Applications of ISES for instrument science

It is often the case that some instruments being used for geophysical measurements cannot measure some parameters that are important for processing the data obtained using the instrument. However, the parameters of interest may be measured by other instruments and these data made available to the operators of the first instrument. Processing the data immediately after it is acquired is useful in directing the operation of the same or different instrument or in providing a quick look data set to users on the ground. The four applications which are considered are: the decision to acquire data due to some important occurrence detected by Eos instruments; the decision not to acquire data at a scheduled time and/or location; the decision to acquire additional data to improve data quality; and combining data from several sources to enhance data quality. General examples are presented, which may or may not apply directly to Eos instruments on the various platforms

Opportunities With Decay-At-Rest Neutrinos From Decay-In-Flight Neutrino Beams

Neutrino beam facilities, like spallation neutron facilities, produce copious quantities of neutrinos from the decay at rest of mesons and muons. The viability of decay-in-flight neutrino beams as sites for decay-at-rest neutrino studies has been investigated by calculating expected low-energy neutrino fluxes from the existing Fermilab NuMI beam facility. Decay-at-rest neutrino production in NuMI is found to be roughly equivalent per megawatt to that of spallation facilities, and is concentrated in the facility's target hall and beam stop regions. Interaction rates in 5 and 60 ton liquid argon detectors at a variety of existing and hypothetical locations along the beamline are found to be comparable to the largest existing decay-at-rest datasets for some channels. The physics implications and experimental challenges of such a measurement are discussed, along with prospects for measurements at targeted facilities along a future Fermilab long-baseline neutrino beam.Comment: 6 pages, 3 figure

Does B2C online logistics service quality impact urban logistics?

This paper reports on an in-progress research study regarding the impact of business to consumer (B2C) online logistics service quality (OLSQ) for shopper satisfaction and loyalty on urban logistics across the UK, France and Germany to also investigate country-specific differences of consumer online shopping behaviour and channel strategies. A two-stage approach is adopted consisting of firstly of qualitative research conducted with managers at the producer/retailer interface and secondly a quantitative survey stage targeting consumers as online shoppers to determine how their expectations of OLSQ and associated activities influence their satisfaction and ongoing loyalty. This study should contribute theoretically by considering a B2C setting for OLSQ, which is the final aspect of point-of-origin to point-of-consumption, as most general literature on these topics has been dominated by business to business (B2B) logistical designs, and also identify any discrepancies between consumer expectations or behaviour as it may affect urban logistics solutions. Further, this study should contribute practically by providing managers with an understanding of the components of OLSQ considered critical by consumers

From bedside to bench: Comroe and dripps revisited

Twenty-five years ago a paper published in Science by Julius Comroe and Robert Dripps purported to demonstrate that 41 per cent of all articles judged to be essential for later clinical advances were not clinically oriented at the time of the study and 62 per cent of key articles were the result of basic research. Since that analysis, support for basic research has increased in the G7 countries. In the UK, Research Council expenditure on basic research has increased from a low of £444 million (or 42 per cent of total civil R&D) in 1991/92 to £769 million (or 61 per cent of total civil R&D) in 1998/99. Although it would be difficult to argue that Comroe and Dripps were directly responsible for a strategic shift (or drift) in the type of science supported by research funders, their arguments are often cited (albeit at times implicitly) in support of the increased funding for basic biomedical research. In 1987 Richard Smith wrote a critical paper reassessing Comroe and Dripps. His main argument was that the original study was in itself ‘unscientific’ and that it should be “followed by bigger and better studies”. This study is, in part, an answer to that challenge. Given the increased support for basic research, and the apparent importance based on the work of Comroe and Dripps, we felt it was important to investigate Smith’s comments by replicating Comroe and Dripps’s study and at the same time try to improve upon the methodology. The current project had two objectives: 1. To see if the original Comroe and Dripps’s methodology was ‘replicable’. 2. To validate the key findings of Comroe and Dripps. By looking at neonatal intensive care (NIC), we concluded that Comroe and Dripps’ study – as reported – is not repeatable, reliable or valid, and thus is an insufficient evidence base for increased expenditure on basic biomedical research. We did, however, develop an alternative methodology which used bibliographic databases and bibliometric techniques to describe the research underpinning five of the most important clinical advances in NIC, as identified through a Delphi survey. Using the revised bibliometric protocol, we demonstrated that after a time-lag of about 17 years, between 2 and 21 per cent of research underpinning the clinical advances could be described as basic. This observation is at odds with Comroe and Dripps’s finding that 62 per cent of key research articles judged to be essential for latter clinical advance were the result of basic research. In reaching this conclusion we are acutely aware of the significant limitations to the revised methodology and, therefore, we caution against the over-interpretation of our results. However, we would argue that there needs to be a greater understanding of how basic research supports healthcare and hope this report will inform part of this wider debate.R&D Directorate of the NHS Executive London; Wellcome Trus