To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Ice scallops are a small-scale (5–20 cm) quasi-periodic ripple pattern that occurs at the ice–water interface. Previous work has suggested that scallops form due to a self-reinforcing interaction between an evolving ice-surface geometry, an adjacent turbulent flow field and the resulting differential melt rates that occur along the interface. In this study, we perform a series of laboratory experiments in a refrigerated flume to quantitatively investigate the mechanisms of scallop formation and evolution in high resolution. Using particle image velocimetry, we probe an evolving ice–water boundary layer at sub-millimetre scales and 15 Hz frequency. Our data reveal three distinct regimes of ice–water interface evolution: a transition from flat to scalloped ice; an equilibrium scallop geometry; and an adjusting scallop interface. We find that scalloped-ice geometry produces a clear modification to the ice–water boundary layer, characterized by a time-mean recirculating eddy feature that forms in the scallop trough. Our primary finding is that scallops form due to a self-reinforcing feedback between the ice-interface geometry and shear production of turbulent kinetic energy in the flow interior. The length of this shear production zone is therefore hypothesized to set the scallop wavelength.
To describe low-income parents’ and caregivers’ perceptions of the Cooking Matters Mobile Application (CM App) meal planning and preparation features.
Explanatory mixed-methods design where data were gathered via online surveys based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Theory of Reasoned Action, followed by telephone interviews.
CM App, a mobile phone-based resource geared towards low-income parents and caregivers of young children (pregnancy/infant to age 5 years) for meal planning and preparation, with features based on skills taught in the Cooking Matters course: recipes, shopping list and meal planning.
Low-income parents and caregivers (survey participants, n 461; interview participants, n 20) who had downloaded the CM App to their smartphone and agreed to participate in the current evaluation.
Attitudes and self-efficacy related to CM App’s subject matter and functions (meal planning; recipe use; creating and using a shopping list) were measured via surveys and interviews. Mean (sd) responses were positive towards ‘meal planning’ and ‘shopping and cooking’ (4·17 (0·63) and 3·49 (0·86) on a 5-point Likert scale, respectively). Interviewees described meal planning and preparation behaviours as intrinsic, based on habit, and influenced by family preference and food costs. Early adopters of the CM App may already be engaged in and/or are motivated to engage in the targeted health behaviours.
Users may benefit most from incorporating into their routines new ways to prepare easy, cost-efficient, healthy meals at home that their families will enjoy.
Introduction: Simulation has assumed an integral role in the Canadian healthcare system with applications in quality improvement, systems development, and medical education. High quality simulation-based research (SBR) is required to ensure the effective and efficient use of this tool. This study sought to establish national SBR priorities and describe the barriers and facilitators of SBR in Emergency Medicine (EM) in Canada. Methods: Simulation leads (SLs) from all fourteen Canadian Departments or Divisions of EM associated with an adult FRCP-EM training program were invited to participate in three surveys and a final consensus meeting. The first survey documented active EM SBR projects. Rounds two and three established and ranked priorities for SBR and identified the perceived barriers and facilitators to SBR at each site. Surveys were completed by SLs at each participating institution, and priority research themes were reviewed by senior faculty for broad input and review. Results: Twenty SLs representing all 14 invited institutions participated in all three rounds of the study. 60 active SBR projects were identified, an average of 4.3 per institution (range 0-17). 49 priorities for SBR in Canada were defined and summarized into seven priority research themes. An additional theme was identified by the senior reviewing faculty. 41 barriers and 34 facilitators of SBR were identified and grouped by theme. Fourteen SLs representing 12 institutions attended the consensus meeting and vetted the final list of eight priority research themes for SBR in Canada: simulation in CBME, simulation for interdisciplinary and inter-professional learning, simulation for summative assessment, simulation for continuing professional development, national curricular development, best practices in simulation-based education, simulation-based education outcomes, and simulation as an investigative methodology. Conclusion: Conclusion: This study has summarized the current SBR activity in EM in Canada, as well as its perceived barriers and facilitators. We also provide a consensus on priority research themes in SBR in EM from the perspective of Canadian simulation leaders. This group of SLs has formed a national simulation-based research group which aims to address these identified priorities with multicenter collaborative studies.
