University of Amsterdam

About: University of Amsterdam is a education organization based out in Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Randomized controlled trial. The organization has 59309 authors who have published 140894 publications receiving 5984137 citations. The organization is also known as: UvA & Universiteit van Amsterdam.

An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: asthma control and exacerbations: standardizing endpoints for clinical asthma trials and clinical practice.

Abstract: Background: The assessment of asthma control is pivotal to the evaluation of treatment response in individuals and in clinical trials. Previously, asthma control, severity, and exacerbations were defined and assessed in many different ways.Purpose: The Task Force was established to provide recommendations about standardization of outcomes relating to asthma control, severity, and exacerbations in clinical trials and clinical practice, for adults and children aged 6 years or older.Methods: A narrative literature review was conducted to evaluate the measurement properties and strengths/weaknesses of outcome measures relevant to asthma control and exacerbations. The review focused on diary variables, physiologic measurements, composite scores, biomarkers, quality of life questionnaires, and indirect measures.Results: The Task Force developed new definitions for asthma control, severity, and exacerbations, based on current treatment principles and clinical and research relevance. In view of current knowledge ...

The Influence of Affective Teacher–Student Relationships on Students’ School Engagement and Achievement A Meta-Analytic Approach

Abstract: A meta-analytic approach was used to investigate the associations between affective qualities of teacher–student relationships (TSRs) and students’ school engagement and achievement. Results were based on 99 studies, including students from preschool to high school. Separate analyses were conducted for positive relationships and engagement (k = 61 studies, N = 88,417 students), negative relationships and engagement (k = 18, N = 5,847), positive relationships and achievement (k = 61, N = 52,718), and negative relationships and achievement (k = 28, N = 18,944). Overall, associations of both positive and negative relationships with engagement were medium to large, whereas associations with achievement were small to medium. Some of these associations were weaker, but still statistically significant, after correction for methodological biases. Overall, stronger effects were found in the higher grades. Nevertheless, the effects of negative relationships were stronger in primary than in secondary school.

A critique of the cross-lagged panel model.

Abstract: The cross-lagged panel model (CLPM) is believed by many to overcome the problems associated with the use of cross-lagged correlations as a way to study causal influences in longitudinal panel data. The current article, however, shows that if stability of constructs is to some extent of a trait-like, time-invariant nature, the autoregressive relationships of the CLPM fail to adequately account for this. As a result, the lagged parameters that are obtained with the CLPM do not represent the actual within-person relationships over time, and this may lead to erroneous conclusions regarding the presence, predominance, and sign of causal influences. In this article we present an alternative model that separates the within-person process from stable between-person differences through the inclusion of random intercepts, and we discuss how this model is related to existing structural equation models that include cross-lagged relationships. We derive the analytical relationship between the cross-lagged parameters from the CLPM and the alternative model, and use simulations to demonstrate the spurious results that may arise when using the CLPM to analyze data that include stable, trait-like individual differences. We also present a modeling strategy to avoid this pitfall and illustrate this using an empirical data set. The implications for both existing and future cross-lagged panel research are discussed.

Mass-loss predictions for O and B stars as a function of metallicity

Abstract: We have calculated a grid of massive star wind models and mass-loss rates for a wide range of metal abundances between 1=100 Z=Z 10. The calculation of this grid completes the Vink et al. (2000) mass-loss recipe with an additional parameter Z. We have found that the exponent of the power law dependence of mass loss vs. metallicity is constant in the range between 1/30 Z=Z 3. The mass-loss rate scales as _ M / Z 0:85 v1 p with p = 1:23 for stars with Te > 25 000 K, and p = 1:60 for the B supergiants with Te 25 000 K, and _ M / Z 0:64 for B supergiants with Te < 25 000 K. Although it is derived that the exponent of the mass loss vs. metallicity dependence is constant over a large range in Z, one should be aware of the presence of bi-stability jumps at specic temperatures. Here the character of the line driving changes drastically due to recombinations of dominant metal species resulting in jumps in the mass loss. We have investigated the physical origins of these jumps and have derived formulae that combine mass loss recipes for both sides of such jumps. As observations of dierent galaxies show that the ratio Fe/O varies with metallicity, we make a distinction between the metal abundance Z derived on the basis of iron or oxygen lines. Our mass-loss predictions are successful in explaining the observed mass-loss rates for Galactic and Small Magellanic Cloud O- type stars, as well as in predicting the observed Galactic bi-stability jump. Hence, we believe that our predictions are reliable and suggest that our mass-loss recipe be used in future evolutionary calculations of massive stars at dierent metal abundance. A computer routine to calculate mass loss is publicly available.

Modern Operating Systems

Abstract: For software development professionals and computer science students, Modern Operating Systems gives a solid conceptual overview of operating system design, including detailed case studies of Unix/Linux and Windows 2000. What makes an operating system modern? According to author Andrew Tanenbaum, it is the awareness of high-demand computer applications--primarily in the areas of multimedia, parallel and distributed computing, and security. The development of faster and more advanced hardware has driven progress in software, including enhancements to the operating system. It is one thing to run an old operating system on current hardware, and another to effectively leverage current hardware to best serve modern software applications. If you don't believe it, install Windows 3.0 on a modern PC and try surfing the Internet or burning a CD. Readers familiar with Tanenbaum's previous text, Operating Systems, know the author is a great proponent of simple design and hands-on experimentation. His earlier book came bundled with the source code for an operating system called Minux, a simple variant of Unix and the platform used by Linus Torvalds to develop Linux. Although this book does not come with any source code, he illustrates many of his points with code fragments (C, usually with Unix system calls). The first half of Modern Operating Systems focuses on traditional operating systems concepts: processes, deadlocks, memory management, I/O, and file systems. There is nothing groundbreaking in these early chapters, but all topics are well covered, each including sections on current research and a set of student problems. It is enlightening to read Tanenbaum's explanations of the design decisions made by past operating systems gurus, including his view that additional research on the problem of deadlocks is impractical except for "keeping otherwise unemployed graph theorists off the streets." It is the second half of the book that differentiates itself from older operating systems texts. Here, each chapter describes an element of what constitutes a modern operating system--awareness of multimedia applications, multiple processors, computer networks, and a high level of security. The chapter on multimedia functionality focuses on such features as handling massive files and providing video-on-demand. Included in the discussion on multiprocessor platforms are clustered computers and distributed computing. Finally, the importance of security is discussed--a lively enumeration of the scores of ways operating systems can be vulnerable to attack, from password security to computer viruses and Internet worms. Included at the end of the book are case studies of two popular operating systems: Unix/Linux and Windows 2000. There is a bias toward the Unix/Linux approach, not surprising given the author's experience and academic bent, but this bias does not detract from Tanenbaum's analysis. Both operating systems are dissected, describing how each implements processes, file systems, memory management, and other operating system fundamentals. Tanenbaum's mantra is simple, accessible operating system design. Given that modern operating systems have extensive features, he is forced to reconcile physical size with simplicity. Toward this end, he makes frequent references to the Frederick Brooks classic The Mythical Man-Month for wisdom on managing large, complex software development projects. He finds both Windows 2000 and Unix/Linux guilty of being too complicated--with a particular skewering of Windows 2000 and its "mammoth Win32 API." A primary culprit is the attempt to make operating systems more "user-friendly," which Tanenbaum views as an excuse for bloated code. The solution is to have smart people, the smallest possible team, and well-defined interactions between various operating systems components. Future operating system design will benefit if the advice in this book is taken to heart. --Pete Ostenson