Showing papers on "Antecedent (grammar) published in 1981"
TL;DR: Cipher Device M-94 was adopted by the United States Army in 1922, the same year papers found in the Library of Congress revealed that Thomas Jefferson had invented the same device about 125 years earlier.
Abstract: Cipher Device M-94 was adopted by the United States Army in 1922, the same year papers found in the Library of Congress revealed that Thomas Jefferson had invented the same device about 125 years earlier. Almost 100 years after Jefferson, Commandant Etienne Bazeries, a French army cryptologist, independently developed a similar device. Both inventions, which ultimately formed the basis for the most widely used cryptosystems in the 20th century, apparently had a common antecedent in the letter lock, which was popularized in France by Edme Regnier during the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
3 citations
TL;DR: Factors preceding and accompanying the career paths of 111 psychiatrists who graduated from the Stanford University residency program during the years 1965–1975, were studied through a survey, using multiple regression as main analytic technique.
Abstract: Factors preceding and accompanying the career paths of 111 psychiatrists who graduated from the Stanford University residency program during the years 1965–1975, were studied through a survey, using multiple regression as main analytic technique. Antecedent variables predicting the path of the full-time academic psychiatrist included having had a research residency, perceiving the residency program as relevant, being a foreign medical school graduate, and being male; while associated concomitant variables included number of journal articles and book chapters published, no formal continuing education reported, not living in California, and living in the South. The career paths of the clinical faculty psychiatrist, the non-academically affiliated clinician and the administratively oriented psychiatrist were similarly studied.
2 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a counterfactual analysis of causation is presented, and the authors argue that the adequate determination of a set of possible worlds as closest or most similar to the actual must depend upon causal relations, and that the relevance of those worlds to the causal relations between particular events in the actual world is obscure.
Abstract: David Lewis offers a counterfactual analysis of causation, limiting his analysis to causation between particular events.1 Exactly what Lewis is analyzing is revealed by the point at which he announces his analysis to be complete. He does so immediately after giving neces sary and sufficient conditions for one event's causing another.2 One event is a cause of another if and only if there is a causal chain that leads from the first to the second. The notion of a causal chain is defined by appeal to causal dependence, which is defined in terms of the truth of certain counterfactuals. The truth value of a counter factual is determined by the truth value of its consequent in those possible worlds in which the antecedent is true which are most similar over-all to the actual world.3 Two sorts of criticisms of Lewis' account have been leveled elsewhere. Jaegwon Kim objects to the account's classification of certain kinds of cases as ones of causal dependence. Among these are ones which Kim says exemplify an 'analytical' or 'logical' relation, and others in which one event is a part of another.4 Bernard Berofsky objects to Lewis' contention that the vagueness of counterfactuals infects causation.5 I agree that the cases cited by Kim and the features of Lewis' analysis cited by Berofsky present problems for his account. However, another potentially far more damaging line of criticism will be offered here. I shall argue that the adequate determination of a set of possible worlds as closest or most similar to the actual must depend upon causal relations. Without appeal to causal relations (though not the particular ones Lewis analyzes here), the truth values expected will not be determined for many counterfactuals whose truth values are pre-analytically clear. And if a set of worlds is determined as closest to the actual without appeal to causal relations, the relevance of those worlds to the causal relations between particular events in the actual world is obscure. Let us begin, however, by elaborating Lewis' account.
1 citations
1 citations