12 research outputs found

    A discussion on the history of research in arithmetic andReed-Muller expressions

    Get PDF
    This paper discusses early work by Komamiya in Reed-Muller and arithmetic expressions for switching function

    Relative tooth size, Bayesian inference, and Homo naledi

    Get PDF
    Objectives: Size-corrected tooth crown measurements were used to estimate phenetic affinities among Homo naledi (~335–236 ka) and 11 other Plio-Pleistocene and recent species. To assess further their efficacy, and identify dental evolutionary trends, the data were then quantitatively coded for phylogenetic analyses. Results from both methods contribute additional characterization of H. naledi relative to other hominins. Materials and Methods: After division by their geometric mean, scaled mesiodistal and buccolingual dimensions were used in tooth size apportionment analysis to compare H. naledi with Australopithecus africanus, A. afarensis, Paranthropus robustus, P. boisei, H. habilis, H. ergaster, H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis, H. sapiens, and Pan troglodytes. These data produce equivalently scaled samples unaffected by interspecific size differences. The data were then gap-weighted for Bayesian inference. Results: Congruence in interspecific relationships is evident between methods, and with many inferred from earlier systematic studies. However, the present results place H. naledi as a sister taxon to H. habilis, based on a symplesiomorphic pattern of relative tooth size. In the preferred Bayesian phylogram, H. naledi is nested within a clade comprising all Homo species, but it shares some characteristics with australopiths and, particularly, early Homo. Discussion: Phylogenetic analyses of relative tooth size yield information about evolutionary dental trends not previously reported in H. naledi and the other hominins. Moreover, with an appropriate model these data recovered plausible evolutionary relationships. Together, the findings support recent study suggesting H. naledi originated long before the geological date of the Dinaledi Chamber, from which the specimens under study were recovered

    Questioning the Premedical Paradigm

    Get PDF
    This book raises fundamental questions about the propriety of continuing to use a premedical curriculum developed more than a century ago to select students for training as future physicians for the twenty-first century. In it, Dr. Donald A. Barr examines the historical origins, evolution, and current state of premedical education in the United States. One hundred years ago, Abraham Flexner's report on Medical Education in the United States and Canada helped establish the modern paradigm of premedical and medical education. Barr’s research finds the system of premedical education that evolved to be a poor predictor of subsequent clinical competency and professional excellence, while simultaneously discouraging many students from underrepresented minority groups or economically disadvantaged backgrounds from pursuing a career as a physician. Analyzing more than fifty years of research, Barr shows that many of the best prospects are not being admitted to medical schools, with long-term adverse consequences for the U.S. medical profession. The root of the problem, Barr argues, is the premedical curriculum—which overemphasizes biology, chemistry, and physics by teaching them as separate, discrete subjects. In proposing a fundamental restructuring of premedical education, Barr makes the case for parallel tracks of undergraduate science education: one that would largely retain the current system; and a second that would integrate the life sciences in a problem-based, collaborative learning pedagogy. Barr argues that the new, integrated curriculum will encourage greater educational and social diversity among premedical candidates without weakening the quality of the education. He includes an evaluative research framework to judge the outcome of such a restructured system.This historical and cultural analysis of premedical education in the United States is the crucial first step in questioning the appropriateness of continuing a hundred-year-old, empirically dubious pedagogical model for the twenty-first century
    corecore