ANALYSIS OF TETHERED SWIMMING FORCE, TETHERED SWIMMING POWER, SWIMMING SPEED AND ANTROPOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF YOUNG SWIMMERS IN CRAWL STROKE

Propulsive forces, instantaneous power and swimming velocity in semi-tethered swimming were measured in a group of 69 competitive swimmers. Also, isometric force in laboratory, best 15 m swimming velocity and 100 m freestyle personal mark and anthropometric characteristics were recorded. The results show the high relationship between swimming speed and the propulsive forces, and the instantaneous power. Consequently, the above mentioned variables can be useful for the evaluation of the swimmers along a season

Human-robot cooperation for robust surface treatment using non-conventional sliding mode control

© 2018 ISA This work presents a human-robot closely collaborative solution to cooperatively perform surface treatment tasks such as polishing, grinding, deburring, etc. The method considers two force sensors attached to the manipulator end-effector and tool: one sensor is used to properly accomplish the surface treatment task, while the second one is used by the operator to guide the robot tool. The proposed scheme is based on task priority and adaptive non-conventional sliding mode control. The applicability of the proposed approach is substantiated by experimental results using a redundant 7R manipulator: the Sawyer cobot

Ligand design and preparation, photophysical properties, and device performance of an encapsulated-type pseudo-tris(heteroleptic) iridium(iii) emitter

The organic molecule 2-(1-phenyl-1-(pyridin-2-yl)ethyl)-6-(3-(1-phenyl-1-(pyridin-2-yl)ethyl)phenyl)pyridine (H3L) has been designed, prepared, and employed to synthesize the encapsulated-type pseudo-tris(heteroleptic) iridium(III) derivative Ir(κ6-fac-C,C′,C″-fac-N,N′,N″-L). Its formation takes place as a result of the coordination of the heterocycles to the iridium center and the ortho-CH bond activation of the phenyl groups. Dimer [Ir(μ-Cl)(η4-COD)]2 is suitable for the preparation of this compound of class [Ir(9h)] (9h = 9-electron donor hexadentate ligand), but Ir(acac)3 is a more appropriate starting material. Reactions were carried out in 1-phenylethanol. In contrast to the latter, 2-ethoxyethanol promotes the metal carbonylation, inhibiting the full coordination of H3L. Complex Ir(κ6-fac-C,C′,C″-fac-N,N′,N″-L) is a phosphorescent emitter upon photoexcitation, which has been employed to fabricate four yellow emitting devices with 1931 CIE (x:y) ∼ (0.52:0.48) and a maximum wavelength at 576 nm. These devices display luminous efficacies, external quantum efficiencies, and power efficacies at 600 cd m–2, which lie in the ranges 21.4–31.3 cd A–1, 7.8–11.3%, and 10.2–14.1 lm W1–, respectively, depending on the device configuration

Las nuevas excavaciones (1995-2006) en el yacimiento del Mioceno final de Venta del Moro, Valencia

Se presenta una síntesis preliminar de la metodología y de los principales resultados obtenidos en las nuevas campañas de excavación (1995-2006) en la localidad clásica de vertebrados del Mioceno final (Turoliense superior, MN13) de Venta del Moro (Valencia, España). Destaca la actualización de la lista faunística, con la incorporación de más de una decena de taxones de vertebrados no citados anteriormente en el yacimiento. Así, si consideramos sólo la asociación de mamíferos, el listado se compone, por el momento, de 43 taxones. Además, se presentan las listas provisionales de otros grupos, como los moluscos, y se cita por vez primera el hallazgo de foraminíferos.From 1995 until 2006 new paleontological excavations were carried out at Venta del Moro (Valencia, Spain), one of the classical Uppermost Miocene (Upper Turolian, MN 13) vertebrate locality of Spain. In the present paper a preliminary synthesis of the methods and main results are presented. Abundant faunal remains were recovered including ten vertebrate taxa no previously recorded from the site. Up to now 43 mammalian species are known from the site. Preliminary list of others groups, as mollusc, are given. The occurrence of foraminifera is reported for the first [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Las nuevas excavaciones (1995-2006) en el yacimiento del Mioceno final de Venta del Moro, Valencia

