Staggering effects in nuclear and molecular spectra

It is shown that the recently observed Delta J = 2 staggering effect (i.e. the relative displacement of the levels with angular momenta J, J+4, J+8, ..., relatively to the levels with angular momenta J+2, J+6, J+10, ...) seen in superdeformed nuclear bands is also occurring in certain electronically excited rotational bands of diatomic molecules (YD, CrD, CrH, CoH), in which it is attributed to interband interactions (bandcrossings). In addition, the Delta J = 1 staggering effect (i.e. the relative displacement of the levels with even angular momentum J with respect to the levels of the same band with odd J) is studied in molecular bands free from Delta J = 2 staggering (i.e. free from interband interactions/bandcrossings). Bands of YD offer evidence for the absence of any Delta J = 1 staggering effect due to the disparity of nuclear masses, while bands of sextet electronic states of CrD demonstrate that Delta J = 1 staggering is a sensitive probe of deviations from rotational behaviour, due in this particular case to the spin-rotation and spin-spin interactions.Comment: LaTeX, 16 pages plus 30 figures given in separate .ps files. To appear in the proceedings of the 4th European Workshop on Quantum Systems in Chemistry and Physics (Marly-le-Roi, France, 1999), ed. J. Maruani et al. (Kluwer, Dordrecht

Correction: Teaching and learning in a multilingual Europe: findings from a cross-European study

The original version of the article unfortunately contained an error. In author’s personal details, middle names were not included in author Hanne B. Søndergaard Knudsen’s name, and the listed articles were therefore incorrect

Teaching and learning in a multilingual Europe: findings from a cross-European study

School classrooms within the EU are multilingual learning environments. The diversity of pupils in classrooms raises significant challenges for teachers, but to date, there are no data from large-scale surveys that compare views within and across European countries. A bespoke questionnaire was designed to examine views of current classroom learning environments with respect to the multilingualism. The questionnaire was piloted and subsequently completed by 2792 teachers across different European countries. Eleven countries provided sufficient data for analyses. Results from structural equation modelling showed that teachers’ attitudes could be reliably measured across Europe with the use of carefully devised questionnaire, whose loading and factor structure remained invariant across countries. Teachers’ views about multilingualism were most challenged by the numbers of children in their classes, not the percentage of multilingual pupils in the class. Countries differed in how they perceived multilingualism, with their differences leading to distinctive country clusters. Gender and education level (elementary vs. secondary) differences were also observed irrespective of country. These findings enhance our understanding of the role that the characteristics of teachers and their classrooms play in a multilingual setting across diverse European settings. The practical relevance of the results and new opportunities for teacher training are discussed

Teaching and learning in a multilingual Europe: findings from a cross-european study

School classrooms within the EU are multilingual learning environments. The diversity of pupils in classrooms raises significant challenges for teachers, but to date, there are no data from large-scale surveys that compare views within and across European countries. A bespoke questionnaire was designed to examine views of current classroom learning environments with respect to the multilingualism. The questionnaire was piloted and subsequently completed by 2792 teachers across different European countries. Eleven countries provided sufficient data for analyses. Results from structural equation model- ling showed that teachers’ attitudes could be reliably measured across Europe with the use of carefully devised questionnaire, whose loading and factor structure remained invariant across countries. Teachers’ views about multilingualism were most challenged by the numbers of children in their classes, not the percentage of multilingual pupils in the class. Countries differed in how they perceived multilingualism, with their differences leading to distinctive country clusters. Gender and education level (elementary vs. secondary) differences were also observed irrespective of country. These findings enhance our understanding of the role that the characteristics of teachers and their classrooms play in a multilingual setting across diverse European settings. The practical relevance of the results and new opportunities for teacher training are discussed

Gemeinsame Donau-Untersuchung

SIGLEAvailable from TIB Hannover: RN 8908(2000,518) / FIZ - Fachinformationszzentrum Karlsruhe / TIB - Technische InformationsbibliothekBundesministerium fuer Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, Bonn (Germany)DEGerman

Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law: A Comparison with, and Lessons from, the US

This paper examines the core features of the EU reform package designed to encourage greater volumes of private enforcement of the EU competition rules, particularly the Directive on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union. Its principal objective is not, however, to scrutinize these provisions in detail. Rather, its purpose is to reflect on the questions of why, especially when compared with the position in the US, it has proved so difficult for a culture of antitrust litigation to develop in the EU, why the Commission believed that EU measures were necessary to kindle it and to consider, against that backdrop, whether the EU package is likely to achieve its stated goals.Section 2 commences by exploring how private enforcement has developed in the US, examining not only the factors that have facilitated and encouraged it, but the extremes widely-believed to have bedeviled and undermined it, and the steps which have consequently been taken to limit and curtail private actions there. Section 3 then examines the EU system and seeks to unpick the different factors that have operated over time as barriers to private litigation in the EU Member States and to identify those that still exist. Having set out the factors that have encouraged and hindered litigation in the US and the EU respectively and examined some of the pros and cons of each system, it is possible to reflect more fully on the questions of whether private litigation should be further encouraged in the EU, what measures might be desirable or required to overcome the obstacles which exist to it, what measures should be avoided, whether the current package is likely to succeed, what pitfalls might be anticipated and/or what further developments and clarifications are likely to be required in the future.Section 4 concludes that the package of reforms is not likely to lead to over-enforcement or to the encouragement of unmeritorious antitrust actions in the EU. What may be more of an issue, however, is whether it has done enough to boost and facilitate private damages actions and to create the level playing field across the EU sought by the Commission. Not only does the Directive not institute a completely harmonised framework, leaving a number of potential obstacles to national actions and areas of legal ambiguity outstanding, but a number of the Directive’s provisions are liable to introduce considerable complexities into national proceedings. Further, scope for some significant divergences between national rules remain; such differences are likely to continue to affect where litigants choose to commence their actions and to result in forum-shopping

Correction to: Teaching and learning in a multilingual Europe: findings from a cross-European study (European Journal of Psychology of Education, (2021), 10.1007/s10212-020-00523-z)

The original version of the article unfortunately contained errors. The following author e-mails were omitted, A Ralli, [email protected], I Dimakos [email protected]. There remained highlighted in yellow XXX (blinded for review) in the questionnaire section. This should be replaced with: Work Group 1 of COST IS 1401 (European Literacy Network). The footnotes and endnotes had been merged with footnotes. Footnote 1 should be Endnote 1, Footnote 2 should be Endnote 2, Endnote 3 should appear in the last sentence of DATA CLEANING AND MANAGEMENT section, next to the word "imputation" with a superscript. Endnote 3, top p. 10, should be Endnote 4, Endnote 4 should be Endnote 5, Endnote 5 should be Endnote 6, Endnote 6 should be Endnote 7. (F3), top, p. 9 should be F3 in plain font. On p. 12, the word ‘factors’ in the parenthesis should be capitalized (in Factors 1, 3 and 4). Finally Table 4 p should be * p <.05. The author name H. Knudsen has been corrected (correct name shown above) and ORCID number has been captured as well. The original article has been corrected. © 2021, Instituto Universitário de Ciências Psicológicas, Sociais e da Vida