Seismic analysis of slender monumental structures: current strategies and challenges

The preservation and seismic risk mitigation of built cultural heritage is considered today as a major priority in the international political agenda. Among the great variety of heritage structures spread worldwide, masonry towers belong to one of the most vulnerable categories against earthquake actions due to their morphological and material singularity. The proper understanding of the structural behavior of these artefacts at the micro, meso and macro scales, combined with a thorough knowledge of the best analysis practices deriving from the shared experience of the scientific community working in this field, is a fundamental prerequisite to appropriately address their seismic assessment. In this context, the present work offers an extensive discussion on the major challenges that slender monumental towers pose in terms of characterization of their actual behavior under seismic actions. A critical appraisal of the principal analysis methods applicable to the study of these structures is also presented along with a brief review of the existing modelling strategies for their numerical representation. Relevant examples are discussed in support of each argument. In spite of being a relatively young discipline, earthquake engineering has made remarkable progress in the last years and appropriate modi operandi have been consolidating to tackle the seismic assessment of unconventional systems, such as slender heritage structures. The work is conceived in a format of interest for both practitioners and researchers approaching the seismic assessment of this type of structures, and for those in need of an overall practical review of the topic.This work was carried out within the framework of the National Operational Programme on Research and Innovation (Attraction and International Mobility) PON-AIM 2014-2020 Line 2, co-financed by the European Social Fund and by the National Rotation Fund

The Dimensions of Argumentative Texts and Their Assessment

The definition and the assessment of the quality of argumentative texts has become an increasingly crucial issue in education, classroom discourse, and argumentation theory. The different methods developed and used in the literature are all characterized by specific perspectives that fail to capture the complexity of the subject matter, which remains ill-defined and not systematically investigated. This paper addresses this problem by building on the four main dimensions of argument quality resulting from the definition of argument and the literature in classroom discourse: dialogicity, accountability, relevance, and textuality (DART). We use and develop the insights from the literature in education and argumentation by integrating the frameworks that capture both the textual and the argumentative nature of argumentative texts. This theoretical background will be used to propose a method for translating the DART dimensions into specific and clear proxies and evaluation criteria

Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments

Over the last decade, researchers have developed sophisticated online learning environments to support students engaging in argumentation. This review first considers the range of functionalities incorporated within these online environments. The review then presents five categories of analytic frameworks focusing on (1) formal argumentation structure, (2) normative quality, (3) nature and function of contributions within the dialog, (4) epistemic nature of reasoning, and (5) patterns and trajectories of participant interaction. Example analytic frameworks from each category are presented in detail rich enough to illustrate their nature and structure. This rich detail is intended to facilitate researchers’ identification of possible frameworks to draw upon in developing or adopting analytic methods for their own work. Each framework is applied to a shared segment of student dialog to facilitate this illustration and comparison process. Synthetic discussions of each category consider the frameworks in light of the underlying theoretical perspectives on argumentation, pedagogical goals, and online environmental structures. Ultimately the review underscores the diversity of perspectives represented in this research, the importance of clearly specifying theoretical and environmental commitments throughout the process of developing or adopting an analytic framework, and the role of analytic frameworks in the future development of online learning environments for argumentation

Concept mapping, mind mapping argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter?

In recent years, academics and educators have begun to use software mapping tools for a number of education-related purposes. Typically, the tools are used to help impart critical and analytical skills to students, to enable students to see relationships between concepts, and also as a method of assessment. The common feature of all these tools is the use of diagrammatic relationships of various kinds in preference to written or verbal descriptions. Pictures and structured diagrams are thought to be more comprehensible than just words, and a clearer way to illustrate understanding of complex topics. Variants of these tools are available under different names: “concept mapping”, “mind mapping” and “argument mapping”. Sometimes these terms are used synonymously. However, as this paper will demonstrate, there are clear differences in each of these mapping tools. This paper offers an outline of the various types of tool available and their advantages and disadvantages. It argues that the choice of mapping tool largely depends on the purpose or aim for which the tool is used and that the tools may well be converging to offer educators as yet unrealised and potentially complementary functions

ASAS/WHO ICF Core Sets for ankylosing spondylitis (AS): how to classify the impact of AS on functioning and health

Objective: To report on the results of a standardised consensus process agreeing on concepts typical and/or relevant when classifying functioning and health in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) based on the International Classification of Functioning and Health (ICF).Methods: Experts in AS from different professional and geographical backgrounds attended a consensus conference and were divided into three working groups. Rheumatologists were selected from members of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS). Other health professionals were recommended by ASAS members. The aim was to compose three working groups with five to seven participants to allow everybody's contribution in the discussions. Experts selected ICF categories that were considered typical and/or relevant for AS during a standardised consensus process by integrating evidence from preceding studies in alternating working group and plenary discussions. A Comprehensive ICF Core Set was selected for the comprehensive classification of functioning and a Brief ICF Core Set for application in trials.Results: The conference was attended by 19 experts from 12 countries. Eighty categories were included in the Comprehensive Core Set, which included 23 Body functions, 19 Body structures, 24 Activities and participation and 14 Environmental factors. Nineteen categories were selected for the Brief Core Set, which included 6 Body functions, 4 Body structures, 7 Activities and participation and 2 Environmental factors.Conclusion: The Comprehensive and Brief ICF Core Sets for AS are now available and aim to represent the external reference to define consequences of AS on functioning

Exploring the rationale of enlightened shareholder value in the realm of UK company law – the path dependence perspective

Despite conventional beliefs in the predominance of shareholder value, a broader agenda of stakeholder consideration has been advocated in the UK by the recently-introduced ESV principle – the overriding corporate objective in the new company law regime. In this paper, the efficiency of this principle in terms of stakeholder enhancement is challenged through an interdisciplinary analysis. Through a critical review of the ESV principle, it is discovered that stakeholder enhancement practices in the context of the 2006 company law regime are still for the fundamental goal of shareholder value maximisation, and that their enlightened impact has been fairly limited in practice. Furthermore, by revisiting the interrelationships between UK economic, political and cultural factors with the predominance objective of shareholder value maximisation in the Companies Act 2006, it is discovered that the enlightened effect of this new approach in the company law regime is in fact impeded by strong, persistent forces deriving from shareholder-oriented particulars. Providing insight into the future direction of corporate governance practice, the paper concludes the rationale behind the shareholder-oriented ESV principle, and further suggests the continuing predominance of shareholder value in UK corporate governance