Teaching Euclid in a Practical Context: Linear Perspective and Practical Geometry

This article explores the transmission of practical knowledge in the XV and XVI centuries. According to cosmographer Egnatio Danti, optics and other mathematical sciences had “been banished” from the main philosophical schools of his period, and “the little which remains to us is limited to some practical aspects learned from the mechanical artificers”. The “mechanical artificers” were architects, painters and surveyors whose mathematical training constitutes the subject dealt with in this article. The context of Danti’s remark was the letter to the “Accademici del Disegno” of Perugia which introduce his Italian translation of Euclid’s Optics. After the great Medieval season of optical studies, in effect, this science progressed mainly through its practical applications, especially through “that part of perspective which pertains to painting” (Piero della Francesca), and through the spread of methods and instruments for measuring by sight.     

Universality of scholarly impact metrics

Given the growing use of impact metrics in the evaluation of scholars, journals, academic institutions, and even countries, there is a critical need for means to compare scientific impact across disciplinary boundaries. Unfortunately, citation-based metrics are strongly biased by diverse field sizes and publication and citation practices. As a result, we have witnessed an explosion in the number of newly proposed metrics that claim to be “universal.” However, there is currently no way to objectively assess whether a normalized metric can actually compensate for disciplinary bias. We introduce a new method to assess the universality of any scholarly impact metric, and apply it to evaluate a number of established metrics. We also define a very simple new metric h_s, which proves to be universal, thus allowing to compare the impact of scholars across scientific disciplines. These results move us closer to a formal methodology in the measure of scholarly impact.     

Testing the fairness of citation indicators for comparison across scientific domains: The case of fractional citation counts

Citation numbers are extensively used for assessing the quality of scientific research. The use of raw citation counts is generally misleading, especially when applied to cross-disciplinary comparisons, since the average number of citations received is strongly dependent on the scientific discipline of reference of the paper. Measuring and eliminating biases in citation patterns is crucial for a fair use of citation numbers. Several numerical indicators have been introduced with this aim, but so far a specific statistical test for estimating the fairness of these numerical indicators has not been developed. Here we present a statistical method aimed at estimating the effectiveness of numerical indicators in the suppression of citation biases. The method is simple to implement and can be easily generalized to various scenarios. As a practical example we test, in a controlled case, the fairness of fractional citation count, which has been recently proposed as a tool for cross-discipline comparison. We show that this indicator is not able to remove biases in citation patterns and performs much worse than the rescaling of citation counts with average values.     

From arithmetical thought to algebraic thought: The role of the “variable”

The introduction of the concept of the variable represents a critical point in the arithmetic–algebraic transition. This concept is complex because it is used with different meanings in different situations. Its management depends on the particular way of using it in problem-solving. The aim of this paper was to analyse whether the notion of “unknown” interferes with the interpretation of the variable “in functional relation” and the kinds of languages used by the students in problem-solving. We also wanted to study the concept of the variable in the process of translation from algebraic language into natural language. We present two experimental studies. In the first one, we administered a questionnaire to 111 students aged 16–19 years. Drawing on the conclusions of this research we carried out the second study with two pairs of students aged 16–17 years.

Students as co-producers in a multidisciplinary software engineering project: addressing cultural distance and cross-cohort handover

This article reports an undergraduate software engineering project in which, over a period of 2 years, four student teams from different cohorts developed a note-taking app for four academic clients at the students’ own university. We investigated how projects involving internal clients can give students the benefits of engaging in real software development while also giving them experience of a student-staff collaboration that has its own benefits for students, academics, and the university more broadly. As the university involved is a Sino-Foreign university located in China, where most students are Chinese and most teaching staff are not, this ‘student as co-producer’ approach interacts with another feature of the project: cultural distance. Based on analysis of notes, reports, interviews, and focus groups, we recommend that students should be provided with communicative strategies for dealing with academics as clients; universities should develop policies on ownership of student-staff collaborations; and projects should include a formalised handover process. This article can serve as guidance for educators considering a ‘students as co-producers’ approach for software development projects.     

The European Commission report on ethics of connected and automated vehicles and the future of ethics of transportation

The paper has two goals. The first is presenting the main results of the recent report Ethics of Connected and Automated Vehicles: recommendations on road safety, privacy, fairness, explainability and responsibility written by the Horizon 2020 European Commission Expert Group to advise on specific ethical issues raised by driverless mobility, of which the author of this paper has been member and rapporteur. The second is presenting some broader ethical and philosophical implications of these recommendations, and using these to contribute to the establishment of Ethics of Transportation as an independent branch of applied ethics. The recent debate on the ethics of Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAVs) presents a paradox and an opportunity. The paradox is the presence of a flourishing debate on the ethics of one very specific transportation technology without ethics of transportation being in itself a well-established academic discipline. The opportunity is that now that a spotlight has been switched on the ethical dimensions of CAVs it may be easier to establish a broader debate on ethics of transportation. While the 20 recommendations of the EU report are grouped in three macro-areas: road safety, data ethics, and responsibility, in this paper they will be grouped according to eight philosophical themes: Responsible Innovation, road justice, road safety, freedom, human control, privacy, data fairness, responsibility. These are proposed as the first topics for a new ethics of transportation.

     

Interference screws vs. suture anchors for isolated medial patellofemoral ligament femoral fixation: A systematic review

Purpose:The present study aimed to systematically review and compare 2 femoral autograft fixation techniques,namely,interference screws and suture anchors,for isolated medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction in patients with recurrent patellofemoral instability at mid-to long-term follow-up.Methods:A literature search was performed in September 2020.All studies reporting the outcomes of primary isolated medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction for recurrent patellofemoral instability were considered for inclusion.Only studies reporting the type of femoral autograft fixation under examination were considered.Studies reporting data from patients with elevated tibial tuberosity-tibial groove,patella alta,and/or Dejour’s trochlear dysplasia types C and D,were not included.Only articles reporting data with a minimum follow-up period of 18 months were considered.Results:Data from 19 studies(615 patients)were retrieved.The overall age was 24.4±6.7 years(mean±SD).The mean follow-up was 46.5±20.9 months.There were 76 patients in the anchor group and 539 in the screw group.Comparability was found with regard to age and follow-up duration between the 2 study groups.There was comparability between the Kujala,Lysholm,and Tegner scores at baseline.At the last follow-up,no worthy differences were found in terms of mean Kujala(+2.1%;p=0.04),Lysholm(+1.7%;p=0.05),and Tegner(+15.8%;p=0.05)scores.Although complications occurred almost exclusively in the screw cohort,no statistically significant difference was found.Conclusion:Femoral autograft fixation through interference screws or suture anchors report similar clinical scores and rate of apprehension test,persistent joint instability,re-dislocations,and revisions.These results must be interpreted within the limitations of the present study.