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 email@example.com
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.
In addition to the hundreds of known visual-wavelength Diffuse Interstellar Bands (DIBs), a number of DIBs in the near-infrared (NIR) are now also known to exist. We present here high-resolution UKIRT echelle spectroscopy of two of the NIR DIBs toward sightlines exhibiting a range of visual extinctions. Variations in the strengths and profile shapes of the bands are considered in the context of known properties of the narrow DIBs at visual wavelengths.
Positron lifetime results show that vacancies can be retained after growth of Czochralski silicon at concentrations of ∼x1016/cm3. Rapid thermal annealing as well as furnace annealing increase the vacancy concentration. The vacancies are predominantly trapped by oxygen interstitial clusters in lightly B-doped materials, and these complexes appear to have temperature dependent configurations which can be quenched-in by rapid cooling. Heavy Sb doping results in trapping of vacancies by the Sb impuritie
Positron lifetime measurements show that electron irradiation produces indium vacancy related defects in InP. Divacancies are also found in semi-insulating and lightly doped p and n-type materials. Temperature investigations show a change in the divacancy charge state.
Combined gap and grain-boundary inventories of 129I in 14 used CANDU fuel elements were measured by crushing and simultaneously leaching fuel segments for 4 h in a solution containing KI carrier. From analogy with previous work a near one-to-one correlation vas anticipated between the amount of stable Xe and the amount of 129I in the combined gap and grain-boundary regions of the fuel. However, the results showed that such a correlation was only apparent for low linear power rating (LLPR) fuels with an average linear power rating of 642 kV/m. For high linear power rating (HLPR) fuels (>44 kw/m), the 129I values were considerably smaller than expected. The combined gap and grain-boundary inventories of 129I in the 14 fuels tested varied from 1.8 to 11.01, with an average value of 3.6 ± 2.4% which suggests that the average value of 8.1 ± 1% used in safety assessment calculations overestimates the instant release fraction for 129I. Segments of used CANDU fuels were leached for 92 d (samples taken at 5, 28 and 92 d) to determine the kinetics of 129I release. Results could be fitted tentatively to half-order reaction kinetics, implying that 129I release is a diffusion-controlled process for LLPR fuels, and also for HLPR fuels, once the gap inventory has been leached. However, more data are needed over longer leaching periods to gain more understanding of the processes that control grain-boundary release of 129I from used CANDU fuel.
This paper reports the first successful attempt to fabricate amorphous silicon (a-Si:H) n-i-p photodiodes on a thin stainless-steel foil substrate for medical X-ray imaging applications. Two architectures of the n-i-p-photosensor, where the top electrode is based on amorphous or polycrystalline ITO, have been developed and characterized. The impact of critical fabrication steps including the deposition of semiconductor layers, dry etch of the NIP stack, diode passivation and encapsulation, as well as a contact formation on the device performance is presented and discussed. The test structures comprising segmented photodiodes with an active area ranged from 0.126 × 0.126 to 1 × 1 mm2 have been fabricated on stainless-steel foils and on glass substrates for the purposes of process characterization. The fabricated samples are evaluated in terms of current-voltage, capacitance-voltage, and spectral response characteristics.
A method for typing Haemophilus species is described, based on the analysis of genomic DNA from Haemophilus parainfluenzae. The DNA was extracted by a rapid method and digested with the restriction enzyme BamHI to provide a characteristic ‘fingerprint’. The pattern of fragments in the ranges 1–1·6 kb, 1·6–2 kb and 2–3 kb were used to produce a numerical profile of each isolate. In total 97 isolates were examined; 88 from throat swab material isolated from the 15 members of a British Antarctic Survey base and 9 type strains. Seventy-two of the 88 antarctic isolates were H. parainfluenzae and were found to be very diverse, comprising 41 identifiable strains with up to 5 strains being isolated from a single throat swab sample. There was evidence for both carriage and transmission within the isolated community. The technique provided a highly discriminatory method for characterizing Haemophilus strains which is suitable for epidemiological studies.
There are many situations in which a third person is involved in a problem with a dyad. For example, when the dyad lacks information necessary for an important decision, a third person may appear who is able to provide it. As an instance of Entry #17 (Joint Decisions under Uncertainty), a couple in a strange city is not sure whether to enter the restaurant immediately before them or to try to find a better one among possibilities further down the street – along which they cannot see very far. A local resident passes by and they ask his opinion.
A family therapist helps a feuding couple find mutually satisfying coordination solutions to the problems of meshing their conflicting schedules and increasing their periods of relaxation together for romantic interludes. Two drivers arrive simultaneously at an intersection with four-way stop signs and are uncertain as to who should proceed first. They are aided in this coordination problem by a policeman, who signals for one to wait and the other to go ahead.