The total amount of dietary protein available for absorption is dependent on the flow of dietary nitrogen (N) to the duodenum and its intestinal digestibility. Variation in intestinal digestion among protein supplements has been reported in vivo (Stern et al., 1985) and in situ (Hvelplund, 1985). Obtaining estimates of protein digestion in the small intestine is expensive, labour intensive and requires the use of surgically prepared animals. The objective of this study was to develop a reliable in vitro technique to estimate intestinal digestion of proteins in ruminants.
During the last two decades, there has been increased interest in planting halophytes in the salty agricultural regions of central Iran for improved animal production and environmental protection. The aim of this study was to determine the chemical composition and protein digestibility of some halophytes (Atriplex sp., Sauda sp., Kochia sp. and Gamanthus sp.) using in vitro technique, and mobile nylon bag and three step procedures.
We used a terrestrial radar interferometer (TRI) at Helheim Glacier, Greenland, in August 2013, to study the effects of tidal forcing on the terminal zone of this tidewater glacier. During our study period, the glacier velocity was up to 25 m d–1. Our measurements show that the glacier moves out of phase with the semi-diurnal tides and the densely packed melange in the fjord. Here detrended glacier displacement lags behind the forecasted tidal height by ∼8 hours. The transition in phase lag between the glacier and the melange happens within a narrow (∼500 m) zone in the fjord in front of the ice cliff. The TRI data also suggest that the impact of tidal forcing decreases rapidly up-glacier of the terminus. A flowline model suggests this pattern of velocity perturbation is consistent with weak ice flowing over a weakly nonlinear bed.
The time domain is the emerging forefront of astronomical research with new facilities and instruments providing unprecedented amounts of data on the temporal behavior of astrophysical populations. Dealing with the size and complexity of this requires new techniques and methodologies. Quasars are an ideal work set for developing and applying these: they vary in a detectable but not easily quantifiable manner whose physical origins are poorly understood. In this paper, we will review how quasars are identified by their variability and how these techniques can be improved, what physical insights into their variability can be gained from studying extreme examples of variability, and what approaches can be taken to increase the number of quasars known. These will demonstrate how astroinformatics is essential to discovering and understanding this important population.
The Birth of Tragedy is not a work of classical scholarship. It does contain a good deal of incidental material which only a scholar would be likely to know; and it takes a good deal for granted in a way that only a scholar could find natural. It could only have been written by one who, whatever else he was or wanted to be, was a scholar. And if there is any single group of readers that it seems to presuppose, it can only be a select group of sympathetic, or at least open-minded, classical scholars. But the book is still not a work of scholarship. Not only does it denounce from the pulpit, with all the strident vigour at its author's command, the heresy of Socratism, of which all science and scholarship are expressions. It also practises what it preaches by flouting most of the obvious norms of scholarly prose and striving after other, less ‘Socratic’, virtues. And yet it represents a significant contribution to the appreciation of the cultural and spiritual realities of the ancient world. As such, and despite Wilamowitz, it has come to exert a considerable influence on subsequent Greek scholarship. Eduard Fraenkel – one of the foremost scholars of our own century and himself a pupil of Wilamowitz – once suggested that ‘the most powerful factor in the difference of outlook between Wilamowitz and [Fraenkel's] own generation was the influence of Nietzsche’. BT has been the main source of that influence, and it continues to deserve the attention of serious students of antiquity today.
As a comment on Greek culture Nietzsche's book is an extraordinary composite of brilliant insight, expressed with unforgettable force, conventional wisdom, sloppiness, speciousness, distortion and (for lack of a better name) artistic construct. It would have been convenient to use Wilamowitz as an expert adviser to help separate the ingredients of this strange mixture. Unhappily, Wilamowitz, in the violence of his objection to Nietzsche's explicit assault on scholarship and unbalanced by his own personal interest, evaded or denied Nietzsche's insights and misrepresented his procedures. That unspeakable book (Wilamowitz assured the world) was all sloppiness, speciousness, distortion – and furthermore (he added half a century later) its unspeakable author had no scholarly credentials anyway.
