st June 2012 through David Meunier’s good offices
Infrastructure maintenance, regeneration and service quality economics: A rail example
No full textAn earlier draft of 6th October 2010 by Gaudry and Quinet, entitled Optimisation de l’entretien et de la régénération d’une infrastructure: exploration d’hypothèses, benefitted from comments by Bernard Caillaud and Matthieu de Lapparent and was presented without econometric tests at the Kuhmo Nectar Conference on Transportation Economics in Stockholm on 1st July 2011 under the title “Joint optimization of continuous maintenance and periodic renewal”. The authors thank Marc Antoni, Richard Arnott, David Meunier and Yves Puttalaz for discussions or comments, Cong-Liem Tran for computing assistance and are grateful to Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) for financial support and for allowing inclusion in this version of estimates based on databases constructed by Michel Ikonomov and Pascaline Boyer. Exploratory estimates obtained from fixed form regression specifications were presented at the Kuhmo Nectar Conference on Transportation Economics in Berlin on 21st June 2012 through David Meunier’s good offices
Infrastructure maintenance, regeneration and service quality economics: A rail example
No full textAn earlier draft of 6th October 2010 by Gaudry and Quinet, entitled Optimisation de l’entretien et de la régénération d’une infrastructure: exploration d’hypothèses, benefitted from comments by Bernard Caillaud and Matthieu de Lapparent and was presented without econometric tests at the Kuhmo Nectar Conference on Transportation Economics in Stockholm on 1st July 2011 under the title “Joint optimization of continuous maintenance and periodic renewal”. The authors thank Marc Antoni, Richard Arnott, David Meunier and Yves Puttalaz for discussions or comments, Cong-Liem Tran for computing assistance and are grateful to Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) for financial support and for allowing inclusion in this version of estimates based on databases constructed by Michel Ikonomov and Pascaline Boyer. Exploratory estimates obtained from fixed form regression specifications were presented at the Kuhmo Nectar Conference on Transportation Economics in Berlin on 21st June 2012 through David Meunier’s good offices
M. Villaret de l'Opéra / Alexandre Quinet, phot. ; Yves & Barret sc. ; L. Boudier
No full textAppartient à l’ensemble documentaire : IconMUS1Appartient à l’ensemble documentaire : IconMUSNumAppartient à l’ensemble documentaire : IconMUS
Por uma espiritualidade do morrer: viver a passagem na ótica de Jean-Yves Leloup
No full textThe background of this research is the theme of finitude and death as one of the most important existential problems of humanity. What guides this is the concept of spirituality. From the perspective of Jean-Yves Leloup, the taboo to be overcome is not the taboo of death itself, but the one of the spiritual dimension that has not been developed, an obstacle to experiencing death as part of life and and passing away as an art. This study consists of three chapters and its foundation is based on the anthropology developed by Jean-Yves Leloup, which follows the Alexandrian style, Eckhart mysticism and initiatory therapy. It starts with the theme of finitude as it is addressed from the idea of fatal death, which is responsible for maintaining a human being in his own condition. The three topics that comprise this stage of the research refer from the passage of fatal death to the Paschal death, then comes the description of the stages of dying prescribed by contemporary clinic in parallel with the descriptions of the moment of death described by Christian and Buddhist traditions, and includes the role of the meditation practice called hesiscasta in the process of dying. And then comes the main part of the research. Dealing with the paradox between awareness of contingency and the transience of life as well as the difficulty in accepting death, Human beings search for the meaning of life, the key that gives access to the spiritual dimension that is not always developed, but that inevitably appears at the moment of death, the subject of the third chapter. The starting point for this stage of the research is the question of meaning, a question that refers to the spiritual dimension. Starting from the question of meaning, two religious traditions — Christianity and Buddhism - are examined from the viewpoint of Leloup. The fundamental question is how the religious traditions that are mentioned here play a role in facilitating the process of dying.O pano de fundo dessa pesquisa é a questão da finitude e da morte como um dos grandes problemas existenciais da humanidade. O fio condutor é a questão da espiritualidade. Sob a ótica de Jean-Yves Leloup, o tabu a ser superado não é o tabu da morte em si, mas da dimensão espiritual não desenvolvida, obstáculo à vivência da morte como parte da vida e como arte de viver a passagem. Composta por três capítulos, esta pesquisa parte da antropologia desenvolvida por Jean-Yves Leloup, que está alicerçada no estilo alexandrino, na mística eckhartiana e na terapia iniciática. Na sequência, a questão da finitude é abordada a partir da concepção de morte fatal, responsável por manter o ser humano refém de sua própria condição. Os três tópicos que compõem esta etapa da pesquisa referem-se à passagem da concepção de morte fatal à pascal, à descrição dos estágios do morrer prescritos pela clínica contemporânea em paralelo com as descrições do tempo do