scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of California

EducationOakland, California, United States
About: University of California is a education organization based out in Oakland, California, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Layer (electronics). The organization has 55175 authors who have published 52933 publications receiving 1491169 citations. The organization is also known as: UC & University of California System.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: One of the first specialized agencies of the United Nations to become active, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as discussed by the authors has elicited interest beyond the specialized field of agricultural economists.
Abstract: One of the first of the specialized agencies of the United Nations to become active, the Food and Agriculture Organization has elicited interest beyond the specialized field of agricultural economists. Attempting as it does to solve one of the very basic problems of the world, that of an adequate food supply, the organization represents a significant and hopeful international attempt to create a world in which there may actually exist “freedom from want.” The objectives of FAO, as formally expressed in the preamble to the constitution, read as follows:“The nations accepting this constitution being determined to promote the common welfare by furthering separate and collective action on their part for the purpose of raising levels of nutrition and standards of living of the people under their jurisdiction, securing improvements in the efficiency of the production of all food and agricultural products, bettering the conditions of rural populations, and thus contributing toward an expanding world economy, hereby establish the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.”

4,803 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The ubiquitous puns on "matter" do not, alas, mark a rethinking of the key concepts (materiality and signification) and the relationship between them, rather, it seems to be symptomatic of the extent to which matters of "fact" have been replaced with matters of signification (no scare quotes here).
Abstract: L anguage has been granted too much power. The linguistic turn, the semiotic turn, the interpretative turn, the cultural turn: it seems that at every turn lately every “thing”—even materiality—is turned into a matter of language or some other form of cultural representation. The ubiquitous puns on “matter” do not, alas, mark a rethinking of the key concepts (materiality and signification) and the relationship between them. Rather, it seems to be symptomatic of the extent to which matters of “fact” (so to speak) have been replaced with matters of signification (no scare quotes here). Language matters. Discourse matters. Culture matters. There is an important sense in which the only thing that does not seem to matter anymore is matter. What compels the belief that we have a direct access to cultural representations and their content that we lack toward the things represented? How did language come to be more trustworthy than matter? Why are language and culture granted their own agency and historicity while matter is figured as passive and immutable, or at best inherits a potential for change derivatively from language and culture? How does one even go about inquiring after the material conditions that have led us to such a brute reversal of naturalist beliefs when materiality itself is always already figured within a linguistic domain as its condition of possibility?

4,728 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Jun 1997-Chest
TL;DR: Analysis of a collected database representing all clinical, surgical-pathologic, and follow-up information for 5,319 patients treated for primary lung cancer confirmed the validity of the TNM and stage grouping classification schema.

4,526 citations

Book ChapterDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors trace the violations of the rational theory of choice to the rules that govern the framing of decision and to the psychological principles of evaluation embodied in prospect theory, and argue that these rules are normatively essential but descriptively invalid.
Abstract: Alternative descriptions of a decision problem often give rise to different preferences, contrary to the principle of invariance that underlines the rational theory of choice. Violations of this theory are traced to the rules that govern the framing of decision and to the psychological principles of evaluation embodied in prospect theory. Invariance and dominance are obeyed when their application is transparent and often violated in other situations. Because these rules are normatively essential but descriptively invalid, no theory of choice can be both normatively adequate and descriptively accurate.