An ironist might observe that the unbroken sequence of German theories of tragedy from Lessing to Brecht and beyond constitutes a body of writing at least as interesting, and possibly more interesting, than the German tragedies which were written during that time. And even though the statement is unfair and an exaggeration, it does reflect a tenacious preoccupation with the theory of drama and the idea of ‘the tragic’ which has no parallel in any other literature. Nietzsche's own theory must be assessed, as we have tried to assess it, as a contribution to the understanding of tragedy in its own right. At the same time, consideration of the German theoretical tradition to which he belongs provides a necessarý perspective. In the first place it helps to explain the extra-literary character of his interest in the tragic stage. The particular existential slant of his theory may be his own, but throughout this long line of theories tragedy is anything but a narrowly literary concern. Correspondingly, the theorists tend tacitly to agree with Nietzsche that detailed technical analyses of an Aristotelian kind are not their business. Nietzsche, once again, may have a special aversion to technicalities, but the German theorists as a whole are not given to them. It may sound paradoxical, but their theories are more philosophically far-ranging than Aristotle's, while his is more detached, more ‘aesthetic’ in the Kantian sense; but then, the Kantian critical mode of thought is closer to Aristotle than to the speculative theoreticians of the post-Kantian era.
Lessing's observations in Hamburg Dramaturgy II (1759), our first case in point, reflect that multiplicity of interests, or rather cares, of which Nietzsche remarked that they squandered Lessing's finest gifts. Dramatic critic and dramatist, cosmopolitan and patriot, theologian and enlightened moralist, savant and popularizer – Lessing pursues all these callings and uses his theorizing about drama in each of them. We may summarize his thinking – to the extent that it is relevant to our historical sketch – under three headings, all of which really point in the same direction:
(i) The theatre is an inculcator of virtues.
(ii) The theatre – or rather the taste for it – is a matter of national culture, and consequently the virtues (that is, a people's sense of values) are at least co-determined by historical and national considerations.
The Birth of Tragedy represents Nietzsche's most sustained attempt at a theory of art. Apart from the late essay, The Wagner Case, and its companion piece, Nietzsche Contra Wagner, it is his only book in which art occupies a central place, even though musical and literary criticism and aesthetic speculations abound in all his writings. Those who discuss Nietzsche's views on art often treat his books as if they were separate chapters of one continuous work. The coherence of this œuvre is sometimes strongly affirmed, sometimes denied, but the whole sequence is taken to be a single work in the sense that excerpts from different parts of it may be played together, like cards from a single pack, without further ado. Allowance is usually made for Nietzsche's revaluation of Wagner, which is too obvious a reversal to be ignored; this apart, the question of development or changes of mind is hardly raised.
This procedure is unacceptable. Whatever may be said of Nietzsche's thought as a whole, the fact is that, despite continuities, his view of art does develop and change, and nowhere is the development more marked than between BT and the work of the later 1870s and 1880s. That development proceeds in conjunction with the revaluation of Wagner, but is not restricted to it. In opposition to the thesis put forward in BT, the later Nietzsche will espouse the ideals of classicism, partly with reference to French culture; he will express hostility to the theatre; he will be able to see convention as ‘the condition of great art, not an obstacle to it’ and art itself as ‘the cult of the untrue’ – and insofar as these two propositions are relatable to his earlier conception of art, it can only be to his conception of Apolline art. A further important change, implicit in this last pair of instances, will be the tendency to equate all forms of art at the expense of those distinctions to which BT is devoted. In this development tragedy must forfeit much of its special status – and so too will music, which, as far as the post-Wagnerian Nietzsche is concerned, is no longer ‘a universal language for all time’ or a language with a unique, metaphysical power.
Friedrich Nietzsche's book, The Birth of Tragedy, appeared in 1872. It is a book that can be related closely to the age in which it was written, and especially the personal circumstances of its author, then a young classical scholar. It can be related, again, to the mature philosophy of its author's later years. It must, obviously, be considered in relation to the actual matters it is concerned with, of which Greek tragedy is the most specifiable. And in respect of this main concern, it is also to be related to a particular tradition within German thought, which provides us with our starting point: a tradition of theoretical enquiry into the nature of tragedy – Greek tragedy, above all. This tradition goes back at least to Herder and Lessing in the eighteenth century; and it continues beyond Nietzsche to Johannes Volkelt and Bertolt Brecht in our own time. Common to all the contributors, up to and including Nietzsche, is their profound interest in the literature of ancient Greece. They all take issue, in a variety of different ways, with the classic theory of tragedy propounded in Aristotle's Poetics; they all, in the wake of Herder, make some attempt to relate the achievements of the Greek tragedians to the religious or social facts of Greek life; and they all consider the dramas of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides to form one of the summits of world literature. About the other summit there is less agreement: it is not always Shakespeare. But while the reasons for ‘the tyranny of Greece over Germany’ are many, the belief in the paramount value of these Greek plays as in some sense forming one of humanity's fundamental documents is always present.
