The strengthening of reentrant pinning by collective interactions in the peak effect

Since it was first observed about 40 years ago [1], the peak effect has been the subject of numerous research mainly impelled by the desire to determine its exact mechanisms. Despite these efforts, a consensus on this question has yet to be reached. Experimentally, the peak effect indicates a transition from a depinned vortex phase to a reentrant pinning phase at high magnetic field. To study the effects of intrinsic pinning on the peak effect, we consider Fe$_{x}$Ni$_{1-x}$Zr$_{2}$ superconducting metallic glasses in which the vortex pinning force varies depending on the Fe content and in which a huge peak effect is seen as a function of magnetic field. The results are mapped out as a phase diagram in which it is readily seen that the peak effect becomes broader with decreasing pinning force. Typically, pinning can be understood by increased pinning centers, but here, we show that reentrant pinning is due to the strengthening of interactions (while decreasing pinning strength). Our results demonstrate the strengthening of the peak effect by collective effects.Comment: 4 pages, 4 figure

Propagation of Errors for Matrix Inversion

A formula is given for the propagation of errors during matrix inversion. An explicit calculation for a 2 by 2 matrix using both the formula and a Monte Carlo calculation are compared. A prescription is given to determine when a matrix with uncertain elements is sufficiently nonsingular for the calculation of the covariances of the inverted matrix elements to be reliable.Comment: 18 pages, 4 figures, figure 4 contains two eps file

Induction chemotherapy in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: role, controversy, and future directions.

BackgroundThe value of induction chemotherapy (ICT) remains under investigation despite decades of research. New advancements in the field, specifically regarding the induction regimen of choice, have reignited interest in this approach for patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA SCCHN). Sufficient evidence has accumulated regarding the benefits and superiority of TPF (docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil) over the chemotherapy doublet cisplatin and fluorouracil. We therefore sought to collate and interpret the available data and further discuss the considerations for delivering ICT safely and optimally selecting suitable post-ICT regimens.DesignWe nonsystematically reviewed published phase III clinical trials on TPF ICT in a variety of LA SCCHN patient populations conducted between 1990 and 2017.ResultsTPF may confer survival and organ preservation benefits in a subgroup of patients with functionally inoperable or poor-prognosis LA SCCHN. Additionally, patients with operable disease or good prognosis (who are not candidates for organ preservation) may benefit from TPF induction in terms of reducing local and distant failure rates and facilitating treatment deintensification in selected populations. The safe administration of TPF requires treatment by a multidisciplinary team at an experienced institution. The management of adverse events associated with TPF and post-ICT radiotherapy-based treatment is crucial. Finally, post-ICT chemotherapy alternatives to cisplatin concurrent with radiotherapy (i.e. cetuximab or carboplatin plus radiotherapy) appear promising and must be investigated further.ConclusionsTPF is an evidence-based ICT regimen of choice in LA SCCHN and confers benefits in suitable patients when it is administered safely by an experienced multidisciplinary team and paired with the optimal post-ICT regimen, for which, however, no consensus currently exists

Repetition and difference: Lefebvre, Le Corbusier and modernity's (im)moral landscape: a commentary

This article engages with the relationship between social theory, architectural theory and material culture. The article is a reply to an article in a previous volume of the journal in question (Smith, M. (2001) ‘Repetition and difference: Lefebvre, Le Corbusier and modernity’s (im)moral landscape’, Ethics, Place and Environment, 4(1), 31-34) and, consequently, is also a direct engagement with another academic's scholarship. It represents a critique of their work as well as a recasting of their ideas, arguing that the matter in question went beyond interpretative issues to a direct critique of another author's scholarship on both Le Corbusier and Lefebvre. A reply to my article from the author of the original article was carried in a later issue of the journal (Smith, M. (2002) ‘Ethical Difference(s): a Response to Maycroft on Le Corbusier and Lefebvre’, Ethics, Place and Environment, 5(3), 260-269)