scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of Delaware

EducationNewark, Delaware, United States
About: University of Delaware is a education organization based out in Newark, Delaware, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Catalysis. The organization has 22223 authors who have published 54810 publications receiving 2049136 citations. The organization is also known as: University of Delaware Emergency Care Unit & UD.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Kaoru Hagiwara, Ken Ichi Hikasa1, Koji Nakamura, Masaharu Tanabashi1, M. Aguilar-Benitez, Claude Amsler2, R. M. Barnett3, P. R. Burchat4, C. D. Carone5, C. Caso6, G. Conforto7, Olav Dahl3, Michael Doser8, Semen Eidelman9, Jonathan L. Feng10, L. K. Gibbons11, M. C. Goodman12, Christoph Grab13, D. E. Groom3, Atul Gurtu14, Atul Gurtu8, K. G. Hayes15, J.J. Hernández-Rey16, K. Honscheid17, Christopher Kolda18, Michelangelo L. Mangano8, D. M. Manley19, Aneesh V. Manohar20, John March-Russell8, Alberto Masoni, Ramon Miquel3, Klaus Mönig, Hitoshi Murayama3, Hitoshi Murayama21, S. Sánchez Navas13, Keith A. Olive22, Luc Pape8, C. Patrignani6, A. Piepke23, Matts Roos24, John Terning25, Nils A. Tornqvist24, T. G. Trippe3, Petr Vogel26, C. G. Wohl3, Ron L. Workman27, W-M. Yao3, B. Armstrong3, P. S. Gee3, K. S. Lugovsky, S. B. Lugovsky, V. S. Lugovsky, Marina Artuso28, D. Asner29, K. S. Babu30, E. L. Barberio8, Marco Battaglia8, H. Bichsel31, O. Biebel32, P. Bloch8, Robert N. Cahn3, Ariella Cattai8, R.S. Chivukula33, R. Cousins34, G. A. Cowan35, Thibault Damour36, K. Desler, R. J. Donahue3, D. A. Edwards, Victor Daniel Elvira37, Jens Erler38, V. V. Ezhela, A Fassò8, W. Fetscher13, Brian D. Fields39, B. Foster40, Daniel Froidevaux8, Masataka Fukugita41, Thomas K. Gaisser42, L. A. Garren37, H J Gerber13, Frederick J. Gilman43, Howard E. Haber44, C. A. Hagmann29, J.L. Hewett4, Ian Hinchliffe3, Craig J. Hogan31, G. Höhler45, P. Igo-Kemenes46, John David Jackson3, Kurtis F Johnson47, D. Karlen48, B. Kayser37, S. R. Klein3, Konrad Kleinknecht49, I.G. Knowles50, P. Kreitz4, Yu V. Kuyanov, R. Landua8, Paul Langacker38, L. S. Littenberg51, Alan D. Martin52, Tatsuya Nakada8, Tatsuya Nakada53, Meenakshi Narain33, Paolo Nason, John A. Peacock54, H. R. Quinn55, Stuart Raby17, Georg G. Raffelt32, E. A. Razuvaev, B. Renk49, L. Rolandi8, Michael T Ronan3, L.J. Rosenberg54, C.T. Sachrajda55, A. I. Sanda56, Subir Sarkar57, Michael Schmitt58, O. Schneider53, Douglas Scott59, W. G. Seligman60, M. H. Shaevitz60, Torbjörn Sjöstrand61, George F. Smoot3, Stefan M Spanier4, H. Spieler3, N. J. C. Spooner62, Mark Srednicki63, Achim Stahl, Todor Stanev42, M. Suzuki3, N. P. Tkachenko, German Valencia64, K. van Bibber29, Manuella Vincter65, D. R. Ward66, Bryan R. Webber66, M R Whalley52, Lincoln Wolfenstein43, J. Womersley37, C. L. Woody51, Oleg Zenin 
Tohoku University1, University of Zurich2, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory3, Stanford University4, College of William & Mary5, University of Genoa6, University of Urbino7, CERN8, Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics9, University of California, Irvine10, Cornell University11, Argonne National Laboratory12, ETH Zurich13, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research14, Hillsdale College15, Spanish National Research Council16, Ohio State University17, University of Notre Dame18, Kent State University19, University of California, San Diego20, University of California, Berkeley21, University of Minnesota22, University of Alabama23, University of Helsinki24, Los Alamos National Laboratory25, California Institute of Technology26, George Washington University27, Syracuse University28, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory29, Oklahoma State University–Stillwater30, University of Washington31, Max Planck Society32, Boston University33, University of California, Los Angeles34, Royal Holloway, University of London35, Université Paris-Saclay36, Fermilab37, University of Pennsylvania38, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign39, University of Bristol40, University of Tokyo41, University of Delaware42, Carnegie Mellon University43, University of California, Santa Cruz44, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology45, Heidelberg University46, Florida State University47, Carleton University48, University of Mainz49, University of Edinburgh50, Brookhaven National Laboratory51, Durham University52, University of Lausanne53, Massachusetts Institute of Technology54, University of Southampton55, Nagoya University56, University of Oxford57, Northwestern University58, University of British Columbia59, Columbia University60, Lund University61, University of Sheffield62, University of California, Santa Barbara63, Iowa State University64, University of Alberta65, University of Cambridge66
TL;DR: The Particle Data Group's biennial review as mentioned in this paper summarizes much of particle physics, using data from previous editions, plus 2658 new measurements from 644 papers, and lists, evaluates, and average measured properties of gauge bosons, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons.
Abstract: This biennial Review summarizes much of particle physics. Using data from previous editions, plus 2658 new measurements from 644 papers, we list, evaluate, and average measured properties of gauge bosons, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons. We summarize searches for hypothetical particles such as Higgs bosons, heavy neutrinos, and supersymmetric particles. All the particle properties and search limits are listed in Summary Tables. We also give numerous tables, figures, formulae, and reviews of topics such as the Standard Model, particle detectors, probability, and statistics. Among the 112 reviews are many that are new or heavily revised including those on Heavy-Quark and Soft-Collinear Effective Theory, Neutrino Cross Section Measurements, Monte Carlo Event Generators, Lattice QCD, Heavy Quarkonium Spectroscopy, Top Quark, Dark Matter, V-cb & V-ub, Quantum Chromodynamics, High-Energy Collider Parameters, Astrophysical Constants, Cosmological Parameters, and Dark Matter. A booklet is available containing the Summary Tables and abbreviated versions of some of the other sections of this full Review. All tables, listings, and reviews (and errata) are also available on the Particle Data Group website: http://pdg.lbl.gov.