Why the interest in theory? It is true that preoccupation with theoretical accounts of phenomena of all kinds is characteristic of German culture at least since the day of Leibnitz at the beginning of the eighteenth century, but in this instance there is a more specific reason.
‘Scholarship, art and philosophy’, Nietzsche had written in 1871, ‘are now growing together inside me so much that I'll be giving birth to centaurs one day.’ It is not some incidental flaw or quirk but the essential condition of BT that it is, as Nietzsche had predicted, a hybrid: a work of mixed mode between literature and ‘science’, between art and thought. It was this hybridity that prompted Rohde to call it a ‘didactic poem’ (Lehrgedicht) and Cosima Wagner to explain that she felt obliged to ‘read it as a poem’, even though it dealt with ‘the most profound problems’ – and finally Nietzsche himself to disown the book in his Self-Criticism of 1886 as neither one thing nor the other: ‘What spoke here…was something like a mystical, almost maenadic soul…that stammered with difficulty…as if in a strange tongue…It should have sung, not spoken, this new soul. What I had to say then – what a pity that I did not dare to say it as a poet: perhaps I had the ability. Or at least as a philologist: even today practically everything in this field remains to be unearthed and discovered by philologists!’ Here as elsewhere, however, Nietzsche's afterthoughts are not to be taken as definitive. We must define the hybridity more closely.
Although Nietzsche does not write as a philologist, he remains unmistakably a Hellenist. Despite his intense admiration for Schopenhauer and Wagner, and notwithstanding his own testimony to the stature or representative importance of the ‘entire Aryan community’ (§9), of Buddhism (§§18, 21), of Shakespeare (§2), of Rome (§21), he assumes that, within man's entire cultural experience, Greece (in its creative rise or its Socratic fall) comes first, ‘that the Greeks, as charioteers, hold in their hands the reins of our own and every other culture’ (§15). This unargued assumption – for assertion, however majestic, does not constitute an argument – Nietzsche shares with a hundred years of German Hellenism before him. From the time of Winckelmann, however, the quest for Greece is generally pursued in the spirit of historical method. Nietzsche's tendency is in a different direction.
The advance copies of BT appeared in the last days of 1871. On 2 January 1872 Nietzsche sent one to Wagner at Tribschen. In his covering letter he stressed, with extreme deference, the close relation of his book and its theories to Wagner's creative achievements: ‘if I myself think that in essence I am right, then that only means that you with your art must be eternally right… I feel proud that… now people will always link my name with yours.’ At the same time, in the lofty tone appropriate to communication with the Master on such an occasion, he alluded to his misgivings about the public's response: ‘God have mercy on my philologists if they insist on learning nothing now.’ To Rohde, we recall, only a few weeks earlier, he had expressed the more general concern that the book's multifariousness would alienate all his prospective specialist readers, but the philologists above all. On that occasion he had, in fact, put it to his friend that, as far as the philological fraternity was concerned, his book (the central part of which Rohde had now seen) would be in dire need of some ‘higher advertising’ (‘höhere Reklame‘– Nietzsche's inverted commas), and he had suggested that the solution might be an open letter about the book from Rohde, preferably in some scholarly journal. Rohde gladly offered his services: the idea had already occurred to him, although his inclination was to try a less specialized journal, the Litterarische Centralblatt.
Bypassing any such anxieties for the moment, Tribschen responded in tones of ecstasy. Here was its supreme vindication. Wagner wrote by return: ‘I have never read a finer book than yours. It is utterly magnificent.’ And Cosima: ‘How beautiful your book is! How beautiful and how profound – how profound and how daring!… You have conjured up spirits I thought only the Master had at his service.’ As her diary records, she and Wagner spent several days on the book, reading it, discussing it, and enthusing over it. In addition, she indicates that they too were privately uneasy about the public reaction, albeit not quite for Nietzsche's reasons.