Gaps and Vantages in Mental Health and Homeless Veterans

This project explored the current homeless population in New Hampshire’s Hillsborough County for veterans with mental health challenges. The objective was to identify the gaps and vantages between two important identifiers. One important statistic in the SWOT analysis is the demand for more veterans to be advocates for themselves as well as organizations merging their services to decrease and potentially end the homeless veteran challenges. Government funding has reached a high percentage of veterans. The results have been overall positive as the facts show trends leading to potentially ending homelessness and aiding mental illness in homeless veterans. The conclusions derived from this report are positive trends in the homeless veteran population. An evaluated takeaway is that approved legislation for continued funding will be a significant value for future mental health and homeless veterans’ futures. A video recording of this presentation is available here

The History of Brick Making in and Around Vancouver

"The Hudson's Bay Company were the first to make brick in Vancouver, some time before 1846…

Linking waterfowl distribution and abundance to spatial and temporal distribution and abundance of wetland habitat

Abstract from introductionWetlands are dynamic ecosystems providing immense value to wildlife and humans. Wetlands store and purify water, recharge aquifers and reduce extreme flooding events (Acharya 2000). Wetlands also reduce soil erosion, decrease sediment loads, and sequester and transform nutrient runoff in agricultural areas and the surrounding landscape (Mitsch and James 2000, Woodward and Wui 2000). Wetlands provide essential resources for many biota and because of unique selective pressures, are home to numerous plant and animal species that rely on wetland ecosystems to persist (Brinson 1993, Gibbs 1993, Schweiger et al. 2002). For example, wetlands are important to many waterbird species for completing the annual cycle by providing foraging habitat in mid-latitude states to facilitate energy accumulation to over-winter or complete migration (Anderson and Smith 1991, Ma et al. 2009, Hagy and Kaminsky 2012). Specifically, dabbling ducks meet their autumn and winter food energy requirements through foraging in inundated wetlands and agricultural fields throughout their migratory range (Gruenhagen and Fredrickson 1990, Gibbs 2000, Checket et al. 2002, Brasher et al. 2006, Hagy and Kaminsky 2012)

ILRI research publishing procedure 6: Open access checklist

Dans un premier temps, les auteurs dressent le panorama de l’évolution du rôle de la grammaire en didactique d’une langue, de la grammaire pour structurer ses énoncés à la grammaire pour le discours. Ils passent ensuite de la grammaire pour le discours à la grammaire pour la littéracie en travaillant sur la prise en compte de la polyphonie textuelle. Puis, ils décrivent deux marquages de cette polyphonie textuelle en français : le conditionnel et le discours rapporté. Ils présentent ensuite un travail empirique en classe de FLE à partir de textes de presse mettant en scène cette polyphonie. Ils étudient les réactions des apprenants et terminent sur des propositions didactiques.The authors first provide a comprehensive overview of the evolution of the role of grammar in language learning, from grammar as structuration of utterances to grammar for discourse. Secondly they move on to grammar for “littéracie” by working on text polyphony. Then, they outline two markings of this polyphony in French language: French “conditionnel” and the reported speech. They continue by presenting an empirical work produced in “French as a Foreign Language” classes, drawing on press articles demonstrating the use of polyphony. They end with an analysis of how learners react and proposals for language learning

Linguistique textuelle et élaboration d’un récit en français langue étrangère

International audienc

Apprendre à rédiger un texte en français L2

Cet article tente de décrire comment des scripteurs allophones d’origines très diverses apprennent à rédiger un texte en français langue étrangère. Prenant appui sur les travaux de rhétorique constrastive, on cherche à montrer que les modèles textuels varient d’une culture éducative à l’autre et que la variable L1 n’est pas la seule permettant d’expliquer les variations affectant l’élaboration textuelle et discursive.Dans ce but, on a recueilli et analysé des copies rédigées par des apprenants en L2 ayant participé, à Paris, à un cours sur l’argumentation écrite en français et dont certains partagent la même L1. L’article présente les résultats d’une partie de l’analyse, celle du métadiscours.This paper attempts to describe how non-French speaking writers from diverse countries learn how to write a text in French. Using the contrastive rhetoric framework, I wish to show that textual models vary from one educational culture to another and that the L1 variable alone cannot explain the variations that affect the writing and composing of a text. With this aim in mind, I gathered and analysed texts written by L2 learners of French, some of whom shared the same L1, who attended a course in Paris on written French. This paper presents the results from a part of the analysis, specifically the part concerning metadiscourse

La variabilité culturelle des pratiques d'écriture dépend-elle du type de texte ?

International audienceHow do written texts vary from one culture to another ? Does the variation depend on the type of text ? In order to reply to these questions concerning the teaching of writings, a group of foreign adult students attending a written expression course in France were asked to compare the way how to write narrative or argumentative texts in France and in their home country. The following article highlights the differences identified by the students and describes how they diverge according to the type of text in question

Apprendre à rédiger un texte en français L2

Cet article tente de décrire comment des scripteurs allophones d’origines très diverses apprennent à rédiger un texte en français langue étrangère. Prenant appui sur les travaux de rhétorique constrastive, on cherche à montrer que les modèles textuels varient d’une culture éducative à l’autre et que la variable L1 n’est pas la seule permettant d’expliquer les variations affectant l’élaboration textuelle et discursive.Dans ce but, on a recueilli et analysé des copies rédigées par des apprenants en L2 ayant participé, à Paris, à un cours sur l’argumentation écrite en français et dont certains partagent la même L1. L’article présente les résultats d’une partie de l’analyse, celle du métadiscours.This paper attempts to describe how non-French speaking writers from diverse countries learn how to write a text in French. Using the contrastive rhetoric framework, I wish to show that textual models vary from one educational culture to another and that the L1 variable alone cannot explain the variations that affect the writing and composing of a text. With this aim in mind, I gathered and analysed texts written by L2 learners of French, some of whom shared the same L1, who attended a course in Paris on written French. This paper presents the results from a part of the analysis, specifically the part concerning metadiscourse

Cappuccino and specific heat versus heat of vaporization

A cappuccino is prepared by adding about 50 mL frothing, foaming milk to a cup of espresso. Whole milk is best for foaming and the ideal milk temperature when adding it to the espresso is 65 °C. The espresso itself may be warmer than that. During the heating the milk should not burn, as that would spoil the taste. The best way is to heat the milk slowly while stirring to froth the milk and create foam. But modern cappuccino machines in restaurants do not have time for slow heating. Could we heat the milk by just adding hot water? That’s the question we pose to our high school students first. How many mL of 90 °C hot water would be needed to heat 50 mL of milk from a refrigerator temperature (say 4 °C) to 65 °C? Assume that the specific heat of milk is the same as that of water. Students answer the question on a worksheet and practice their computation skills. The answer: 122 g. This would mean an unacceptable dilution of the milk, 2.5 mL of water for every mL of milk. What would the answer be if we use boiling hot water of 100 °C? Students calculate again, then the answer is 87 g, still an unacceptable dilution. What then? What if we use steam

Cappuccino and specific heat versus heat of vaporization

A cappuccino is prepared by adding about 50 mL frothing, foaming milk to a cup of espresso. Whole milk is best for foaming and the ideal milk temperature when adding it to the espresso is 65 °C. The espresso itself may be warmer than that. During the heating the milk should not burn, as that would spoil the taste. The best way is to heat the milk slowly while stirring to froth the milk and create foam. But modern cappuccino machines in restaurants do not have time for slow heating. Could we heat the milk by just adding hot water?