Bibliotheque Geologique de la Russie

0|5|Содержание [c. 5]0|7|Предисловие [c. 7]0|11|Описательная геология [c. 11]0|56|Палеонтология [c. 56]0|73|Физическая геология [c. 73]0|93|Минералогия [c. 93]0|119|Петрография [c. 119]0|129|Почвоведение [c. 129]0|151|Прикладная геология [c. 151]0|186|Смесь [c. 186]0|202|Периодические издания [c. 202]0|210|Указатель предметов [c. 210]0|219|Указатель местностей [c. 219]0|224|Указатель новых имен [c. 224]0|227|Указатель авторов [c. 227

Different paths to the modern state in Europe: the interaction between domestic political economy and interstate competition

Theoretical work on state formation and capacity has focused mostly on early modern Europe and on the experience of western European states during this period. While a number of European states monopolized domestic tax collection and achieved gains in state capacity during the early modern era, for others revenues stagnated or even declined, and these variations motivated alternative hypotheses for determinants of fiscal and state capacity. In this study we test the basic hypotheses in the existing literature making use of the large date set we have compiled for all of the leading states across the continent. We find strong empirical support for two prevailing threads in the literature, arguing respectively that interstate wars and changes in economic structure towards an urbanized economy had positive fiscal impact. Regarding the main point of contention in the theoretical literature, whether it was representative or authoritarian political regimes that facilitated the gains in fiscal capacity, we do not find conclusive evidence that one performed better than the other. Instead, the empirical evidence we have gathered lends supports to the hypothesis that when under pressure of war, the fiscal performance of representative regimes was better in the more urbanized-commercial economies and the fiscal performance of authoritarian regimes was better in rural-agrarian economie

Exactness, inexactness, and the non-transitivity of perceptual indiscriminability

I defend, to a certain extent, the traditional view that perceptual indiscriminability is non-transitive. The argument proceeds by considering important recent work by Benj Hellie: Hellie argues that colour perception represents ‘inexactly’, and that this results in violations of the transitivity of colour indiscriminability. I show that Hellie’s argument remains inconclusive, since he does not demonstrate conclusively that colour perception really does represent inexactly. My own argument for the non-transitivity of perceptual indiscriminability uses inexactness instead as one horn of a dilemma: the key idea is that there is a class of perceptual experiences which might plausibly be supposed either to represent inexactly or to represent exactly—but which demonstrate the non-transitivity of perceptual indiscriminability either way

A clinical study on interdental separation techniques.

Contains fulltext : 52502.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)The effect of interdental separation of a special separation ring and wooden wedge was investigated. In a split-mouth design, 27 patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups (W or S). In 11 patients, an interdental wooden wedge (Hawe-Neos) was placed (group W), and in 16 patients, a separation ring (Composi-Tight Gold) was placed at the contact between teeth 4/5 and 5/6. Simultaneously, in both groups, a wooden wedge, combined with a separation ring (Composi-Tight Gold), was placed on the contact between teeth 4/5 and 5/6 (reference group W+S). To measure proximal contact tightness, frictional forces were recorded at the removal of a 0.05 mm thick metal matrix band inserted between adjacent teeth. Contact tightness was measured at contacts 4 and 5 and at 5 and 6 in the third and fourth quadrant using the Tooth Pressure Meter prior to applying separation devices (TO) five minutes after application (T1) and five minutes after removal of the devices (T2). The effect of separation was determined by calculating the differences between contact tightness before application and contact tightness with the devices in situ (T1-T0). Interdental recovery was calculated by the difference in contact tightness before application and after removal of the devices (T2-T0). To assess the presence of statistically significant differences between these measurement times, paired t-tests were applied. With each patient, either a comparison between W and W+S or S and W+S was made. For both W versus W+S and S versus W+S, paired t-tests were applied to compare differences (T1-T0 and T2-T0) between the separation devices. Within a patient, groups W and S could not be compared, therefore, to compare separation achieved between these two devices, unpaired t-tests were used. The increase in contact tightness measured at contact 4 and 5 for group W (0.98 +/- 0.26 N) was statistically significantly less compared to the increase in group S (5.48 +/- 0.88 N) (p < 0.001) or group W+S (4.62 +/- 0.68 N) (p = 0.02). No significant differences were found between groups S and W+S (p = 0.77). For all groups, five minutes after removal of the devices, the contact tightness at contact 4 and 5 and at contact 5 and 6 were still significantly weaker compared to the tightness at baseline (p < 0.02). When separation is required for restorative procedures, such as at placement of a Class II resin composite restoration, special separation rings may be more useful than wooden wedges