4,465 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A third‐generation point‐charge all‐atom force field for proteins is developed and initial tests on peptides demonstrated a high‐degree of similarity between the calculated and the statistically measured Ramanchandran maps for both Ace‐Gly‐nme and Ace‐Ala‐Nme di‐peptides.
Abstract: Molecular mechanics models have been applied extensively to study the dynamics of proteins and nucleic acids. Here we report the development of a third-generation point-charge all-atom force field for proteins. Following the earlier approach of Cornell et al., the charge set was obtained by fitting to the electrostatic potentials of dipeptides calculated using B3LYP/cc-pVTZ//HF/6-31G** quantum mechanical methods. The main-chain torsion parameters were obtained by fitting to the energy profiles of Ace-Ala-Nme and Ace-Gly-Nme di-peptides calculated using MP2/cc-pVTZ//HF/6-31G** quantum mechanical methods. All other parameters were taken from the existing AMBER data base. The major departure from previous force fields is that all quantum mechanical calculations were done in the condensed phase with continuum solvent models and an effective dielectric constant of e = 4. We anticipate that this force field parameter set will address certain critical short comings of previous force fields in condensed-phase simulations of proteins. Initial tests on peptides demonstrated a high-degree of similarity between the calculated and the statistically measured Ramanchandran maps for both Ace-Gly-Nme and Ace-Ala-Nme di-peptides. Some highlights of our results include (1) well-preserved balance between the extended and helical region distributions, and (2) favorable type-II poly-proline helical region in agreement with recent experiments. Backward compatibility between the new and Cornell et al. charge sets, as judged by overall agreement between dipole moments, allows a smooth transition to the new force field in the area of ligand-binding calculations. Test simulations on a large set of proteins are also discussed. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem 24: 1999–2012, 2003

