Radiopurity of Micromegas readout planes

Micromesh Gas Amplification Structures (Micromegas) are being used in an increasing number of Particle Physics applications since their conception fourteen years ago. More recently, they are being used or considered as readout of Time Projection Chambers (TPCs) in the field of Rare Event searches (dealing with dark matter, axions or double beta decay). In these experiments, the radiopurity of the detector components and surrounding materials is measured and finely controlled in order to keep the experimental background as low as possible. In the present paper, the first measurement of the radiopurity of Micromegas planes obtained by high purity germanium spectrometry in the low background facilities of the Canfranc Underground Laboratory (LSC) is presented. The obtained results prove that Micromegas readouts of the microbulk type are currently manufactured with radiopurity levels below 30 microBq/cm2 for Th and U chains and ~60 microBq/cm2 for 40K, already comparable to the cleanest detector components of the most stringent low background experiments at present. Taking into account that the studied readouts were manufactured without any specific control of the radiopurity, it should be possible to improve these levels after dedicated development.Comment: 15 pages, 2 figure

CAST microbulk micromegas in the Canfranc Underground Laboratory

During the last taking data campaigns of the CAST experiment, the micromegas detectors have achieved background levels of $\approx 5 \times 10^{-6}$keV$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ between 2 and 9 keV. This performance has been possible thanks to the introduction of the microbulk technology, the implementation of a shielding and the development of discrimination algorithms. It has motivated new studies towards a deeper understanding of CAST detectors background. One of the working lines includes the construction of a replica of the set-up used in CAST by micromegas detectors and its installation in the Canfranc Underground Laboratory. Thanks to the comparison between the performance of the detectors underground and at surface, shielding upgrades, etc, different contributions to the detectors background have been evaluated. In particular, an upper limit $< 2 \times 10^{-7}$keV$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ for the intrinsic background of the detector has been obtained. This work means a first evaluation of the potential of the newest micromegas technology in an underground laboratory, the most suitable environment for Rare Event Searches.Comment: 6 pages, 8 figures. To appear in the proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Technology and Instrumentation for Particle Physics (TIPP 2011

X-ray detection with Micromegas with background levels below 10−6^{-6} keV−1^{-1}cm−2^{-2}s−1^{-1}

Micromegas detectors are an optimum technological choice for the detection of low energy x-rays. The low background techniques applied to these detectors yielded remarkable background reductions over the years, being the CAST experiment beneficiary of these developments. In this document we report on the latest upgrades towards further background reductions and better understanding of the detectors' response. The upgrades encompass the readout electronics, a new detector design and the implementation of a more efficient cosmic muon veto system. Background levels below 10$^{-6}$keV$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ have been obtained at sea level for the first time, demonstrating the feasibility of the expectations posed by IAXO, the next generation axion helioscope. Some results obtained with a set of measurements conducted in the x-ray beam of the CAST Detector Laboratory will be also presented and discussed

Frequency of breast cancer with hereditary risk features in Spain: Analysis from GEICAM “El Álamo III” retrospective study

Purpose: To determine the frequency of breast cancer (BC) patients with hereditary risk features in a wide retrospective cohort of patients in Spain. Methods: a retrospective analysis was conducted from 10, 638 BC patients diagnosed between 1998 and 2001 in the GEICAM registry “El Álamo III”, dividing them into four groups according to modified ESMO and SEOM hereditary cancer risk criteria: Sporadic breast cancer group (R0); Individual risk group (IR); Familial risk group (FR); Individual and familial risk group (IFR) with both individual and familial risk criteria. Results: 7, 641 patients were evaluable. Of them, 2, 252 patients (29.5%) had at least one hereditary risk criteria, being subclassified in: FR 1.105 (14.5%), IR 970 (12.7%), IFR 177 (2.3%). There was a higher frequency of newly diagnosed metastatic patients in the IR group (5.1% vs 3.2%, p = 0.02). In contrast, in RO were lower proportion of big tumors (> T2) (43.8% vs 47.4%, p = 0.023), nodal involvement (43.4% vs 48.1%, p = 0.004) and lower histological grades (20.9% G3 for the R0 vs 29.8%) when compared to patients with any risk criteria. Conclusions: Almost three out of ten BC patients have at least one hereditary risk cancer feature that would warrant further genetic counseling. Patients with hereditary cancer risk seems to be diagnosed with worse prognosis factors

