Computer experiment - a case study for modelling and simulation of manufacturing systems

Deterministic computer simulation of physical experiments is now a common technique in science and engineering. Often, physical experiments are too time consuming, expensive or impossible to conduct. Complex computer models or codes, rather than physical experiments lead to the study of computer experiments, which are used to investigate many scientific phenomena. A computer experiment consists of a number of runs of the computer code with different input choices. The Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments is a rapidly growing technique in statistical experimental design. This paper aims to discuss some practical issues when designing a computer simulation and/or experiments for manufacturing systems. A case study approach is reviewed and presented

Thalidomide and birth defects

Apologies to the many papers we were unable to cite, due to space constraints. We thank Lynda Erskine, Shaunna Beedie and Chris Mahony for helpful discussions. Lucas Rosa Fraga is funded by a PhD scholarship from the Science without Borders program - CNPq Brazil - INAGEMP/ Grant CNPq 573993/2008-4. Alex J. Diamond is funded by a BBSRC DTP PhD Scholarship.Peer reviewedPostprin

Lessons Learned from Mbombela, South Africa, in Public-Private Partnerships in the Water Sector

For urban dwellers around the world, basic water services are provided by city administrations. However, in developing countries, cities lack both the human and financial resources to ensure adequate services, particularly to some of their most vulnerable populations. As a result, public entities often consider turning to the private sector for assistance, which may lead to a series of adverse and unintended consequences. The following case study describes the experiences of the South African city of Mbombela, arguably one of the most successful Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in the water sector in sub-Saharan Africa, through its successes and challenges

TOWARDS MONTENEGRO: A LAND OF GIANTS AND PANTHERS

Abstract. This paper problematizes the caricatural presence of Montenegro on the symbolical map of travellers from the contemporary Anglophone world. To depict the contours of this paradoxical presence, we propose a brief look at the romantic image of the country developed in the last two centuries. While avoiding politicizing, essentializing, and self-stigmatization, we conclude that the absence of the country as a real historical, socio-political, and cultural complexity has been conditioned by its long and manifold isolation. We provide examples from travel writing, tourist and media representations, fiction, and film. Our analysis mostly relies on authorities on the travel-writing genre. Key Words: Montenegro, history, travel writing, fiction, tourism

Vertebrate embryos as tools for anti-angiogenic drug screening and function

Shaunna Beedie is a recipient of a Wellcome Trust-NIH PhD Studentship (Grant number 098252/Z/12/Z). Alexandra J. Diamond is a recipient of a BBSRC EastBIO DTP PhD Scholarship. Lucas Rosa Fraga is a recepient of a PhD scholarship from the Science Without Borders program – CNPq Brazil – INAGEMP/ Grant CNPq 573993/2008-4 Shaunna Beedie and William D. Figg are supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organization imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.Peer reviewedPostprin

Developing an empirical approach to optimal camera-trap deployment at mammal resting sites: evidence from a longitudinal study of an otter Lutra lutra holt

The study of nocturnal mammals relies on indirect evidence or invasive methods involving capture and tagging of individuals. Indirect methods are prone to error, while capture and tagging mammals have logistical and ethical considerations. Off-the-shelf camera-traps are perceived as an accessible, non-intrusive method for direct data gathering, having many benefits but also potential biases. Here, using a six-year camera-trap study of a Eurasian otter holt (den), we evaluate key parameters of study design. First we analyse patterns of holt use in relation to researcher visits to maintain the camera-traps. Then, using a dual camera-trap deployment we compare the success of data-capture from each camera-trap position in relation to the dual set-up. Finally, we provide analyses to optimise minimum survey effort and camera-trap programming. Our findings indicate that otter presence and resting patterns were unaffected by the researcher visits. Results were significantly better using a close camera-trap emplacement than a distant. There was a higher frequency of otter activity at the holt during the natal and early rearing period which has implications for determining the minimum survey duration. Reducing video clip duration from 30 to 19 s would have included 95% of instances where sex could be identified, and saved 35-40% of memory storage. Peaks of otter activity were related to sunrise and sunset, exclusion of diurnal hours would have missed 11% of registrations. Camera-trap studies would benefit by adopting a similar framework of analyses in the preliminary stages or during a trial period to inform subsequent methodological refinements

Biodiversity 2020: climate change evaluation report

In 2011, the government published Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services [1]. This strategy for England builds on the 2011 Natural Environment White Paper - NEWP [2] and provides a comprehensive picture of how we are implementing our international and EU commitments. It sets out the strategic direction for biodiversity policy between 2011-2020 on land (including rivers and lakes) and at sea, and forms part of the UK’s commitments under the ‘the Aichi targets’ agreed in 2010 under the United Nations Convention of Biological Diversity’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 [3]. Defra is committed to evaluating the Biodiversity 2020 strategy and has a public commitment to assess climate change adaptation measures. This document sets out the information on assessing how action under Biodiversity 2020 has helped our wildlife and ecosystems to adapt to climate change. Biodiversity 2020 aims to halt the loss of biodiversity and restore functioning ecosystems for wildlife and for people. The outcomes and actions in Biodiversity 2020, although wider in scope, aimed to increase resilience of our wildlife and ecosystems in the face of a changing climate. In order to inform the assessment, we have defined which of the measurable outputs under Biodiversity 2020 contribute to resilience. Biodiversity 2020 included plans to develop and publish a dedicated set of indicators to assess progress towards the delivery of the strategy. The latest list (at the time of writing), published in 2017, contains 24 biodiversity indicators [4] that would help inform progress towards achieving specific outcomes, they are also highly relevant to the outputs (detailed below) that form the basis for this evaluation. The Adaptation Sub-Committee’s 2017 UK Climate Change Risk Assessment Evidence Report [5] sets out the priority climate change risks and opportunities for the UK. The ASC also produced a review of progress in the National Adaptation Programme - “Progress in preparing for climate change” [6], which highlights adaptation priorities and progress being made towards achieving them. The UK Government’s response to the ASC [7] review includes a set of recommendations, of which Recommendation 6 states that “Action should be taken to enhance the condition of priority habitats and the abundance and range of priority species”. The recommendation further iterated that “This action should maintain or extend the level of ambition that was included in Biodiversity 2020” and that “An evaluation should be undertaken of Biodiversity 2020 including the extent to which goals have been met and of the implications for resilience to climate change.” To this, end an evaluation process has been put in place to define: a. What worked and why? Which actions or activities have had the greatest benefit in terms of delivering the desired outcomes? And, conversely, what prevented progress? b. Where are the opportunities? What are the financial, political, scientific and social opportunities for furthering the desired outcomes in the future? These objectives underpin the evaluation process for actions to date, and will also inform future actions and the iteration of a new nature strategy for England