From 1995 until 2006 new paleontological excavations were carried out at Venta del Moro (Valencia, Spain), one of the classical Uppermost Miocene (Upper Turolian, MN 13) vertebrate locality of Spain. In the present paper a preliminary synthesis of the methods and main results are presented. Abundant faunal remains were recovered including ten vertebrate taxa no previously recorded from the site. Up to now 43 mammalian species are known from the site. Preliminary list of others groups, as mollusc, are given. The occurrence of foraminifera is reported for the first time.Se presenta una síntesis preliminar de la metodología y de los principales resultados obtenidos en las nuevas campañas de excavación (1995-2006) en la localidad clásica de vertebrados del Mioceno final (Turoliense superior, MN13) de Venta del Moro (Valencia, España). Destaca la actualización de la lista faunística, con la incorporación de más de una decena de taxones de vertebrados no citados anteriormente en el yacimiento. Así, si consideramos sólo la asociación de mamíferos, el listado se compone, por el momento, de 43 taxones. Además, se presentan las listas provisionales de otros grupos, como los moluscos, y se cita por vez primera el hallazgo de foraminíferos

Durvalumab plus tremelimumab for the treatment of advanced neuroendocrine neoplasms of gastroenteropancreatic and lung origin

Single immune checkpoint blockade has shown limited activity in patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). Here the authors report the results of a phase II clinical trial of durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) and tremelimumab (anti CTLA-4) in patients with advanced NENs of gastroenteropancreatic and lung origin. Single immune checkpoint blockade in advanced neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) shows limited efficacy; dual checkpoint blockade may improve treatment activity. Dune (NCT03095274) is a non-randomized controlled multicohort phase II clinical trial evaluating durvalumab plus tremelimumab activity and safety in advanced NENs. This study included 123 patients presenting between 2017 and 2019 with typical/atypical lung carcinoids (Cohort 1), G1/2 gastrointestinal (Cohort 2), G1/2 pancreatic (Cohort 3) and G3 gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) (Cohort 4) NENs; who progressed to standard therapies. Patients received 1500 mg durvalumab and 75 mg tremelimumab for up to 13 and 4 cycles (every 4 weeks), respectively. The primary objective was the 9-month clinical benefit rate (CBR) for cohorts 1-3 and 9-month overall survival (OS) rate for Cohort 4. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate, duration of response, progression-free survival according to irRECIST, overall survival, and safety. Correlation of PD-L1 expression with efficacy was exploratory. The 9-month CBR was 25.9%/35.5%/25% for Cohorts 1, 2, and 3 respectively. The 9-month OS rate for Cohort 4 was 36.1%, surpassing the futility threshold. Benefit in Cohort 4 was observed regardless of differentiation and Ki67 levels. PD-L1 combined scores did not correlate with treatment activity. Safety profile was consistent with that of prior studies. In conclusion, durvalumab plus tremelimumab is safe in NENs and shows modest survival benefit in G3 GEP-NENs; with one-third of these patients experiencing a prolonged OS

Mathematical properties of weighted impact factors based on measures of prestige of the citing journals