Low X-ray bakground measurements at the Underground Canfranc Laboratory

Micromegas detectors, thanks to the good spatial and temporal discrimination capabilities, are good candidates for rare event search experiments. Recent X-ray background levels achieved by these detectors in the CAST experiment have motivated further studies in the nature of the background levels measured. In particular, different shielding configurations have been tested at the Canfranc Underground Laboratory, using a microbulk type detector which was previously running at the CAST experiment. The first results underground show that this technology, which is made of low radiative materials, is able to reach background levels up to $2 \times 10^{-7}$keV$^{-1}$s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$ with a proper shielding. Moreover, the experimental background measurements are complemented with Geant4 simulations which allow to understand the origin of the background, and to optimize future shielding set-ups.Comment: Proceedings of the 3rd International conference on Directional Detection of Dark Matter (CYGNUS 2011), Aussois, France, 8-10 June 201

Obesity and survival in operable breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant anthracyclines and taxanes according to pathological subtypes: a pooled analysis

IntroductionObesity is an unfavorable prognostic factor in breast cancer (BC) patients regardless of menopausal status and treatment received. However, the association between obesity and survival outcome by pathological subtype requires further clarification.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis including 5,683 operable BC patients enrolled in four randomized clinical trials (GEICAM/9906, GEICAM/9805, GEICAM/2003–02, and BCIRG 001) evaluating anthracyclines and taxanes as adjuvant treatments. Our primary aim was to assess the prognostic effect of body mass index (BMI) on disease recurrence, breast cancer mortality (BCM), and overall mortality (OM). A secondary aim was to detect differences of such prognostic effects by subtype.ResultsMultivariate survival analyses adjusting for age, tumor size, nodal status, menopausal status, surgery type, histological grade, hormone receptor status, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status, chemotherapy regimen, and under-treatment showed that obese patients (BMI 30.0 to 34.9) had similar prognoses to that of patients with a BMI < 25 (reference group) in terms of recurrence (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 1.08, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 0.90 to 1.30), BCM (HR = 1.02, 0.81 to 1.29), and OM (HR = 0.97, 0.78 to 1.19). Patients with severe obesity (BMI ≥ 35) had a significantly increased risk of recurrence (HR = 1.26, 1.00 to 1.59, P = 0.048), BCM (HR = 1.32, 1.00 to 1.74, P = 0.050), and OM (HR = 1.35, 1.06 to 1.71, P = 0.016) compared to our reference group. The prognostic effect of severe obesity did not vary by subtype.ConclusionsSeverely obese patients treated with anthracyclines and taxanes present a worse prognosis regarding recurrence, BCM, and OM than patients with BMI < 25. The magnitude of the harmful effect of BMI on survival-related outcomes was similar across subtypes

Rowing against the wind: how do times of austerity shape academic entrepreneurship in unfriendly environments?

