知识的普适性与境域性:课程的视角

知识有普适性与境域性之别。普适性知识是世界范围内各民族国家共同承认的知识体系,是目前占主流地位的科学知识。境域性知识是指地方性知识、情境性知识及缄默性知识等,它是特定人文情境与范围内有价值的知识。普适性知识由境域性知识发展完善而形成,境域性知识有其自身独特的价值与生命活力,二者相互支持。与普适性知识相应的课程是主流文化中心课程,它统治着整个课程世界,并成为各国国家课程的核心;与境域性知识相应的课程是地方课程和校本课程,它们正在补充着国家课程的不足。     

The Mayo Clinic author catalog: a living repository of medical knowledge

Since 1907 records have been kept of publications by staff members of the Mayo Clinic, and this information has been invaluable. The Author Catalog has proved itself such a useful tool for the Mayo Clinic that other libraries, large and small, may wish to consider adopting such a service.The Mayo medical complex is a large institution with more than 500 staff and faculty members engaged in the publication of clinical, educational, and research findings. The great amount of cross-disciplinary cooperation and interdepartmental research makes essential an up-to-date record of what is going on.The Mayo Clinic Library developed a comprehensive computerized method for identifying research and for identifying and indexing publications of Mayo staff members. At the end of 1971 more than 25,000 citations had been stored on computer tape.     

经导管主动脉瓣置入术在中国人群二叶式主动脉瓣重度狭窄中的安全性和有效性评估(英文)

目的:评估经导管主动脉瓣置入术在中国人群二叶式主动脉瓣重度狭窄中的安全性和有效性。创新点:首次在中国人群比较经导管主动脉瓣置入术在二叶式和三叶式主动脉瓣重度狭窄中的安全性和有效性。方法:选取2013年3月至2014年9月行经导管主动脉瓣置入术的40位主动脉瓣狭窄的患者,分二叶式和三叶式主动脉瓣两组,比较基线水平、手术以及随访1月结果的差别。结论:经导管主动脉瓣置入术在中国人群中二叶式主动脉瓣重度狭窄中的应用是安全有效的。     

池塘氮、磷浓度及藻相水色的研究

对池塘氮、磷浓度及藻相水色进行研究．水质培育实验结果表明,氮、磷储存量接近的池塘,由于所处生物、化学动态循环阶段不同,水中铵态氮、磷酸盐磷浓度差异甚大．池塘藻相水色与水中铵态氮、磷酸盐磷浓度及浓度比值有关．养殖池塘平均铵态氮／磷酸盐磷（７０８）比ＴＮ／ＴＰ（２２９）更接近比值约为７的淡水藻类氮、磷重量比的平均组成（８）．     

A 5-star system for rating the quality of information based on DISCERN

Objective: To develop an explicit scheme for calculating a 5‐star quality rating for consumer health information, and to test if there is good agreement be tween this and the final DISCERN quality question. Design: A sample of 15 consumers and health professionals rated 26 health information leaflets covering a broad range of conditions and treatments using two new 5‐star‐rating schemes and the existing DISCERN final quality rating. Each scheme is based on the 15 DISCERN criteria, but the 5‐star schemes provide more explicit methods for summarizing overall quality. The level of agreement between the three different rating systems was compared using Kappa scores with quadratic weights. Participants were also asked to complete a brief questionnaire that was designed to elicit their views on using a visual summary of the quality of health information. Results: The level of agreement between each 5‐star‐rating system and the existing DISCERN quality rating question was high (kappa = 0.86, 95% CI 0.83–0.89 in both instances). Seventy‐seven per cent of the sample preferred the second star‐rating scheme, and 80% reported they would use such a scheme. Conclusion: Assigning a single quality score using an explicit scoring scheme (represented by stars) based on answers to the DISCERN questionnaire is a reliable and valid way of rating consumer health information.