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1741-0An abstract construction for general weighted impact factors is introduced. We show that the classical weighted impact factors are particular cases of our model, but it can also be used for defining new impact measuring tools for other sources of information as repositories of datasets providing the mathematical support for a new family of altmet- rics. Our aim is to show the main mathematical properties of this class of impact measuring tools, that hold as consequences of their mathematical structure and does not depend on the definition of any given index nowadays in use. In order to show the power of our approach in a well-known setting, we apply our construction to analyze the stability of the ordering induced in a list of journals by the 2-year impact factor (IF2). We study the change of this ordering when the criterium to define it is given by the numerical value of a new weighted impact factor, in which IF2 is used for defining the weights. We prove that, if we assume that the weight associated to a citing journal increases with its IF2, then the ordering given in the list by the new weighted impact factor coincides with the order defined by the IF2. We give a quantitative bound for the errors committed. We also show two examples of weighted impact factors defined by weights associated to the prestige of the citing journal for the fields of MATHEMATICS and MEDICINE, GENERAL AND INTERNAL, checking if they satisfy the increasing behavior mentioned above.Ferrer Sapena, A.; Sánchez Pérez, EA.; González, LM.; Peset Mancebo, MF.; Aleixandre Benavent, R. (2015). Mathematical properties of weighted impact factors based on measures of prestige of the citing journals. Scientometrics. 105(3):2089-2108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1741-0S208921081053Ahlgren, P., & Waltman, L. (2014). The correlation between citation-based and expert-based assessments of publication channels: SNIP and SJR vs. Norwegian quality assessments. Journal of Informetrics, 8, 985–996.Aleixandre Benavent, R., Valderrama Zurián, J. C., & González Alcaide, G. (2007). Scientific journals impact factor: Limitations and alternative indicators. El Profesional de la Información, 16(1), 4–11.Altmann, K. G., & Gorman, G. E. (1998). The usefulness of impact factor in serial selection: A rank and mean analysis using ecology journals. Library Acquisitions-Practise and Theory, 22, 147–159.Arnold, D. N., & Fowler, K. K. (2011). Nefarious numbers. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 58(3), 434–437.Beliakov, G., & James, S. (2012). Using linear programming for weights identification of generalized bonferroni means in R. In: Proceedings of MDAI 2012 modeling decisions for artificial intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7647, pp. 35–44.Beliakov, G., & James, S. (2011). Citation-based journal ranks: The use of fuzzy measures. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 167, 101–119.Buela-Casal, G. (2003). Evaluating quality of articles and scientific journals. Proposal of weighted impact factor and a quality index. Psicothema, 15(1), 23–25.Dorta-Gonzalez, P., & Dorta-Gonzalez, M. I. (2013). Comparing journals from different fields of science and social science through a JCR subject categories normalized impact factor. Scientometrics, 95(2), 645–672.Dorta-Gonzalez, P., Dorta-Gonzalez, M. I., Santos-Penate, D. R., & Suarez-Vega, R. (2014). Journal topic citation potential and between-field comparisons: The topic normalized impact factor. Journal of Informetrics, 8(2), 406–418.Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2002). A general frame-work for relative impact indicators. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 27(1), 29–48.Gagolewski, M., & Mesiar, R. (2014). Monotone measures and universal integrals in a uniform framework for the scientific impact assessment problem. Information Sciences, 263, 166–174.Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295(1), 90–93.Habibzadeh, F., & Yadollahie, M. (2008). Journal weighted impact factor: A proposal. Journal of Informetrics, 2(2), 164–172.Klement, E., Mesiar, R., & Pap, E. (2010). A universal integral as common frame for Choquet and Sugeno integral. IEEE Transaction on Fuzzy System, 18, 178–187.Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (2010). Scopus’s source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 2365–2369.Li, Y. R., Radicchi, F., Castellano, C., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2013). Quantitative evaluation of alternative field normalization procedures. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 746–755.Moed, H. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 265–277.NISO. (2014). Alternative metrics initiative phase 1. White paper. http://www.niso.org/apps/group-public/download.php/13809/Altmetrics-project-phase1-white-paperOwlia, P., Vasei, M., Goliaei, B., & Nassiri, I. (2011). Normalized impact factor (NIF): An adjusted method for calculating the citation rate of biomedical journals. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 44(2), 216–220.Pinski, G., & Narin, F. (1976). Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications: Theory, with application to the literature of physics. Information Processing and Management, 12, 297–312.Pinto, A. C., & Andrade, J. B. (1999). Impact factor of scientific journals: What is the meaning of this parameter? Quimica Nova, 22, 448–453.Raghunathan, M. S., & Srinivas, V. (2001). Significance of impact factor with regard to mathematics journals. Current Science, 80(5), 605.Ruiz Castillo, J., & Waltman, L. (2015). Field-normalized citation impact indicators using algorithmically constructed classification systems of science. Journal of Informetrics, 9, 102–117.Saha, S., Saint, S., & Christakis, D. A. (2003). Impact factor: A valid measure of journal quality? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91, 42–46.Torra, V., & Narukawa, Y. (2008). The h-index and the number of citations: Two fuzzy integrals. IEEE Transaction on Fuzzy System, 16, 795–797.Torres-Salinas, D., & Jimenez-Contreras, E. (2010). Introduction and comparative study of the new scientific journals citation indicators in journal citation reports and scopus. El Profesional de la Información, 19, 201–207.Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2008). Some comments on the journal weighted impact factor proposed by Habibzadeh and Yadollahie. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4), 369–372.Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Visser, M. S. (2013). Some modifications to the SNIP journal impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 272–285.Zitt, M. (2011). Behind citing-side normalization of citations: some properties of the journal impact factor. Scientometrics, 89, 329–344.Zitt, M., & Small, H. (2008). Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: The audience factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1856–1860.Zyczkowski, K. (2010). Citation graph, weighted impact factors and performance indices. Scientometrics, 85(1), 301–315