[EN] Academic spin-offs (ASOs) help universities transfer knowledge or technology through business projects developed by academic staff. This investigation aims at analyzing the critical factors for spin-off creation at universities operating in crisis-raven, entrepreneurship-unfriendly environments. Such factors revolve around four types of resources: environmental, institutional, organizational, and personal. Focusing on a Southern European context, as an example of an unfriendly environment affected by economic crisis, an entrepreneurial university (the Technical University of Valencia in Spain, UPV) is our research setting. Through a case study approach, we examine the potential of UPV as a springboard for ASOs. Our results show an adverse local environment, a rather favorable influence of institutional and organizational drivers, and a mixed role of personal factors. Our findings illustrate that UPV consistently supports spin-off creation due to a greater (rather positive) reflexivity from its institutional, organizational and personal resources than the (negative) imprinting of the unfriendly environment. This helps counter-balance the structural unfriendliness for academic entrepreneurship, and trigger a crisis-led risk-taking attitude by academic staff. Hence, UPV should continue with its current strategy of supporting academic entrepreneurship, and might transfer best practices to other universities also affected by unfavorable environmental conditions. Generally speaking, we would advise universities facing adverse circumstances to develop rules and mechanisms for academic entrepreneurship, carefully revise and improve malfunctions, and become involved throughout the whole process of spin-off development. All in all, our study advances understanding of how the different drivers for ASO creation can be revamped by universities located in unfriendly environments, having in mind the key role that universities play in fostering social and economic development through academic entrepreneurship in such environments.The authors would like to thank the Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (grant PAID-06-12-0916), and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (grant ECO2011-29863), for their financial support for this research.Seguí-Mas, E.; Oltra, V.; Tormo-Carbó, G.; Sarrión Viñes, F. (2017). Rowing against the wind: how do times of austerity shape academic entrepreneurship in unfriendly environments?. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 1-42. doi:10.1007/s11365-017-0478-zS142Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2013). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 41, 757–774.Alemany, L. (2011). Libro blanco de la iniciativa emprendedora en España. Resource document. ISEAD. http://idl.isead.edu.es:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/859/1/658ALElib.pdf . Accessed 31 October 2015.Algieri, B., Aquino, A., & Succurro, M. (2013). Technology transfer offices and academic spin-off creation: the case of Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 382–400.ARWU (2017). Academic Ranking of World Universities 2017. Resource document. http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2017.html . Accesed 15 August 2017.Ashcroft, B., Holden, D., & Low, K. (2004). Potential entrepreneurs and the self employment choice decision. In Strathclyde Discussion papers in Economics, 4–16. Glasglow: University of Strathclyde.Autio, E., & Kauranen, I. (1994). Technologist-entrepreneurs versus nonentrepreneurial technologists: Analysis of motivational triggering factors. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 6, 315–328.Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43, 1097–1108.Bonnacorsi, A., Colombo, M. G., Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2013). University specialization and new firm creation across industries. Small Business Economics, 41, 837–863.Bruneel, J., Van de Velde, E., & Clarysse, B. (2013). Impact of the type of corporate spin-off on growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 943–959.CampusHabitat5U (2017). International Campus of Excellence. Resource document. UPV. http://campushabitat5u.es/?lang=en . Accessed 5 October 2017.Chiesa, V., & Piccaluga, A. (2000). Exploitation and diffusion of public research: The chase of academic spin-offs companies in Italy. R&D Management, 30, 329–339.Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. New York: IAU Press.Clarysse, B., & Moray, N. (2004). A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: The case of research-based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 55–79.Cohen, M., Nelson, R., & Walsh, J. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48, 1–23.Creswell, J.W. & Clark, V. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. SAGE Publications.De Cleyn, S. H., Braet, J., & Klofsten, M. (2015). How human capital interacts with the early development of academic spin-offs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(3), 599–621.Doutriaux, J., & Peterman, D. (1982). Technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship. Babson Park: Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference (BCERC).Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.European Commission (2017). Erasmus 2013–14. Top 500 higher education institutions receiving Erasmus students. Resource document. EC. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/library/statistics/2014/erasmus-receiving-institutions_en.pdf Accessed 5 October 2017.Eurovoc (2017). Mutilingual Thesaurus of the European Union. Resource document. http://eurovoc.europa.eu Accessed 03 February 2017.Franzoni, C. & Lissoni, F. (2006). Academic entrepreneurship, patents and spinoffs: Critical issues and lessons for Europe. CESPRI, Università Commerciale “Luigi Bocconi”. Working Paper No. 80.Fritsch, M., & Aamoucke, R. (2013). Regional public research, higher education, and innovative start-ups: An empirical investigation. Small Business Economics, 41, 865–885.Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. The Academy of Management Review, 10, 696–706.Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12, 11–32.Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. J. (2006). University Patenting and its Effects on Academic Research: The merging European Evidence. Research Policy, 35, 790–807.Gibbert, M., & Ruigrok, W. (2010). The “What” and “How” of the case Study Rigor: Three Strategies based on Published Work. Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 710–737.Gómez Gras, J. M., Galiana Lapera, D. R., Mira Solves, I., Verdú Jover, A. J., & Sancho Azuar, J. (2008). An empirical approach to the organisational determinants of spin-off creation in European universities. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(2), 187–198.Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2005). Academics' organizational characteristics and the generation of successful business ideas. