Lifecycle information for e-literature: full report from the LIFE project

This Report is a record of the LIFE Project. The Project has been run for one year and its aim is to deliver crucial information about the cost and management of digital material. This information should then in turn be able to be applied to any institution that has an interest in preserving and providing access to electronic collections. The Project is a joint venture between The British Library and UCL Library Services. The Project is funded by JISC under programme area (i) as listed in paragraph 16 of the JISC 4/04 circular- Institutional Management Support and Collaboration and as such has set requirements and outcomes which must be met and the Project has done its best to do so. Where the Project has been unable to answer specific questions, strong recommendations have been made for future Project work to do so. The outcomes of this Project are expected to be a practical set of guidelines and a framework within which costs can be applied to digital collections in order to answer the following questions: • What is the long term cost of preserving digital material; • Who is going to do it; • What are the long term costs for a library in HE/FE to partner with another institution to carry out long term archiving; • What are the comparative long-term costs of a paper and digital copy of the same publication; • At what point will there be sufficient confidence in the stability and maturity of digital preservation to switch from paper for publications available in parallel formats; • What are the relative risks of digital versus paper archiving. The Project has attempted to answer these questions by using a developing lifecycle methodology and three diverse collections of digital content. The LIFE Project team chose UCL e-journals, BL Web Archiving and the BL VDEP digital collections to provide a strong challenge to the methodology as well as to help reach the key Project aim of attributing long term cost to digital collections. The results from the Case Studies and the Project findings are both surprising and illuminating

Lifecycle information for e-literature: a summary from the LIFE project.

The LIFE Project has developed a methodology to calculate the long-term costs and future requirements of the preservation of digital assets. LIFE has achieved this by analysing and comparing three different digital collections and by applying a lifecycle approach to each. From this work LIFE has identified a number of strategic issues and common needs. The critical strategic issues are: •There is a need for a wider collaborative approach between Higher Education (HE) and Libraries to aid in the cost-effective development of tools and methods. •The time required for the realistic development of the next generation of these tools and methodologies is largely unknown and should form part of a collective responsibility within the digital preservation community. •There exists a real opportunity to establish long-term partnerships between institutions to address common requirements. The challenge is to establish multidisciplinary Project teams and programmes to lead these developments. •There exists a real opportunity to establish long-term partnerships between institutions and industry to develop this methodology and to establish new opportunities to share knowledge and experience. The LIFE project could become an important vehicle for the development of these new opportunities

The Richtmyer–Meshkov instability in magnetohydrodynamics

In ideal magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), the Richtmyer–Meshkov instability can be suppressed by the presence of a magnetic field. The interface still undergoes some growth, but this is bounded for a finite magnetic field. A model for this flow has been developed by considering the stability of an impulsively accelerated, sinusoidally perturbed density interface in the presence of a magnetic field that is parallel to the acceleration. This was accomplished by analytically solving the linearized initial value problem in the framework of ideal incompressible MHD. To assess the performance of the model, its predictions are compared to results obtained from numerical simulation of impulse driven linearized, shock driven linearized, and nonlinear compressible MHD for a variety of cases. It is shown that the analytical linear model collapses the data from the simulations well. The predicted interface behavior well approximates that seen in compressible linearized simulations when the shock strength, magnetic field strength, and perturbation amplitude are small. For such cases, the agreement with interface behavior that occurs in nonlinear simulations is also reasonable. The effects of increasing shock strength, magnetic field strength, and perturbation amplitude on both the flow and the performance of the model are investigated. This results in a detailed exposition of the features and behavior of the MHD Richtmyer–Meshkov flow. For strong shocks, large initial perturbation amplitudes, and strong magnetic fields, the linear model may give a rough estimate of the interface behavior, but it is not quantitatively accurate. In all cases examined the accuracy of the model is quantified and the flow physics underlying any discrepancies is examine

How much does it cost? The LIFE Project - costing models for digital curation and preservation