Evaluation of night-time aerosols measurements and lunar irradiance models in the frame of the first multi-instrument nocturnal intercomparison campaign

The first multi-instrument nocturnal aerosol optical depth (AOD) intercom-parison campaign was held at the high-mountain Iza ̃na Observatory (Tener-ife, Spain) in June 2017, involving 2-minutes synchronous measurements fromtwo different types of lunar photometers (Cimel CE318-T and Moon Preci-sion Filter Radiometer, LunarPFR) and one stellar photometer. The Robotic Lunar Observatory (ROLO) model developed by the U.S. Geological Survey(USGS) was compared with the open-access ROLO Implementation for Moonphotometry Observation (RIMO) model. Results showed rather small differ-ences at Iza ̃na over a 2-month time period covering June and July, 2017(±0.01 in terms of AOD calculated by means of a day/night/day coherencetest analysis and±2 % in terms of lunar irradiance). The RIMO model hasbeen used in this field campaign to retrieve AOD from lunar photometricmeasurements. No evidence of significant differences with the Moon’s phase angle wasfound when comparing raw signals of the six Cimel photometers involved inthis field campaign.The raw signal comparison of the participating lunar photometers (Cimeland LunarPFR) performed at coincident wavelengths showed consistent mea-surements and AOD differences within their combined uncertainties at 870 nmand 675 nm. Slightly larger AOD deviations were observed at 500 nm, point-ing to some unexpected instrumental variations during the measurement pe-riod.Lunar irradiances retrieved using RIMO for phase angles varying between0◦and 75◦(full Moon to near quarter Moon) were compared to the irradi-ance variations retrieved by Cimel and LunarPFR photometers. Our resultsshowed a relative agreement within±3.5 % between the RIMO model andthe photometer-based lunar irradiances.The AOD retrieved by performing a Langley-plot calibration each nightshowed a remarkable agreement (better than 0.01) between the lunar pho-tometers. However, when applying the Lunar-Langley calibration using RIMO,AOD differences of up to 0.015 (0.040 for 500 nm) were found, with differ-ences increasing with the Moon’s phase angle. These differences are thoughtto be partly due to the uncertainties in the irradiance models, as well asinstrumental deficiencies yet to be fully understood.High AOD variability in stellar measurements was detected during thecampaign. Nevertheless, the observed AOD differences in the Cimel/stellarcomparison were within the expected combined uncertainties of these twophotometric techniques. Our results indicate that lunar photometry is amore reliable technique, especially for low aerosol loading conditions.The uncertainty analysis performed in this paper shows that the com-bined standard AOD uncertainty in lunar photometry is dependent on thecalibration technique (up to 0.014 for Langley-plot with illumination-basedcorrection, 0.012-0.022 for Lunar-Langley calibration, and up to 0.1 for the 2 Sun-Moon Gain Factor method). This analysis also corroborates that theuncertainty of the lunar irradiance model used for AOD calculation is withinthe 5-10 % expected range.This campaign has allowed us to quantify the important technical diffi-culties that still exist when routinely monitoring aerosol optical propertiesat night-time. The small AOD differences observed between the three typesof photometers involved in the campaign are only detectable under pristinesky conditions such as those found in this field campaign. Longer campaignsare necessary to understand the observed discrepancies between instrumentsas well as to provide more conclusive results about the uncertainty involvedin the lunar irradiance model

Evaluation of night-time aerosols measurements and lunar irradiance models in the frame of the first multi-instrument nocturnal intercomparison campaign

