249 research outputs found

    The Archaeology of Immateriality

    Get PDF
    Despite changes in archaeological theory and practice over the past 40 years, most archaeologists are still not very good at acknowledging that “significance” is context-dependent and non-material. In this paper I present two cases studies from New England where archaeologists collaborated with Native peoples on sites that had significant preservation concerns. I evaluate to what extent these projects were successful in their goal of decolonizing archaeology. I call for a definition of materiality that acknowledges that tangible objects and their intangible contexts and meanings are inextricable, and that values are continuously created and recreated in the present by a variety of memory communities

    Digging and Destruction: Artifact Collecting as Meaningful Social Practice

    Get PDF
    Collected sites are commonly seen as places requiring expert intervention to ‘save the past’ from destruction by artifact collectors and looters. Despite engaging directly with the physical effects of collecting and vandalism, little attention is given to the meanings of these actions and the contributions they make to the stories told about sites or the past more broadly. Professional archaeologists often position their engagement with site destruction as heritage ‘salvage’ and regard collecting as lacking any value in contemporary society. Repositioning collecting as meaningful social practice and heritage action raises the question: in failing to understand legal or illegal collecting as significant to heritage, have archaeologists contributed to the erasure of acts that aim to work out identities, memories and senses of place, and contribute to an individual’s or group’s sense of ontological security? This question is explored through a case study from the New England region of North America where archaeologists have allied with Native American and other stakeholders to advocate for heritage protection by taking an anti-looting/collecting stance. We explore alternatives to this position that engage directly with forms of collecting as meaningful social practices that are largely erased in site narratives

    Dexamethasone reduces emesis after major gastrointestinal surgery (DREAMS)

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting is one of the most common complications affecting patients after surgery and causes significant morbidity and increased length of hospital stay. It is accepted that patients undergoing surgery on the bowel are at a higher risk. In the current era of minimally invasive colorectal surgery combined with enhanced recovery, reducing the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting is particularly important. Dexamethasone is widely, but not universally used. It is known to improve appetite and gastric emptying, thus reduce vomiting. However, this benefit is not established in patients undergoing bowel surgery, and dexamethasone has possible side effects such as increased risk of wound infection and anastomotic leak that could adversely affect recovery. DESIGN: DREAMS is a phase III, double-blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial with the primary objective of determining if preoperative dexamethasone reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal resections. DREAMS aims to randomize 1,350 patients over 2.5 years. Patients undergoing laparoscopic or open colorectal resections for malignant or benign pathology are randomized between 8 mg intravenous dexamethasone and control (no dexamethasone). All patients are given one additional antiemetic at the time of induction, prior to randomization. Both the patient and their surgeon are blinded as to the treatment arm. Secondary objectives of the DREAMS trial are to determine whether there are other measurable benefits during recovery from surgery with the use of dexamethasone, including quicker return to oral diet and reduced length of stay. Health-related quality of life, fatigue and risks of infections will be investigated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN2197362

    New science, synthesis, scholarship, and strategic vision for society

    Get PDF
    Harvard Forest LTER (HFR) is a two decade-strong, integrated research and educational program investigating responses of forest dynamics to natural and human disturbances and environmental changes over broad spatial and temporal scales. HFR engages \u3e30 researchers, \u3e200 graduate and undergraduate students, and dozens of institutions in research into fundamental and applied ecological questions of national and international relevance. Through LTER I–IV, HFR has added historical perspectives, expanded its scope to the New England region, integrated social, biological, and physical sciences, and developed education and outreach programs for K-12, undergraduate, and graduate students, along with managers, decision-makers, and media professionals

    Measurement of the Lifetime Difference Between B_s Mass Eigenstates

    Get PDF
    We present measurements of the lifetimes and polarization amplitudes for B_s --> J/psi phi and B_d --> J/psi K*0 decays. Lifetimes of the heavy (H) and light (L) mass eigenstates in the B_s system are separately measured for the first time by determining the relative contributions of amplitudes with definite CP as a function of the decay time. Using 203 +/- 15 B_s decays, we obtain tau_L = (1.05 +{0.16}/-{0.13} +/- 0.02) ps and tau_H = (2.07 +{0.58}/-{0.46} +/- 0.03) ps. Expressed in terms of the difference DeltaGamma_s and average Gamma_s, of the decay rates of the two eigenstates, the results are DeltaGamma_s/Gamma_s = (65 +{25}/-{33} +/- 1)%, and DeltaGamma_s = (0.47 +{0.19}/-{0.24} +/- 0.01) inverse ps.Comment: 8 pages, 3 figures, 2 tables; as published in Physical Review Letters on 16 March 2005; revisions are for length and typesetting only, no changes in results or conclusion

    Pooled analysis of WHO Surgical Safety Checklist use and mortality after emergency laparotomy

    Get PDF
    Background The World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist has fostered safe practice for 10 years, yet its place in emergency surgery has not been assessed on a global scale. The aim of this study was to evaluate reported checklist use in emergency settings and examine the relationship with perioperative mortality in patients who had emergency laparotomy. Methods In two multinational cohort studies, adults undergoing emergency laparotomy were compared with those having elective gastrointestinal surgery. Relationships between reported checklist use and mortality were determined using multivariable logistic regression and bootstrapped simulation. Results Of 12 296 patients included from 76 countries, 4843 underwent emergency laparotomy. After adjusting for patient and disease factors, checklist use before emergency laparotomy was more common in countries with a high Human Development Index (HDI) (2455 of 2741, 89.6 per cent) compared with that in countries with a middle (753 of 1242, 60.6 per cent; odds ratio (OR) 0.17, 95 per cent c.i. 0.14 to 0.21, P <0001) or low (363 of 860, 422 per cent; OR 008, 007 to 010, P <0.001) HDI. Checklist use was less common in elective surgery than for emergency laparotomy in high-HDI countries (risk difference -94 (95 per cent c.i. -11.9 to -6.9) per cent; P <0001), but the relationship was reversed in low-HDI countries (+121 (+7.0 to +173) per cent; P <0001). In multivariable models, checklist use was associated with a lower 30-day perioperative mortality (OR 0.60, 0.50 to 073; P <0.001). The greatest absolute benefit was seen for emergency surgery in low- and middle-HDI countries. Conclusion Checklist use in emergency laparotomy was associated with a significantly lower perioperative mortality rate. Checklist use in low-HDI countries was half that in high-HDI countries.Peer reviewe
    corecore