4,162 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: It is suggested that much can be gained if a plurality of research perspectives is effectively employed to investigate information systems phenomena and that there exist other philosophical assumptions that can inform studies of the relationships between information technology, people, and organizations.
Abstract: We examined 155 behavioral information systems research articles published from 1983-1988and found that while this research is not rooted in a single overarching theoretical perspective itdoes exhibit a single set of philosophical assumptions about the nature of valid evidence andthe phenomena of interest to information systems researchers. We argue in this paper that thesephilosophical assumptions draw on the natural science tradition, and hence may not always beappropriate for inquiry into the relationships between information technology and people or organizations. In particular, we suggest that the development and use of information technologywithin organizations is inherently processual and contextual, and that these characteristics are notalways adequately captured by the philosophical assumptions prevalent in information systemsresearch. Positing social process as central to information systems phenomena asserts theimportance of studying the ongoing interactions among people, information technology andorganizations, as these are situated historically and contextually.We argue in this paper that the dominant research perspective in information systems research isnot well-equipped to deal with situated interactions over time, and propose additional researchphilosophies to augment the one currently favored by behavioral information systemsresearchers. We outline the features of such additional research perspectives, the interpretive andthe critical, providing empirical examples to illustrate how and when they may be useful. Weconclude that multiple research perspectives can usefully be employed within the informationsystems community to enrich understanding of behavioral information systems phenomena.

4,038 citations

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: The combination of materials to form a new material system with enhanced material properties is a well documented historical fact as discussed by the authors, which is why many artisans from the Mediterranean and Far East used a form of composite technology in molding art works which were fabricated by layering cut paper in various sizes for producing desired shapes and contours.
Abstract: The combination of materials to form a new material system with enhanced material properties is a well documented historical fact. For example, the ancient Jewish workers during their tenure under the Pharaohs used chopped straws in bricks as a means of enhancing their structural integrity. The Japanese Samurai warriors were known to use laminated metals in the forging of their swords to obtain desirable material properties. Even certain artisans from the Mediterranean and Far East used a form of composite technology in molding art works which were fabricated by layering cut paper in various sizes for producing desired shapes and contours.

3,908 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a theoretical framework for understanding creativity in complex social settings is developed, based on the interactionist model of creative behavior developed by Woodman and Schoenfeldt (1989).
Abstract: In this article we develop a theoretical framework for understanding creativity in complex social settings. We define organizational creativity as the creation of a valuable, useful new product, service, idea, procedure, or process by individuals working together in a complex social system. The starting point for our theoretical development is provided by the interactionist model of creative behavior developed by Woodman and Schoenfeldt (1989). This model and supporting literature on creative behavior and organizational innovation are used to develop an interactional framework for organizational creativity. The theoretical framework is summarized by three propositions that can effectively guide the development of testable hypotheses.

3,904 citations


Authors

Showing all 22448 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Rakesh K. Jain2001467177727
Chad A. Mirkin1641078134254
Xiaoyuan Chen14999489870
Bernhard O. Palsson14783185051
John F. Hartwig14571466472
Gordon T. Richards144613110666
Mark A. Smith13690473530
Peter M. Elias12758149825
Jillian F. Banfield12756260687
Jay Belsky12444155582
Michael S. Lawrence121256149398
Sanjay Kumar120205282620
Andrew H. Paterson11949659373
Frederick P. Rivara11894086352
Kenneth R. Feingold11455044650
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Pennsylvania State University
196.8K papers, 8.3M citations

97% related

University of Maryland, College Park
155.9K papers, 7.2M citations

96% related

University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
225.1K papers, 10.1M citations

96% related

Rutgers University
159.4K papers, 6.7M citations

95% related

University of Texas at Austin
206.2K papers, 9M citations

95% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
20241
2023103
2022377
20212,750
20202,712
20192,539