Digital preservation is concerned with the long-term safekeeping of electronic resources. How can we be confident of their permanence, if we do not know the cost of preservation? The LIFE (Lifecycle Information for E-Literature) Project has made a major step forward in understanding the long-term costs in this complex area. The LIFE Project has developed a methodology to model the digital lifecycle and to calculate the costs of preserving digital information for the next 5, 10 or 100 years. National and higher education (HE) libraries can now apply this process and plan effectively for the preservation of their digital collections. Based on previous work undertaken on the lifecycles of paper-based materials, the LIFE Project created a lifecycle model and applied it to real-life digital collections across a diverse subject range. Three case studies examined the everyday operations, processes and costs involved in their respective activities. The results were then used to calculate the direct costs for each element of the digital lifecycle. The Project has made major advances in costing preservation activities, as well as making detailed costs of real digital preservation activities available. The second phase of LIFE (LIFE2), which recently started, aims to refine the lifecycle methodology and to add a greater range and breadth to the project with additional exemplar case studies

The LIFE Model v1.1

Extract: This document draws together feedback, discussion and review of the LIFE Model from a number of sources: 1. The LIFE and LIFE2 Project Teams, and the staff of their institutions 2. Feedback from review by independent economics expert 3. The LIFE Project Conference 4. Early adopters of the Life Model (particularly the Royal Danish Library, State Archives and the State and University Library, Denmark) The result is a revision of the LIFE Model which was first published in 2006 by the LIFE Project . In line with the objectives of the LIFE2 Project, this revision aims to: 1. fix outstanding anomalies or omissions in the Model 2. scope and define the Model and its components more precisely 3. facilitate useful and repeatable mapping and costing of digital lifecycles

Fire and rescue service community safety initiatives: measuring impact

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to discuss methods of capturing the impact of fire and rescue service (FRS) community safety work which directly aims to reduce the occurrence of specific incidents. Design/methodology/approach - The impact assessment method described focuses on addressing one of the major problems with regards to attributing outcomes to FRS community safety work; the influence of external factors. This paper looked to assess the incident trends within a case study UK FRS within the context of the following external data sets: first, incident trends within other UK FRSs; second, demographic trends; and third, incident data from other public services. Findings - There were instances, either across the whole region served by the case study FRS, or within specific districts, where evidence suggested a strong likelihood of the community safety work of the case study FRS contributing towards an observed reduction in incidents. These findings were established through filtering the impact of widespread external factors, which could impact upon incident figures. Research limitations/implications - The utility of this impact assessment relies upon FRS consistently recording the specific aims and focus of individual community safety activity, so that any positive outcomes can be attributed to a particular group of community safety initiatives. Originality/value - This paper discusses how an evaluation process, to deter mine the likelihood of community safety impacting upon incident numbers, can be practically applied to a FRS

Lifecycle information for E-literature: an introduction to the second phase of the LIFE project

Introduction: The first phase of LIFE (Lifecycle Information For E-Literature) made a major contribution to understanding the long-term costs of digital preservation; an essential step in helping institutions plan for the future. The LIFE work models the digital lifecycle and calculates the costs of preserving digital information for future years. Organisations can apply this process in order to understand costs and plan effectively for the preservation of their digital collections The second phase of the LIFE Project, LIFE2, has refined the LIFE Model adding three new exemplar Case Studies to further build upon LIFE1. LIFE2 is an 18-month JISC-funded project between UCL (University College London) and The British Library (BL), supported by the LIBER Access and Preservation Divisions. LIFE1 was completed in April 2006. LIFE2 started in March 2007, and was completed in August 2008. This summary aims to give an overview of the LIFE Project, summarising some of the key outputs. There are four main areas discussed: 1 From LIFE1 to LIFE2 outlines some of the key findings from the first phase of the project as well as summarising the motivation behind this second phase. 2 The LIFE Model describes the current version of the model (version 2) which has been thoroughly updated from the first phase. 3 LIFE2 Case Studies describes the three new Case Studies for LIFE2. It does not include the results from the Case Studies (these are available in the overall LIFE2 Report), but offers some background on each of the studies as well as discussion of why they were chosen. 4 Findings and Conclusions outlines all of the findings and outputs from the entire project