Two sisters are in strong disagreement about what they should wear to school on the first day. They turn to their older sister and each tries to get her to support their particular preference. Or, they may be quarreling about the use of the bathroom they share. Their mother intervenes, clearly states the value the family places on harmony and fairness, and suggests that they take turns.
In this situation, one person has control over how the outcomes resulting from the pair's joint activities are divided between them. If that person exploits his or her power, taking for himself or herself the lion's share of those outcomes, the partner's only (ultimate) recourse is to refuse to continue in the joint activities. For example, when an older and younger brother play “cops and robbers,” the older one may be able to determine the enjoyment each gets from the game by assigning the roles and controlling who gets to use the available toys. However, neither will gain any satisfaction from the game unless both play. If the older boy takes the choice roles and the preferred equipment, the younger boy must either accept the unfair allocation or threaten to refuse to play the game with enthusiasm or to continue it at all. It is the weaker person's “threat” in this scenario from which this situation takes its name. In general, this situation gives rise to the problem of managing an exchange of “justice” for “loyalty,” one partner's just allocations being made in return for the other partner's loyalty in supporting their joint activities.
The structure and dynamics of this situation are common in various types of relationships and settings. For instance, a supervisor may have the power to determine how important job resources, such as office space and funds for computing, are split between her and a subordinate.
The name of this situation is based on a deadly game. In one version, the two contestants – invariably males – drive their cars at high speed, headlong toward each other. The essence of this high-stakes game is to see which contestant has the stronger nerves. The first one to veer off course to avoid a collision loses the test of courage and is branded a “chicken” (i.e., a coward). If both drivers (in a simultaneous moment of sanity) veer off, the contest ends in a draw – somewhat embarrassing but giving neither a justification for accusing the other of less courage. Of course, if neither driver “chickens out,” the result is a fatal – and hence, rather hollow – “victory” for both. Another variation on this game – in which the contestants simultaneously drive toward a cliff's edge – was depicted in the film Rebel without a Cause.
A similar situation occurs when neighboring countries, seeking something valuable possessed by the other, issue ultimatums threatening war if the other will not yield. If one's neighbor yields, one may gain something of real value, but if neither yields and both carry through on their threats, the resulting war is likely to cost both far more than what was sought through the initial threats.
Struggles for dominance in a group can also create a Chicken situation.
The Mutual Partner Control situation rests on each individual's preferences and aversion regarding the partner's possible behaviors. Each person's concern is “How do my partner's actions affect me, and how do my actions affect him or her?” This situation exists when people can benefit each other or not. For example, colleagues may (or may not) compliment each other's writing style, lovers may (or may not) exchange endearments, and cousins may (or may not) send each other greeting cards at Christmas. This situation also exists when people can harm each other or not. Members of opposing political parties may (or may not) deliver gratuitous insults and young siblings may (or may not) hurtfully poke each other. In each case, each person's choice is whether or not to have a positive or negative effect on the partner's outcomes.
There are two essential requirements for an ideal or “pure” situation of Mutual Partner Control. First, the outcome of each individual must be entirely in the hands of the interaction partner. Each individual's well-being is entirely under the control of the partner's actions. The individual can do nothing to enhance or ameliorate the partner's effect. For example, under many circumstances the two siblings can avoid or dodge each other's blows. To consider that as a situation of Mutual Partner Control, we would have to imagine their being in some confined space (e.g., the back seat of the family car) where such dodging is not possible.
Our goal in writing this Atlas was to provide behavioral scientists with a tool for analyzing and understanding the influence of interpersonal situations on social interaction. We believe that there are important insights about human social behavior to be gained from systematic investigation of the properties of situations. To be sure, “the situation” has long been the object of considerable attention in several of the behavioral sciences, notably social psychology (the discipline that we six authors all call home). Nonetheless, our impression is that this scrutiny has been more intuitive than theoretical, more haphazard than systematic. Furthermore, existing research has tended to emphasize the relatively impersonal aspects of situations even though interpersonal factors are often likely to dominate the individual's attention and behavior. We maintain that a more comprehensive theoretical approach to the description and analysis of situations, and especially to their interpersonal properties, will do much to advance our understanding of social interaction.
Interdependence theory forms the conceptual skeleton for our analysis. First proposed by Thibaut and Kelley (1959) and later extended by Kelley and Thibaut (1978), interdependence theory provides a systematic account of certain key interpersonal properties of situations, as well as the individual's response to those properties, as the causal determinants of social interaction. The term “interdependence” refers to the manner in which two individuals influence each other's outcomes in the course of their interaction.