morrer descritos pelas tradições cristã e budista, e ao papel da meditação hesiscasta no processo do morrer. Chega-se assim ao núcleo da pesquisa. Diante do paradoxo entre a consciência da contingência e transitoriedade da vida, e a dificuldade em aceitar morrer, o ser humano pergunta-se pelo sentido da vida, chave que dá acesso à dimensão espiritual nem sempre desenvolvida, mas que inevitavelmente, vem à tona na hora da morte, tema do terceiro capítulo. O ponto de partida desta etapa da pesquisa é a questão do sentido, pergunta que remete à dimensão espiritual. Partindo da questão do sentido, duas tradições religiosas — cristã e budista — são examinadas segundo a ótica de Leloup. A pergunta de fundo é como as tradições religiosas citadas exercem seu papel de facilitadoras do processo de morrer.CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superio
Edgar Quinet and the French Revolution
No full textLa philosophie du XIXe siècle en France se construit autour du sens qu’il convient de donner à la Révolution française. Sans ancêtre, sans précédent, se revendiquant elle-même comme inédite, la Révolution entend faire table rase du passé et réaliser les idéaux de liberté et d’autonomie développés durant le siècle des Lumières. Pourtant, aux grands espoirs de 1789 ont succédé la Terreur, un Empire, puis la Restauration. Dès lors la Révolution devient l’objet d’une élaboration spéculative éminemment ambivalente, pour autant qu’on y voyait à la fois le triomphe des principes du droit naturel, fondateurs d’une société où le peuple pouvait s’emparer de son destin, et le moment convulsif d’une société menacée de dissolution, le début d’une ère dans laquelle l’individu triomphant, égoïstement replié sur des intérêts privés, avait tout détruit. C’est alors à l’histoire qu’il appartient de trouver un sens à l’événement, et donc de statuer sur le présent et l’avenir de la civilisation : la Révolution était-elle un accident venant briser la chaîne du temps ? était-elle au contraire le dénouement inéluctable d’une histoire ? Comment expliquer alors que le projet de libérer l’homme des chaînes de l’Ancien Régime ait pu s’achever dans la Terreur qui était la négation même de la liberté et de l’individu ? Edgar Quinet est un témoin et un acteur privilégié de ce XIXe siècle où l’instabilité des régimes politiques qui se succèdent réactualise sans cesse la question révolutionnaire. Dans un paysage intellectuel où le régime discursif est brouillé, où les philosophes doivent faire œuvre d’historiens et les historiens convoquer la philosophie, Quinet développe une pensée sans compromission envers la liberté qui lui permet d’identifier l’échec de la Révolution sur le plan spirituel, là où, selon lui, elle a le plus failli à affranchir l’homme. À contre-courant de ses contemporains, l’auteur républicain identifie la religion comme le nœud gordien de la Révolution : c’est parce qu’elle a négligé la question religieuse que la Révolution a failli, c’est parce qu’elle a laissé prospérer en son sein un principe de servitude qu’elle s’est perdue. C’est donc par la séparation de l’Église et de l’État que l’on pourra créer une société où l’homme, bénéficiant d’une éducation laïque pourra être réellement libre et créer une société démocratique.The philosophy of the 19th century in France is built around the meaning which it is proper to give to the French Revolution. Without ancestry, without precedent, claiming to be original, it intends to make a clean break with the past and realise the ideals of liberty and autonomy developed during the Age of Enlightenment. Yet the great hopes of 1789 were followed by the Terror, an Empire, and, in the end, the Restoration. From then on, the Revolution became the object of an eminently ambivalent speculative elaboration, as long as one saw at once the triumph of the principles of natural right, the foundation of a society where the people could seize its destiny, and the convulsive moment of a society threatened with dissolution, the beginning of an era in which the triumphant individual, egoistically bent on private interests, had destroyed everything. It is then for history to find meaning in the event and thus to pronounce on the present and future of civilisation: was the Revolution an accident which came to break the passage of time? Was it on the contrary the inevitable outcome of history? How to explain then how the plan to liberate men from the Old Regime could have resulted in the Terror which is the very denial of freedom and the individual ? Edgar Quinet is both a witness and a privileged player in this 19th century where the instability of successive political regimes revives endlessly the revolutionary question. In an intellectual landscape where the discursive regime is blurred, where philosophers must take history into account and historians call on philosophy, Quinet Quinet develops an uncompromising thought about the freedom that allows him to identify the failure of the Revolution on the spiritual plane, where, according to him, it has failed most to free man. Against the flow of his contemporaries, the republican author identifies religion as the Gordian knot of the Revolution: it is because it neglected the question of religion that the Revolution failed ; it is because it allowed to prosper at its heart a principle of servitude that it lost its way. It is therefore through the separation of Church and State that a society can be created in which man, benefitting from a secular education, can be truly free and create a democratic society
- …