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(6), 821–845.Güemes, J.J. (2011), “Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Informe GEM España 2010”. Resource document. GEM España. http://www.gemconsortium.org/docs/download/616. Accessed 15 January 2015 .Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43–74.Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Cunningham, J., & Organ, D. (2014). Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: a case study comparison. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 415–434.Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 165–187.Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences. International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage.Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Hülsbeck, M., & Pickavé, E. N. (2014). Regional knowledge production as determinant of high-technology entrepreneurship: Empirical evidence for Germany. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10, 121–138.INE (2016). INEbase: Operaciones estadísticas. Instituto Nacional de Estadística (National [Spanish] Statistical Institute). Resource document. INE. http://www.ine.es/inebmenu/indice.htm . Accessed 2 July 2016.Kalar, B., & Antoncic, B. (2015). The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and technology and knowledge transfer in four European countries. Technovation, 36-37, 1–11.Kroll, H. (2009). Demonstrating the instrumentality of motivation oriented approaches for the explanation of academic spin-off formation—an application based on the Chinese case. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5, 97–116.LAEI (2013). Ley 14/2013, de 27 de septiembre, de Apoyo a Emprendedores y su Internacionalización (‘Act of Support to Entrepreneurs and their Internationalization’). Government of Spain, 27 September. Resource document: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2013/09/28/pdfs/BOE-A-2013-10074.pdf . Accessed 10 March 2016.Lam, A., & De Campos, A. (2015). Content to be sad’ or ‘runaway apprentice’? The psychological contract and career agency of young scientists in the entrepreneurial university. Human Relations, 68(5), 811–841.LCTI (2011). Ley 14/2011, de 1 de junio, de la Ciencia, la Tecnología y la Innovación (‘Science, Technology and Innovation Act’). Government of Spain, 1 June. Resource document: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2011/06/02/pdfs/BOE-A-2011-9617.pdf . Accessed 10 March 2016.León-Darder, F. (2016). La internacionalització de l’empresa valenciana. In E. Seguí-Mas (Ed.), Una nova via per a l’empresa valenciana (pp. 61–80). Catarroja: Editorial Afers & Fundació Nexe.LES (2011). Ley 2/2011, de 4 de marzo, de Economía Sostenible (‘Sustainable Economy Act’). Government of Spain, 4 March, Resource document. http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2011/03/05/pdfs/BOE-A-2011-4117.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2016 .Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (2013). Knowledge spillovers, collective entrepreneurship, and economic growth: The role of universities. Small Business Economics, 41, 797–817.Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2006). Environmental hostility and firm behavior – An empirical examination of new technology-based firms on science parks. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(3), 386–406.Link, N., & Scott, T. (2005). Opening the ivory’s tower door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of US university spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34, 1106–1112.Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34, 1043–1057.LOMLOU (2007). Ley Orgánica 4/2007, de 12 de abril, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 6/2011, de 21 de diciembre, de Universidades (‘Act of Modification of the University Act’). Government of Spain, 12 April. Resource document. https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2007/04/13/pdfs/A16241-16260.pdf (accessed 11 March 2016).LOU (2001). Ley Orgánica 6/2001, de Universidades (‘University Act’). Government of Spain, 21 December. Resource document: https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2001/12/24/pdfs/A49400-49425.pdf . Accessed 11 March 2016.Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & Von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 259–283.Martínez Carrascal, C. & Mulino Ríos, M. (2014). La evolución del crédito bancario a las empresas españolas según su tamaño. Un análisis basado en la explotación conjunta de la información de la CIR y de la CBI, Boletín Económico - Banco de España, Enero (January), pp. 117–125.Mathias, B. D., Williams, D. W., & Smith, A. R. (2015). Entrepreneurial inception: The role of imprinting in entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 11–28.MIET (Spanish Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism) (2012). Estadísticas Pyme. Evolución e indicadores. No. 10″, Resource document. http://www.ipyme.org/Publicaciones/ESTADISTICAS_PYME_N10_2011.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2016 .Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (2008). Qualitative Data Analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications.Morales-Gualdrón, S. Y., Gutiérrez-Gracias, & Roig Dobón, S. (2009). The entrepreneurial motivation in academia: A multidimensional construct. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6, 301–317.Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2007). From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneur, 31, 909–936.Mosey, S., Lockett, A., & Westhead, P. (2006). Creating network bridges for university technology transfer: The Medici fellowship programme. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18, 71–91.Mosey, S., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2012a). Transforming traditional university structures for the knowledge economy through multidisciplinary institutes. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36, 587–607.Mosey, S., Noke, H., & Binks, M. (2012b). The influence of human and social capital upon the entrepreneurial intentions and destinations of academics. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 24, 893–910.Moutinho, R., Au-Yong-Oliveira, M., Coelho, A., & Manso, J. P. (2016). Determinants of knowledge-based entrepreneurship: an exploratory approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(1), 171–197.Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001a). The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of Bayle-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99–119.Mowery, D. C., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001b). Learning to patent: institutional experience, learning, and the characyeristics of US university Patents after the Bayle-Dole Act, 1981-1992. Management Science, 48(1), 73–89.O’Shea, R., Allen, J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Research Policy, 34, 994–1009.O’Shea, R., Allen, T., Morse, K., O’Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2007). Delineating the anatomy of an entrepreneurial university: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Experience. R&D Management, 37(1), 1–16.O’Shea, R., Chugh, H., & Allen, T. