Report of the Committee on Craig Colony

The Craig Colony for Epileptics opened in Sonyea, NY, in January 1896 as “a new form of charity, recently adopted by this State, and is based upon the idea of being, as fully as possible, self-supporting.” Indeed, it was only the second such institution in the United States. This brief report, written in November 1896 by Committee members Dr. Enoch V. Stoddard, William P. Letchworth, and Peter Walrath, is an assessment of the Colony’s first year in operation. Their conclusion that “this experiment on the part of the State has proved, during its first and most difficult year of trial, to be not only justifiable, but such as to meet the further expectations of those who have been most interested in it origin and development” was quite prescient, as the Colony (which was eventually renamed Craig Developmental Center) continued to operate until 1988. In their report, the Committee describes the progress made on renovating the existing buildings of the former Shaker site where the Colony is located and makes a case for construction of a new administration building new dormitories for patients (alternately referred to as inmates), a house and office for the Superintendent, and living quarters for employees, most of whom have had to find lodging in Mount Morris, a village some four miles distant. Much praise is given to the doctors at Craig, who have established meticulous record-keeping based on careful and scientific observation and have made advances in classifying, and thus treating, epileptic patients. Treatment includes occupation (patients engage in real agricultural work, earning $14,230.20 for the Colony in its first year, and other household and technical work), diet (very little meat, lots of fruit and vegetables), and “a common school education” (a school was opened in September 1896 to provide “moral and mental treatment” for the patients.) As medical science progressed and treatments for epilepsy evolved, Craig Colony’s useful life came to an end in the late 20th century, but it became the foundation for the Finger Lakes Developmental Disabilities Services Office based in Rochester, NY. (summary written by Liz Argentieri)https://knightscholar.geneseo.edu/historical-reprints/1024/thumbnail.jp

Comparação de modelos matemáticos para o traçado de curvas granulométricas Comparison of mathematical models for fitting particle-size distribution curves

A distribuição granulométrica de partículas sólidas é essencial para as áreas de material de construção, mecânica dos solos, física dos solos, hidrossedimentologia, entre outras. As técnicas utilizadas na avaliação da distribuição granulométrica de amostras resultam em valores pontuais, dependendo de posterior interpolação para o traçado da curva granulométrica e a obtenção de diâmetros característicos específicos. A transformação de valores pontuais em funções contínuas pode ser realizada por meio de modelos matemáticos. Entretanto, há poucos estudos com a finalidade de determinar o melhor modelo para o ajuste de curvas granulométricas. O objetivo deste trabalho foi testar e comparar 14 diferentes modelos passíveis de utilização no traçado da curva granulométrica de partículas sólidas com base em quatro pontos medidos. O parâmetro de comparação entre os modelos foi a soma de quadrado dos erros entre os valores medidos e calculados. Os modelos mais recomendados no traçado da curva granulométrica, a partir de quatro pontos, são os de Skaggs et al. 3P, Lima & Silva 3P, Weibull 3P e Morgan et al. 3P, todos com três parâmetros de ajuste.<br>Particle-size distribution is fundamental for characterizing construction materials, soil mechanics, soil physics, sediment-flux in rivers, and others. The techniques used to determine the particle-size distribution of a sample are point-wise, demanding posterior interpolation to fit the complete particle-size distribution curve and to obtain values of specific diameters. The transformation of discrete points into continuous functions can be made by mathematical models. However, there are few studies to determine the best model to fit particle-size distribution curves. The objective of this work was to test and compare 14 different models with feasibility to fit the cumulative particle-size distribution curve based on four measured points. The parameter used to compare the models was the sum of the square errors between the measured and calculated values. The most recommendable models to fit the particle-size distribution curve, based on four discrete points, are Skaggs et al. 3P, Lima & Silva 3P, Weibull 3P, and Morgan et al. 3P, all using three fitting parameters