Ecdotique des textes latins antiques

Programme de l’année 2018-2019 : I. Méthodologie de la critique et de l’édition des textes complets et fragmentaires, des textes de tradition directe et de tradition indirecte, des textes transmis sur rouleau de papyrus, codex, pierre, etc. — II. Des conséquences de l’« acriticisme » sur les recherches en histoire, littérature, religion et philosophie. — III. Histoire du concept d’editio vere critica et de ses incarnations. — IV. Exercices critiques : auteurs et textes variés, en fonction aussi des intérêts et demandes des auditeurs

Ecdotique des textes latins antiques

Programme de l’année 2015-2016 : I. Nimium altercando veritas amittitur ? — II. Critica

Ecdotique des textes latins antiques

Programme de l’année 2014-2015 : I. Réflexion théorique. — II. Pratique (Horace, carmen saeculare)

Ecdotique et critique des textes latins

Programme de l’année 2016-2017 : I. Qu’est-ce qu’une édition critique ? Quel est son rapport avec la pure technique d’un côté et, de l’autre, le vrai ? Quel lien unit la « science » des éditions critiques avec le reste de la « philologie classique » et les sciences de l’Antiquité ? — II. Préparation collective d’une édition critique exempli gratia : la gratiarvm actio de Pline le Jeune. — III. Exercices critiques : auteurs variés, en fonction des intérêts et demandes des auditeurs. — IV. Histoires de grands critiques : Richard Bentley

Ecdotique des textes latins antiques

Programme de l’année 2019-2020 : I. Qu’est-ce qu’une édition critique ? Quel est son rapport avec la technique d’un côté et, de l’autre, le vrai ? Quel lien unit la « science » des éditions critiques avec le reste de la « philologie classique » et les sciences de l’Antiquité et notamment les études historiques et littéraires ? — II. Exercices critiques : auteurs variés, en fonction des intérêts et demandes des auditeurs. — III. Histoires de grands critiques : Louis Havet

Influence of the scattering potential model on low energy electron diffraction from Cu(001)−c(2 × 2)-Pb

A dynamical LEED intensity analysis is reported for Cu(001)−c(2 × 2)-Pb. The adsorbate layer distance from the substrate is determined as 2.29 Å, and the topmost interlayer spacing for the substrate is the same as in bulk Cu, in contrast to a contraction for clean Cu(001). This structural result is, within the accuracy reached, insensitive to changes in the assumed scattering potential models. The r-factors suggest a weak preference for an energy-dependent exchange correlation and a moderate one for adding a localized adsorption part inside the muffin-tin spheres. The sensitivity of spectra and r-factors to changes in the assumed isotropic Debye temperature for Pb suggests that vibrational anisotropy should be taken into account in order to improve the accuracy of the analysis. Calculated spin polarization spectra are very sensitive to the exchange approximation, the localized absorption and the Debye temperature. Together with experimental data, they should be useful in particular for determining the vibrational anisotropy

Corrigendum: A systematic review and economic evaluation of bisphosphonates for the prevention of fragility fractures

Abstract Background Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture. Objectives To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of bisphosphonates [alendronic acid (Fosamax® and Fosamax® Once Weekly, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd), risedronic acid (Actonel® and Actonel Once a Week®, Warner Chilcott UK Ltd), ibandronic acid (Bonviva®, Roche Products Ltd) and zoledronic acid (Aclasta®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd)] for the prevention of fragility fracture and to assess their cost-effectiveness at varying levels of fracture risk. Data sources For the clinical effectiveness review, six electronic databases and two trial registries were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and BIOSIS Previews, Clinicaltrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Searches were limited by date from 2008 until September 2014. Review methods A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of effectiveness studies were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a de novo health economic model was constructed. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each bisphosphonate treatment strategy and a strategy of no treatment for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and NMA. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. A NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net benefit (INB) was estimated using non-parametric regression. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. Results Forty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review, with 27 RCTs providing data for the fracture NMA and 35 RCTs providing data for the femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) NMA. All treatments had beneficial effects on fractures versus placebo, with hazard ratios varying from 0.41 to 0.92 depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and percentage change in BMD were statistically significant for all treatments. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on fractures between bisphosphonates. A statistically significant difference in the incidence of influenza-like symptoms was identified from the RCTs for zoledronic acid compared with placebo. Reviews of observational studies suggest that upper gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently reported in the first month of oral bisphosphonate treatment, but pooled analyses of placebo-controlled trials found no statistically significant difference. A strategy of no treatment was estimated to have the maximum INB for patients with a 10-year QFracture risk under 1.5%, whereas oral bisphosphonates provided maximum INB at higher levels of risk. However, the PSA suggested that there is considerable uncertainty regarding whether or not no treatment is the optimal strategy until the QFracture score is around 5.5%. In the model using FRAX, the mean INBs were positive for all oral bisphosphonate treatments across all risk categories. Intravenous bisphosphonates were estimated to have lower INBs than oral bisphosphonates across all levels of fracture risk when estimated using either QFracture or FRAX. Limitations We assumed that all treatment strategies are viable alternatives across the whole population. Conclusions Bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures. However, the benefit-to-risk ratio in the lowest-risk patients may be debatable given the low absolute QALY gains and the potential for adverse events. We plan to extend the analysis to include non-bisphosphonate therapies. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006883. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Les préliminaires de la guerre: Prolégomènes à la lecture du livre I de Thucydide

International audienc