The first multi-instrument nocturnal aerosol optical depth (AOD) intercomparison campaign was held at the high-mountain Izaña Observatory (Tenerife, Spain) in June 2017, involving 2-min synchronous measurements from two different types of lunar photometers (Cimel CE318-T and Moon Precision Filter Radiometer, LunarPFR) and one stellar photometer. The Robotic Lunar Observatory (ROLO) model developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was compared with the open-access ROLO Implementation for Moon photometry Observation (RIMO) model. Results showed rather small differences at Izaña over a 2-month time period covering June and July, 2017 (±0.01 in terms of AOD calculated by means of a day/night/day coherence test analysis and ± 2% in terms of lunar irradiance). The RIMO model has been used in this field campaign to retrieve AOD from lunar photometric measurements. No evidence of significant differences with the Moon's phase angle was found when comparing raw signals of the six Cimel photometers involved in this field campaign. The raw signal comparison of the participating lunar photometers (Cimel and LunarPFR) performed at coincident wavelengths showed consistent measurements and AOD differences within their combined uncertainties at 870 nm and 675 nm. Slightly larger AOD deviations were observed at 500 nm, pointing to some unexpected instrumental variations during the measurement period. Lunar irradiances retrieved using RIMO for phase angles varying between 0° and 75° (full Moon to near quarter Moon) were compared to the irradiance variations retrieved by Cimel and LunarPFR photometers. Our results showed a relative agreement within ± 3.5% between the RIMO model and the photometer-based lunar irradiances. The AOD retrieved by performing a Langley-plot calibration each night showed a remarkable agreement (better than 0.01) between the lunar photometers. However, when applying the Lunar-Langley calibration using RIMO, AOD differences of up to 0.015 (0.040 for 500 nm) were found, with differences increasing with the Moon's phase angle. These differences are thought to be partly due to the uncertainties in the irradiance models, as well as instrumental deficiencies yet to be fully understood. High AOD variability in stellar measurements was detected during the campaign. Nevertheless, the observed AOD differences in the Cimel/stellar comparison were within the expected combined uncertainties of these two photometric techniques. Our results indicate that lunar photometry is a more reliable technique, especially for low aerosol loading conditions. The uncertainty analysis performed in this paper shows that the combined standard AOD uncertainty in lunar photometry is dependent on the calibration technique (up to 0.014 for Langley-plot with illumination-based correction, 0.012–0.022 for Lunar-Langley calibration, and up to 0.1 for the Sun-Moon Gain Factor method). This analysis also corroborates that the uncertainty of the lunar irradiance model used for AOD calculation is within the 5–10% expected range. This campaign has allowed us to quantify the important technical difficulties that still exist when routinely monitoring aerosol optical properties at night-time. The small AOD differences observed between the three types of photometers involved in the campaign are only detectable under pristine sky conditions such as those found in this field campaign. Longer campaigns are necessary to understand the observed discrepancies between instruments as well as to provide more conclusive results about the uncertainty involved in the lunar irradiance models.This work has been developed within the framework of the activities of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observations (CIMO) Izaña Testbed for Aerosols and Water Vapour Remote Sensing Instruments. AERONET sun photometers at Izaña have been calibrated within the AERONET Europe TNA, supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement no. 654109 (ACTRIS‒2). CE318-T linearity check has been performed as part of the ESA-funded project “Lunar spectral irradiance measurement and modelling for absolute calibration of EO optical sensors” under ESA contract number: 4000121576/17/NL/AF/hh. LunarPFR has been performing measurements since 2014 in Norway thanks to Svalbard Science Forum funded project, 2014–2016. The authors would like to thank AERONET team for their support and also to NASA’s Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility (NAIF) at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to help the implementation of the “SPICE” ancillary information system used in this study. We also thank Izaña's ITs for their work to implement the RIMO model in the free-access server. Special thanks should be given to Tom Stone, who has kindly provided us with the USGS/ROLO irradiance values used in the model comparison analysis. This work has also received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and from Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowships (IF) ACE-GFAT (grant agreement no. 659398). The authors are grateful to Spanish MINECO (CTM2015-66742-R) and Junta de Castilla y León (VA100P17)