The LIFE2 final project report

Executive summary: The first phase of LIFE (Lifecycle Information For E-Literature) made a major contribution to understanding the long-term costs of digital preservation; an essential step in helping institutions plan for the future. The LIFE work models the digital lifecycle and calculates the costs of preserving digital information for future years. Organisations can apply this process in order to understand costs and plan effectively for the preservation of their digital collections The second phase of the LIFE Project, LIFE2, has refined the LIFE Model adding three new exemplar Case Studies to further build upon LIFE1. LIFE2 is an 18-month JISC-funded project between UCL (University College London) and The British Library (BL), supported by the LIBER Access and Preservation Divisions. LIFE2 began in March 2007, and completed in August 2008. The LIFE approach has been validated by a full independent economic review and has successfully produced an updated lifecycle costing model (LIFE Model v2) and digital preservation costing model (GPM v1.1). The LIFE Model has been tested with three further Case Studies including institutional repositories (SHERPA-LEAP), digital preservation services (SHERPA DP) and a comparison of analogue and digital collections (British Library Newspapers). These Case Studies were useful for scenario building and have fed back into both the LIFE Model and the LIFE Methodology. The experiences of implementing the Case Studies indicated that enhancements made to the LIFE Methodology, Model and associated tools have simplified the costing process. Mapping a specific lifecycle to the LIFE Model isn’t always a straightforward process. The revised and more detailed Model has reduced ambiguity. The costing templates, which were refined throughout the process of developing the Case Studies, ensure clear articulation of both working and cost figures, and facilitate comparative analysis between different lifecycles. The LIFE work has been successfully disseminated throughout the digital preservation and HE communities. Early adopters of the work include the Royal Danish Library, State Archives and the State and University Library, Denmark as well as the LIFE2 Project partners. Furthermore, interest in the LIFE work has not been limited to these sectors, with interest in LIFE expressed by local government, records offices, and private industry. LIFE has also provided input into the LC-JISC Blue Ribbon Task Force on the Economic Sustainability of Digital Preservation. Moving forward our ability to cost the digital preservation lifecycle will require further investment in costing tools and models. Developments in estimative models will be needed to support planning activities, both at a collection management level and at a later preservation planning level once a collection has been acquired. In order to support these developments a greater volume of raw cost data will be required to inform and test new cost models. This volume of data cannot be supported via the Case Study approach, and the LIFE team would suggest that a software tool would provide the volume of costing data necessary to provide a truly accurate predictive model

Improved mirror position estimation using resonant quantum smoothing

Quantum parameter estimation, the ability to precisely obtain a classical value in a quantum system, is very important to many key quantum technologies. Many of these technologies rely on an optical probe, either coherent or squeezed states to make a precise measurement of a parameter ultimately limited by quantum mechanics. We use this technique to theoretically model, simulate and validate by experiment the measurement and precise estimation of the position of a cavity mirror. In non-resonant systems, the achieved estimation enhancement from quantum smoothing over optimal filtering has not exceeded a factor two, even when squeezed state probes were used. Using a coherent state probe, we show that using quantum smoothing on a mechanically resonant structure driven by a resonant forcing function can result significantly greater improvement in parameter estimation than with non-resonant systems. In this work, we show that it is possible to achieve a smoothing improvement by a factor in excess of three times over optimal filtering. By using intra-cavity light as the probe we obtain finer precision than has been achieved with the equivalent quantum resources in free-space.Comment: 14 pages, 9 figures and 1 tabl

No evidence that FLT3 status should be considered as an indicator for transplantation in acute myeloid leukemia (AML): an analysis of 1135 patients, excluding acute promyelocytic leukemia, from the UK MRC AML 10 and 12 trials

Fetal liver tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) internal tandem duplications (ITDs) are powerful adverse prognostic indicators for relapse in acute myelold leukemia (AML) but the most efficacious therapy for FLT3/ ITD+ patients is currently unknown. We evaluated outcome according to FLT3/ITD status in 1135 adult patients treated according to United Kingdom Medical Research Council (UK MRC) AML protocols: 141 received an autograft, and 170 received a matched sibling allograft in first complete remission (CR). An FLT3/ITD was detected in 25% of patients and was an independent predictor for relapse (P < .001). It remained prognostic for increased relapse in patients who received a transplant (odds ratio [OR] = 1.91; 95% confidence intervals [CIs] 1.13-3.21; P = .02), with no evidence of a difference in effect between patients who received an autograft (OR = 2.39; CIs = 1.24-4.62) and patients who received an allograft (OR = 1.31; CIs = 0.56-3.06) (test for interaction, P = .3) or between patients who did or did not receive a transplant (P = .4). These results were confirmed in an analysis of 186 patients randomized to receive or not receive an autograft in first CR and in a donor-versus-no donor analysis of 683 patients to assess the role of allograft (for latter, FLT3/ITD- OR = 0.70, CIs = 0.53-0.92; FLT3/ITD+ OR = 0.59, CIs = 0.40-0.87; test for interaction, P = .5). These results suggest that at present there is no strong evidence that FLT3 status should influence the decision to proceed to transplantation