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: A conceptual framework. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 653–666.Ortín, P., Salas, V., Trujillo, M.V., & Vendrell, F. (2007). El spin-off universitario en España como modelo de creación de empresas intensivas en tecnología. Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio. Secretaría General de Industria. Dirección General de Política de la Pyme. Resource document. http://www.ipyme.org/Publicaciones/Informe spinnoff.pdf . Accessed 2 October 2016.Papaoikonomou, E., Segarra, P., & Li, X. (2012). Entrepreneurship in the context of crisis: Identifying barriers and proposing strategies. International Advances in Economic Research, 18, 111–119.Piperopoulos, P., & Piperopoulos, G. (2010). Is Greece finally on the right path toward entrepreneurship, innovation, and business clusters? International Journal of Public Administration, 33(1), 55–59.Powers, B., & McDougall, P. (2005). University startup formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 291–311.Red OTRI (2016). Informe de la Encuesta de Investigación y Transferencia 2014 de las universidades españolas. Resource document. http://www.redotriuniversidades.net/index.php/informa-encuesta/6-encuesta-redotri/informa-encuesta-2014/download . Accessed 22 June 2016.Redero San-Román, M. (2002). Origen y desarrollo de la universidad franquista. Studia Zamorensia, 6, 337–352.Rodríguez-Gulías, M. J., Rodeiro-Pazos, D., & Fernández-López, S. (2017). The effect of university and regional knowledge spillovers on firms’ performance: an analysis of the Spanish USOs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(1), 191–209.Rodríguez-San Pedro, L.E. (2014). Las universidades españolas en su contexto historic. Resource document. Universia. http://universidades.universia.es/universidades-de-pais/historia-de-universidades/historia-universidad-espanola/pasado-reciente/pasado-reciente-multiplicidad-regimen-autonomico.html . Accessed 28 July 2015.Samsom, K., & Gurdon, M. (1990). Entrepreneurial scientist: Organizational performance in scientist-started high technology firms. Forest Park: Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference (BCERC).Schmitz, A., Urbano, D., Dandolini, G. A., de Souza, J. A., & Guerrero, M. (2017). Innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting: A systematic literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(2), 369–395.Shane, S., & Khurana, R. (2003). Bringing individuals back in: The effects of career experience on new firm founding. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 519–543.Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 72–90). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Smilor, R. W., Gibson, D. V., & Dietrich, G. B. (1990). University spin-out companies: technology start-ups from UT-Austin. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 63–76.Soler i Marco, V. (2009). Creixement i canvi estructural. In V. Soler (Ed.), Economia espanyola i del País Valencià. Valencia: Publicacions de la Universitat de València.Suddaby, R., Bruton, G. D., & Si, S. X. (2015). Entrepreneurship through a qualitative lens: Insights on the construction and/or discovery of entrepreneurial opportunity. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 1–10.Tech Transfer UPV FCR (2016). Air Nostrum, Caixa Popular e IVI entran en el fondo de la UPV. Resource document. TTUPV FCR. http://www.techtransferupv.com/noticias/air-nostrum-caixa-popular-e-ivi-entran-en-el-fondo-de-la-upv/ (4 April) Accessed 10 July 2016.The Times Higher Education (2017). 100 Under 50 Ranking 2017. Resource document. THE. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2017/young-university-rankings#!/page/0/length/-1/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats . Accessed 15 august 2017.UPV (2007). Instituto IDEAS 15 aniversario (1992–2007). Resource document. UPV. http://www.upv.es/entidades/IDEAS/menu_urlv.html?http://www.upv.es/entidades/IDEAS/info/memoria15a%F1os.pdf . Accessed 10 April 2016.UPV (2011). Corporación empresarial. Resource document. UPV. http://www.upv.es/noticias-upv/noticia-4904-corporacion-emp-es.html . Accessed 10 April 2016.UPV (2014). Plan de emprendimiento global. Resource document. UPV. https://www.upv.es/noticias-upv/noticia-6846-plan-de-emprend-es.html . Accessed 10 April 2016.UPV (2015). Jornadas de Puertas Abiertas 2015–16. Resource document. UPV. www.upv.es/contenidos/ORIENTA/info/jpa_ciclos_2015-16.ppt . Accessed 10 April 2016.UPV (2017a). Spin-Off UPV. Resource document. UPV. http://www.upv.es/entidades/I2T/info/891434normalc.html . Accessed 5 October 2017.UPV (2017b). Ciudad Politécnica de la Innovación. Parque Científico en Red de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. Quienes Somos. Presentación. Resource document. UPV. http://cpi.upv.es/quienes-somos/presentacion . Accessed 5 October 2017.UPV (2017c). Servicio de Promoción y Apoyo a la Investigación, la Innovación y la Transferencia. Presentación. Resource document. UPV. http://i2t.webs.upv.es/i2t/presentacion.php. Accessed 5 October 2017 .UPV. (2017d). Tech Transfer UPV. UPV: Resource document http://www.upv.es/noticias-upv/noticia-8355-tech-transfer-u-es.html. Accessed 5 October 2017 .UPV (2017e). Mission statement, vision and values. Resource document. UPV. https://www.upv.es/organizacion/la-institucion/misionvisionvalores-plan-upv-en.html Accessed 17 October 2017.Vargas Vasserot, C. (2012). Las spin-offs académicas y su posible configuración como empresas de economía social. REVESCO. Revista de Estudios Cooperativos, 107, 186–205.VLC/Campus (2017). VLC/Campus. Valencia, International Campus of Excellence. Resource document. UPV. http://www.vlc-campus.com/en . Accessed 5 October 2017.Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 541–567.Weatherston, J. (1995). Academic Entrepreneurs: Is a spin-off Company too risky. Proceedings of the 40th International Council on Small Business, Sydney, 18–21.Willoughby, M., Talon, J., Millet, J., & Ayats, C. (2013). University services for fostering creativity in hi-tech firms. The Service Industries Journal, 33, 1103–1116.Wright, M., & Mosey, S. (2012). Strategic entrepreneurship, resource orchestration and growing spin-offs from universities. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 24, 911–927.Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Sage: Thousand Oaks.Yusof, M., & Jain, K. J. (2010). Categories of university-level entrepreneurship: A literature survey. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(1), 81–86

