Hidden in the Middle: Culture,Value and Reward in Bioinformatics

Bioinformatics – the so-called shotgun marriage between biology and computer science – is an interdiscipline. Despite interdisciplinarity being seen as a virtue, for having the capacity to solve complex problems and foster innovation, it has the potential to place projects and people in anomalous categories. For example, valorised ‘outputs’ in academia are often defined and rewarded by discipline. Bioinformatics, as an interdisciplinary bricolage, incorporates experts from various disciplinary cultures with their own distinct ways of working. Perceived problems of interdisciplinarity include difficulties of making explicit knowledge that is practical, theoretical, or cognitive. But successful interdisciplinary research also depends on an understanding of disciplinary cultures and value systems, often only tacitly understood by members of the communities in question. In bioinformatics, the ‘parent’ disciplines have different value systems; for example, what is considered worthwhile research by computer scientists can be thought of as trivial by biologists, and vice versa. This paper concentrates on the problems of reward and recognition described by scientists working in academic bioinformatics in the United Kingdom. We highlight problems that are a consequence of its cross-cultural make-up, recognising that the mismatches in knowledge in this borderland take place not just at the level of the practical, theoretical, or epistemological, but also at the cultural level too. The trend in big, interdisciplinary science is towards multiple authors on a single paper; in bioinformatics this has created hybrid or fractional scientists who find they are being positioned not just in-between established disciplines but also in-between as middle authors or, worse still, left off papers altogether.     

Media’s Influence on the Accessibility of Altruistic and Egoistic Motivations

Previous research suggests that media featuring exemplars of specific altruistic motivations can make those motivations more accessible in viewers’ minds. The present study extends this research to also examine egoistic motivations. We (a) developed a coding scheme to examine how frequently exemplars of altruistic and egoistic motivations appear in media content, (b) developed an intuitive motivation-affect misattribution procedure to measure the accessibility of altruistic and egoistic motivations, and (c) examined whether exposure to media content portraying specific motivations makes those motivations more accessible in audiences. The findings are discussed in terms of the model of intuitive morality and exemplars.     

Movement velocity as a measure of exercise intensity in three lower limb exercises

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between movement velocity and relative load in three lower limbs exercises commonly used to develop strength: leg press, full squat and half squat. The percentage of one repetition maximum (%1RM) has typically been used as the main parameter to control resistance training; however, more recent research has proposed movement velocity as an alternative. Fifteen participants performed a load progression with a range of loads until they reached their 1RM. Maximum instantaneous velocity (V_max) and mean propulsive velocity (MPV) of the knee extension phase of each exercise were assessed. For all exercises, a strong relationship between V_max and the %1RM was found: leg press (r²_adj = 0.96; 95% CI for slope is [?0.0244, ?0.0258], P < 0.0001), full squat (r²_adj = 0.94; 95% CI for slope is [?0.0144, ?0.0139], P < 0.0001) and half squat (r²_adj = 0.97; 95% CI for slope is [?0.0135, ?0.00143], P < 0.0001); for MPV, leg press (r²_adj = 0.96; 95% CI for slope is [?0.0169, ?0.0175], P < 0.0001, full squat (r²_adj = 0.95; 95% CI for slope is [?0.0136, ?0.0128], P < 0.0001) and half squat (r²_adj = 0.96; 95% CI for slope is [?0.0116, 0.0124], P < 0.0001). The 1RM was attained with a MPV and V_max of 0.21 ± 0.06 m s^?1 and 0.63 ± 0.15 m s^?1, 0.29 ± 0.05 m s^?1 and 0.89 ± 0.17 m s^?1, 0.33 ± 0.05 m s^?1 and 0.95 ± 0.13 m s^?1 for leg press, full squat and half squat, respectively. Results indicate that it is possible to determine an exercise-specific %1RM by measuring movement velocity for that exercise.     

基于PCA-CMAC的设备性能退化评估

提出了一种用于设备性能退化评估的PCA-CMAC(主成分分析-小脑模型节点控制器)模型.该模型利用PCA进行特征提取,去除多个传感器信号特征的冗余信息,并且减少CMAC的输入维数;利用CMAC的局部泛化能力定量地评估设备的性能退化.给出了模型的实现过程,并将模型应用于钻削过程刀具状态的评估,试验结果证明该模型能基于刀具的正常状态,对刀具的磨损状态进行定量的评估.分析了CMAC中泛化参数g和量化参数r对评估结果的影响,g越大,CMAC的泛化能力越好,但各退化状态之间的区别越不明显;r越小,各退化状态之间越容易区分,但所需的权存储空间越大.2个参数的基本选择原则是CMAC的权存储空间应尽量小,与此同时,各退化状态之间应容易区分.     

Digital ITEMS Module 1: Reliability in Classical Test Theory

In this ITEMS module, we provide a two‐part introduction to the topic of reliability from the perspective of classical test theory (CTT). In the first part, which is directed primarily at beginning learners, we review and build on the content presented in the original didactic ITEMS article by Traub and Rowley (1991). Specifically, we discuss the notion of reliability as an intuitive everyday concept to lay the foundation for its formalization as a reliability coefficient via the basic CTT model. We then walk through the step‐by‐step computation of key reliability indices and discuss the data collection conditions under which each is most suitable. In the second part, which is directed primarily at intermediary learners, we present a distribution‐centered perspective on the same content. We discuss the associated assumptions of various CTT models ranging from parallel to congeneric, and review how these affect the choice of reliability statistics. Throughout the module, we use a customized Excel workbook with sample data and basic data manipulation functionalities to illustrate the computation of individual statistics and to allow for structured independent exploration. In addition, we provide quiz questions with diagnostic feedback as well as short videos that walk through sample exercises within the workbook.     

Theodore Roosevelt's Role in the 1905 Football Controversy

Abstract

At the beginning of this century, intercollegiate football was tremendously popular, but contests were dull and dangerous affairs in which offensive players rushed the ball through massed defenses. Efforts to improve the sport for spectator and participant met with failure because the Intercollegiate Football Rules Committee refused to adopt reform legislation. Although it represented only a few of the large number of colleges participating in the sport, the influence of the Rules Committee was so great that attempts to establish rival legislative bodies were unsuccessful. In 1905, dissident elements again challenged the authority of the Rules Committee but the movement was in jeopardy until President Theodore Roosevelt used his influence to secure for it the necessary recognition.