Penicilliform anthropomorphic manipulator

In the article a description of robot-equippe

Quantum analogue of the spin-flop transition for a spin pair

Quantum (step-like) magnetization curves are studies for a spin pair with antiferromagnetic coupling in the presence of a magnetic field parallel to the easy axis of the magnetic anisotropy. The consideration is done both analytically and numerically for a wide range of the anisotropy constants and spins up to $S \gtrsim 100$. Depending on the origin of the anisotropy (exchange or single-ion), the magnetization curve can demonstrate the jumps more than unity and the concentration of the unit jumps in a narrow range of the field. We also point the region of the problem parameters, where the behavior is quasiclassical for $S = 5$, and where system is substantially quantum in the limit $S \to \infty$.Comment: 5 pages, 5 figure

Research Leadership of the “Priority 2030” Program: Success Factors

The article presents the results of comparative analysis of universities’ activities over the past five years, which won the special grant in the “Research Leadership” track of the “Priority 2030” program. The comparison is carried out between the following groups of universities: 1) all universities of the “Research Leadership” track, 2) the first, second and third groups, selected according to the results of the competition, and 3) group of Project 5-100 participants. The state strategic initiatives in the field of the higher education system over the past 15 years were considered to determine their impact on the development of the considered groups of universities; the indicators that make significant contribution to the results of educational, research, international and financial activities of universities were selected. The aggregation of indicators for university groups has been carried out using the Displaced Ideal method and the comparative analysis for 2016 – 2020. The significant indicators of scientific and research activities of analyzed groups of universities for 2018 – 2020 were considered. Based on the analysis, the most significant factors of success have been identified that ensured the victory of the considered universities in the Priority 2030 competition on the “Research Leadership” track

The First Year of the Priority 2030 Program Implementation: Positive Results and Problem Areas of Research Track Universities

The article considers the results of the main activities of universities – participants’ groups of the Priority 2030 program of the «Leadership in Research» track (hereinafter referred to as the research track) at the initial stage of its implementation. An analysis of performance indicators’ dynamics for groups of universities in the period preceding the implementation of the program (2017–2020) and the first year of its implementation (2021) was carried out. Special attention is given to the analysis of the activities of universities that are leaders in the research track. As part of the comprehensive analysis, positive results were identified, as well as some problem areas in the activities of universities. An analysis of the basic indicators shows that the researched groups of universities in a number of indicators have a relatively small difference in the achieved values, while the indicators of the special part revealed an unconditional group of leaders

Analysis of Performance of University Groups Belonging to “Leadership in the Region and/or Industry” Track of “Priority 2030” Program

This article presents the comprehensive study results of the performance of universities which are the winners of the “Leadership in the region and/or industry” track of the “Priority 2030” program. The research included a comparison of the results of 3 groups of universities of this track, determined by the results of the competition. The participation of these groups of universities in the main strategic initiatives in the field of the higher education system development in 2006–2020 is considered; indicators for the main areas of university activities were selected and grouped, namely, educational, scientific and innovation, international and financial. The comparative analysis of aggregate indicators of recent years is based on the Displaced Ideal Method. This made it possible not only to determine the current positions of universities belonging to the examined track, but also to identify a number of problems in their activities that need to be solved in the coming years to strengthen their contribution to the socio-economic development of the regions. The results of the comprehensive analysis can be used not only by the current participants of the “Leadership in the region and/or industry” track of the “Priority 2030” program, but also by universities that only plan to take part in this program in the near future and the expert community engaged in research in the field of higher education development in Russia

First Successes and Failures of Universities Participating in “Leadership in the Region and/or Industry” Track of the “Priority 2030” Program

The article presents the results of quantitative indicators analysis of the main activities of three groups of universities participating in the “Priority 2030” program of the “Leadership in the region and/or industry” track (hereinafter referred to as the territorial and industrial track) during the first year of their development programs implementation. The Displaced Ideal Method was used in the research. Dynamics of indicators series of special and basic parts has being analyzed for universities groups in 2017-2021. The strengths and weaknesses of the universities groups of the territorial and industrial track are revealed. It was established that the special indicators values achieved by universities during the first year had a significant impact on the assessment of the Council for universities development programs support in frame of Priority-2030 Project, which taking into account the performances of the universities teams led to significant changes in the groups composition of the studied track – more than half of universities changed their positions. A number of reasons were considered that led to a change in universities’ positions in the groups of the researched track