Overview of IFMIF-DONES diagnostics: Requirements and techniques

The IFMIF-DONES Facility is a unique first-class scientific infrastructure whose construction is foreseen in Granada, Spain, in the coming years. Strong integration efforts are being made at the current project phase aiming at harmonizing the ongoing design of the different and complex Systems of the facility. The consolidation of the Diagnostics and Instrumentation, transversal across many of them, is a key element of this purpose. A top-down strategy is proposed for a systematic Diagnostics Review and Requirement definition, putting emphasis in the one-of-a-kind instruments necessary by the operational particularities of some of the Systems, as well as to the harsh environment that they shall survive. In addition, other transversal aspects such as the ones related to Safety and Machine Protection and their respective requirements shall be also considered. The goal is therefore to advance further and solidly in the respective designs, identify problems in advance, and steer the Diagnostics development and validation campaigns that will be required. The present work provides an overview of this integration strategy as well as a description of some of the most challenging Diagnostics and Instruments within the facility, including several proposed techniques currently under study

Ionization and scintillation response of high-pressure xenon gas to alpha particles

High-pressure xenon gas is an attractive detection medium for a variety of applications in fundamental and applied physics. In this paper we study the ionization and scintillation detection properties of xenon gas at 10 bar pressure. For this purpose, we use a source of alpha particles in the NEXT-DEMO time projection chamber, the large scale prototype of the NEXT-100 neutrinoless double beta decay experiment, in three different drift electric field configurations. We measure the ionization electron drift velocity and longitudinal diffusion, and compare our results to expectations based on available electron scattering cross sections on pure xenon. In addition, two types of measurements addressing the connection between the ionization and scintillation yields are performed. On the one hand we observe, for the first time in xenon gas, large event-by-event correlated fluctuations between the ionization and scintillation signals, similar to that already observed in liquid xenon. On the other hand, we study the field dependence of the average scintillation and ionization yields. Both types of measurements may shed light on the mechanism of electron-ion recombination in xenon gas for highly-ionizing particles. Finally, by comparing the response of alpha particles and electrons in NEXT-DEMO, we find no evidence for quenching of the primary scintillation light produced by alpha particles in the xenon gas