4,243 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Jean Bousquet, N. Khaltaev, Alvaro A. Cruz1, Judah A. Denburg2, W. J. Fokkens3, Alkis Togias4, T. Zuberbier5, Carlos E. Baena-Cagnani6, Giorgio Walter Canonica7, C. van Weel8, Ioana Agache9, Nadia Aït-Khaled, Claus Bachert10, Michael S. Blaiss11, Sergio Bonini12, L.-P. Boulet13, Philippe-Jean Bousquet, Paulo Augusto Moreira Camargos14, K-H. Carlsen15, Y. Z. Chen, Adnan Custovic16, Ronald Dahl17, Pascal Demoly, H. Douagui, Stephen R. Durham18, R. Gerth van Wijk19, O. Kalayci19, Michael A. Kaliner20, You Young Kim21, Marek L. Kowalski, Piotr Kuna22, L. T. T. Le23, Catherine Lemière24, Jing Li25, Richard F. Lockey26, S. Mavale-Manuel26, Eli O. Meltzer27, Y. Mohammad28, J Mullol, Robert M. Naclerio29, Robyn E O'Hehir30, K. Ohta31, S. Ouedraogo31, S. Palkonen, Nikolaos G. Papadopoulos32, Gianni Passalacqua7, Ruby Pawankar33, Todor A. Popov34, Klaus F. Rabe35, J Rosado-Pinto36, G. K. Scadding37, F. E. R. Simons38, Elina Toskala39, E. Valovirta40, P. Van Cauwenberge10, De Yun Wang41, Magnus Wickman42, Barbara P. Yawn43, Arzu Yorgancioglu44, Osman M. Yusuf, H. J. Zar45, Isabella Annesi-Maesano46, E.D. Bateman45, A. Ben Kheder47, Daniel A. Boakye48, J. Bouchard, Peter Burney18, William W. Busse49, Moira Chan-Yeung50, Niels H. Chavannes35, A.G. Chuchalin, William K. Dolen51, R. Emuzyte52, Lawrence Grouse53, Marc Humbert, C. M. Jackson54, Sebastian L. Johnston18, Paul K. Keith2, James P. Kemp27, J. M. Klossek55, Désirée Larenas-Linnemann55, Brian J. Lipworth54, Jean-Luc Malo24, Gailen D. Marshall56, Charles K. Naspitz57, K. Nekam, Bodo Niggemann58, Ewa Nizankowska-Mogilnicka59, Yoshitaka Okamoto60, M. P. Orru61, Paul Potter45, David Price62, Stuart W. Stoloff63, Olivier Vandenplas, Giovanni Viegi, Dennis M. Williams64 
Federal University of Bahia1, McMaster University2, University of Amsterdam3, National Institutes of Health4, Charité5, Catholic University of Cordoba6, University of Genoa7, Radboud University Nijmegen8, Transilvania University of Brașov9, Ghent University10, University of Tennessee Health Science Center11, University of Naples Federico II12, Laval University13, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais14, University of Oslo15, University of Manchester16, Aarhus University17, Imperial College London18, Erasmus University Rotterdam19, George Washington University20, Seoul National University21, Medical University of Łódź22, Hai phong University Of Medicine and Pharmacy23, Université de Montréal24, Guangzhou Medical University25, University of South Florida26, University of California, San Diego27, University of California28, University of Chicago29, Monash University30, Teikyo University31, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens32, Nippon Medical School33, Sofia Medical University34, Leiden University35, Leiden University Medical Center36, University College London37, University of Manitoba38, University of Helsinki39, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health40, National University of Singapore41, Karolinska Institutet42, University of Minnesota43, Celal Bayar University44, University of Cape Town45, Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University46, Tunis University47, University of Ghana48, University of Wisconsin-Madison49, University of British Columbia50, Georgia Regents University51, Vilnius University52, University of Washington53, University of Dundee54, University of Poitiers55, University of Mississippi56, Federal University of São Paulo57, German Red Cross58, Jagiellonian University Medical College59, Chiba University60, American Pharmacists Association61, University of Aberdeen62, University of Nevada, Reno63, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill64
01 Apr 2008-Allergy
TL;DR: The ARIA guidelines for the management of allergic rhinitis and asthma are similar in both the 1999 ARIA workshop report and the 2008 Update as discussed by the authors, but the GRADE approach is not yet available.
Abstract: Allergic rhinitis is a symptomatic disorder of the nose induced after allergen exposure by an IgE-mediated inflammation of the membranes lining the nose. It is a global health problem that causes major illness and disability worldwide. Over 600 million patients from all countries, all ethnic groups and of all ages suffer from allergic rhinitis. It affects social life, sleep, school and work and its economic impact is substantial. Risk factors for allergic rhinitis are well identified. Indoor and outdoor allergens as well as occupational agents cause rhinitis and other allergic diseases. The role of indoor and outdoor pollution is probably very important, but has yet to be fully understood both for the occurrence of the disease and its manifestations. In 1999, during the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) WHO workshop, the expert panel proposed a new classification for allergic rhinitis which was subdivided into 'intermittent' or 'persistent' disease. This classification is now validated. The diagnosis of allergic rhinitis is often quite easy, but in some cases it may cause problems and many patients are still under-diagnosed, often because they do not perceive the symptoms of rhinitis as a disease impairing their social life, school and work. The management of allergic rhinitis is well established and the ARIA expert panel based its recommendations on evidence using an extensive review of the literature available up to December 1999. The statements of evidence for the development of these guidelines followed WHO rules and were based on those of Shekelle et al. A large number of papers have been published since 2000 and are extensively reviewed in the 2008 Update using the same evidence-based system. Recommendations for the management of allergic rhinitis are similar in both the ARIA workshop report and the 2008 Update. In the future, the GRADE approach will be used, but is not yet available. Another important aspect of the ARIA guidelines was to consider co-morbidities. Both allergic rhinitis and asthma are systemic inflammatory conditions and often co-exist in the same patients. In the 2008 Update, these links have been confirmed. The ARIA document is not intended to be a standard-of-care document for individual countries. It is provided as a basis for physicians, health care professionals and organizations involved in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma in various countries to facilitate the development of relevant local standard-of-care documents for patients.

3,769 citations


Authors

Showing all 55232 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Meir J. Stampfer2771414283776
George M. Whitesides2401739269833
Michael Karin236704226485
Fred H. Gage216967185732
Rob Knight2011061253207
Martin White1962038232387
Simon D. M. White189795231645
Scott M. Grundy187841231821
Peidong Yang183562144351
Patrick O. Brown183755200985
Michael G. Rosenfeld178504107707
George M. Church172900120514
David Haussler172488224960
Yang Yang1712644153049
Alan J. Heeger171913147492
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Cornell University
235.5K papers, 12.2M citations

95% related

University of California, Berkeley
265.6K papers, 16.8M citations

94% related

University of Minnesota
257.9K papers, 11.9M citations

94% related

University of Wisconsin-Madison
237.5K papers, 11.8M citations

94% related

Stanford University
320.3K papers, 21.8M citations

93% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202322
2022105
2021775
20201,069
20191,225
20181,684