New BeppoSAX-WFC results on superbursts

Presently seven superbursters have been identified representing 10% of the total Galactic X-ray burster population. Four superbursters were discovered with the Wide Field Cameras (WFCs) on BeppoSAX and three with the All-Sky Monitor and Proportional Counter Array on RXTE. We discuss the properties of superbursters as derived from WFC observations. There are two interesting conclusions. First, the average recurrence time of superbursts among X-ray bursters that are more luminous than 10% of the Eddington limit is 1.5 yr per object. Second, superbursters systematically have higher alpha values and shorter ordinary bursts than most bursters that have not exhibited superbursts, indicating a higher level of stable thermonuclear helium burning. Theory predicts hitherto undetected superbursts from the most luminous neutron stars. We investigate the prospects for finding these in GX~17+2.Comment: Submitted in January 2004 for the Proceedings of the meeting 'X-Ray Timing 2003: Rossi and Beyond', eds. P. Kaaret, F. K. Lamb, & J. H. Swank (Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics

Revisiting Eisenberg and Plaintiff Success: State Court Civil Trial and Appellate Outcomes

Despite what Priest-Klein theory predicts, in earlier research on federal civil cases, Eisenberg found an association between plaintiff success in pretrial motions and at trial. Our extension of Eisenberg’s analysis 20 years later into the state court context, however, does not uncover any statistically significant association between a plaintiff’s success at trial and preserving that trial victory on appeal. Our results imply that a plaintiff’s decision to pursue litigation to a trial court conclusion is analytically distinct from the plaintiff’s decision to defend an appeal of its trial court win brought by a disgruntled defendant. We consider various factors that likely account for the observed differences that distinguish our results from Eisenberg’s. First, legal cases that persist to an appellate outcome are a filtered subset of underlying trials and legal disputes and various selection effects inform much of this case filtering. Second, where Eisenberg analyzed the relation between pretrial motions and trial outcomes in federal courts, we assess possible relations between trial and appellate court outcomes in state courts. The pretrial and trial context and the trial and appeals context likely differ in ways that disturb plaintiff success. Third, while Eisenberg studied federal cases between 1978--1985 we study state cases between 2001--2009. In addition to differences between federal and state civil cases, the composition of cases that selected into formal litigation may have evolved over time

Mouse Models as Resources for Studying Infectious Diseases

Mouse models are important tools both for studying the pathogenesis of infectious diseases and for the preclinical evaluation of vaccines and therapies against a wide variety of human pathogens. The use of genetically defined inbred mouse strains, humanized mice, and gene knockout mice has allowed the research community to explore how pathogens cause disease, define the role of specific host genes in either controlling or promoting disease, and identify potential targets for the prevention or treatment of a wide range of infectious agents. This review discusses several of the most commonly used mouse model systems, as well as new resources such as the Collaborative Cross as models for studying infectious diseases

Revisiting Eisenberg and Plaintiff Success: State Court Civil Trial and Appellate Outcomes

Despite what Priest-Klein theory predicts, in earlier research on federal civil cases, Eisenberg found an association between plaintiff success in pretrial motions and at trial. Our extension of Eisenberg’s analysis 20 years later into the state court context, however, does not uncover any statistically significant association between a plaintiff’s success at trial and preserving that trial victory on appeal. Our results imply that a plaintiff’s decision to pursue litigation to a trial court conclusion is analytically distinct from the plaintiff’s decision to defend an appeal of its trial court win brought by a disgruntled defendant. We consider various factors that likely account for the observed differences that distinguish our results from Eisenberg’s. First, legal cases that persist to an appellate outcome are a filtered subset of underlying trials and legal disputes and various selection effects inform much of this case filtering. Second, where Eisenberg analyzed the relation between pretrial motions and trial outcomes in federal courts, we assess possible relations between trial and appellate court outcomes in state courts. The pretrial and trial context and the trial and appeals context likely differ in ways that disturb plaintiff success. Third, while Eisenberg studied federal cases between 1978--1985 we study state cases between 2001--2009. In addition to differences between federal and state civil cases, the composition of cases that selected into formal litigation may have evolved over time