Measurement of the CKM angle γ from a combination of B±→Dh± analyses

A combination of three LHCb measurements of the CKM angle γ is presented. The decays B±→D K± and B±→Dπ± are used, where D denotes an admixture of D0 and D0 mesons, decaying into K+K−, π+π−, K±π∓, K±π∓π±π∓, K0Sπ+π−, or K0S K+K− final states. All measurements use a dataset corresponding to 1.0 fb−1 of integrated luminosity. Combining results from B±→D K± decays alone a best-fit value of γ =72.0◦ is found, and confidence intervals are set γ ∈ [56.4,86.7]◦ at 68% CL, γ ∈ [42.6,99.6]◦ at 95% CL. The best-fit value of γ found from a combination of results from B±→Dπ± decays alone, is γ =18.9◦, and the confidence intervals γ ∈ [7.4,99.2]◦ ∪ [167.9,176.4]◦ at 68% CL are set, without constraint at 95% CL. The combination of results from B± → D K± and B± → Dπ± decays gives a best-fit value of γ =72.6◦ and the confidence intervals γ ∈ [55.4,82.3]◦ at 68% CL, γ ∈ [40.2,92.7]◦ at 95% CL are set. All values are expressed modulo 180◦, and are obtained taking into account the effect of D0–D0 mixing

From ‘no dogs here!’ to ‘beware of the dog!’ : restricting dog signs as a reflection of social norms

Signs in public space reflect ‘normalcy’ in a community. The authors ask what restricting signs tell us about a society? In order to explore the system and variation in the ways dog signs manifest different norms and control, they compare two different data sets: dog signs in a Northern European town, Jyväskylä in Finland, and two Eastern European villages in Romania. They apply a qualitative methodology based on visual communication, geosemiotics and linguistic landscape studies. The focus of the article is on the resources of addressing and the visual semiotics of the image. The investigated communities seem to create a complementary distribution of what they regulate that is also displayed through their semiotics: the Jyväskylä examples are prohibitions for dogs ‘being’ while the Romanian cases consist of warnings or threats. Both prohibitions and warnings implicate the norms and normalities in the communities, showing where they stand in terms of a continuum between a ‘dog as a pet’ and a ‘dog as a (co-)worker’. As images, the urban signs in Jyväskylä can be characterized as icons of a small collared pet, placed as a part of top-down communication in ‘tight’ public spaces. In contrast, the photographs of big dogs in the open and private Romanian village spaces refer to some specific guard dog, through which their owners communicate a benevolent warning or an intimidating threat.peerReviewe

Resilience, Cohesion Policies and the Socio-ecological Crisis

The concept of resilience has been part of the public and academic debate for several years now. Since the 2008 crisis, the social sciences have borrowed from the natural sciences concepts such as fragility, resilience, persistability and adaptability (Keck and Sakdapolrak 2013). These concepts should help us to interpret and provide keys to guide action in a condition of widespread perception that many things, such as climate, economy, migration, technological innovation and so on, are out of control. Resilience and related concepts are often used in a normative way (Wagenaar and Wilkinson 2013) because they help one imagine new socio-ecological structures that allow societies to be ready for an unstable and uncertain future. Furthermore, due to its interdisciplinary nature, the concept of resilience provides a useful tool for establishing dialogue and integration between different fields of knowledge (Beichler et al. 2014). This is very important, given the increasingly interdependent nature of the crises we are experiencing (Carrosio 2018). That does not mean, however, that the various disciplines share a common definition of resilience; significant semantic shifts have led this concept to take on different meanings. For this reason, its semantic clarity and practical relevance risk being the subject of endless debate