Structured Approach Bags Chemistry Prize
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Section 2 Contribution of Science and Technology to Global Issues
Chapter 1 Progress in Science and Technology and Socioeconomic Changes Section 2 Contribution of Science and Technology to Global Issues From the end of the 19th century to the 20th century, science and technology has rapidly advanced. Chemical industry, electrical industry and heavy industry and so on emerged and we have advanced forward to ages of mass production and mass consumption, when goods could be transported in bulk to distant locations for a short period, as physical distribution, including railways, cars and airplanes, developed. This accompanied the mass disposal of goods and mass consumption of energy, highlighting the Chapter 1 risk of depletion of limited resources, global warming, the destruction of ecosystems and the crisis in the global environment. Science and technology that changed our lives were explained in Section 1 of this chapter, but as well as changing our lives in terms of key daily lifestyle elements, science and technology are also crucial to solve global issues such as climate change, natural resource depletion and energy. There are significant expectations as to how science and technology can contribute to solve global issues. This section addresses the social contribution of science and technology in Japan domestically and internationally. 1 Contribution to Global Warming Countermeasures ○ Global warming state Climate changes caused by global warming are Average global surface temperature (land + sea) anomaly one of the most urgent problems which the world faces. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)1, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize Year in 2007, published the Synthesis Report of Fifth Changes in average global sea level Assessment Report in 2014. -
Greetings from Director of RIEM Greetings from Director of RIPM
Greetings from director of RIEM The Research Institute for Engineering Measurement (RIEM) has a lot of researchers and experts from mechanical engineering, applied physics, measurement and control, and information technology (number of staff: about 70). We have three important missions. The first mission is to contribute to international activities related to legal metrology and to steadily conduct legal metrology services such as type approval test of specified measuring instruments and inspection of verification standards used in local verification offices, in cooperation with the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. The second is to develop, maintain, and smoothly disseminate national measurement standards for length, mass, and their related derived quantities. Dr. OTA Akihiro The third is to promote the advancement of high-precision measurement technology and data science technology on the basis of our measurement standards, and to connect their research outcomes to companies for future national and international businesses. We hope to promote research activities to solve social problems such as energy and environmental constraints and COVID-19 infection, and to create innovations that will contribute to industrial competitiveness. Greetings from director of RIPM According to the 5-year midterm plan of AIST which started in April 2020, the Research Institute for Physical Measurement (RIPM), which consists of twelve research groups with over 80 researchers, started new challenges to develop and disseminate the national measurement standards in the fields of electricity, time and frequency, temperature, and optical radiation – all of which underpin the industrial competitiveness, product reliability, and safety in our daily lives. In particular, the RIPM will contribute to cutting- edge research and development for measurement standards such as optical lattice clocks towards the redefinition of the second, and quantum current standards using single-electron pump devices for quantum metrology triangle experiments. -
HOPE Meetings Are Held for Excellent Graduate Students and Young Researchers Specially Selected from Countries Around the 9Th Asia-Pacific and Africa Region
For Overseas Cooperating Institutions Objective HOPE Meetings are held for excellent graduate students and young researchers specially selected from countries around the 9th Asia-Pacific and Africa region. These meetings give an opportunity for the participants to engage in interdisciplinary discussions with Nobel laureates and other distinguished HOPE MEETING scientists pioneering the frontiers of knowledge. They also give the participants, who lodge together over the course of the event, a chance to make friends and form collegial networks with Nobel Laureates with peers from the regions. The title “HOPE Meeting” signifies the promise held for the future roles of young researchers and optimism for creating a bright S&T future within the global community. Date F ebruary 26- ■ Saturday, February 25: Orientation & Registration M arch 2, 2017 ■ Sunday, February 26: Nobel Prize Dialogue Tokyo 2017 Organizer Venue Tokyo , JAPAN Office of the HOPE Meetings, JSPS E-mail [email protected] Tel: +81-3-3263-2414 Fax:+81-3-3234-3700 HOPE MEETINGS with Nobel Laureates Organizing Committee of the HOPE Meetings ■ Chair Makoto Kobayashi <Nobel Laureate in Physics 2008> Honorary Professor Emeritus, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK) ■ Members Noriko Osumi Mitsuhiko Shionoya Tohoku University The University of Tokyo Takaaki Kajita <Nobel Laureate in Physics 2015> Yousuke Takahama The University of Tokyo Tokushima University Kazuhiro Kosuge Fumio Hanaoka Tohoku University Tsukuba University Program of the HOPE Meeting The program -
Daniel Kahneman Curriculum Vitae August 2016
Daniel Kahneman Curriculum Vitae August 2016 Born: 1934, Tel Aviv, Israel Citizenship: US, Israel Education Ph.D. University of California, Berkeley, 1961 (Psychology) B.A. The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1954, (Psychology and Mathematics) Professional Positions Held 2007- Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs, Emeritus, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University 2007- Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology, Emeritus, Princeton University 2000- Fellow, Center for Rationality, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1993-2007 Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology, Princeton University 1993-2007 Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University 1991-1992 Visiting Scholar, Russell Sage Foundation 1986-1994 Professor of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley 1984-1986 Associate Fellow, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research 1978-1986 Professor of Psychology, The University of British Columbia 1977-1978 Fellow, Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences 1968-1969 Visiting Scientist (summers), Applied Psychological Research Unit, Cambridge, England 1966-1967 Fellow, Center for Cognitive Studies; Lecturer in Psychology, Harvard University 1965-1966 Visiting Scientist, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan 1961-1978 Lecturer to Professor, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel LINKS TO RECENT LECTURES Video and Audio Links “Interview with Leif Nelson,” The Society for Judgment and Decision Making, November 2015. “Thinking That We Know”, Sackler Colloquium to the National Academy -
Mass Spectrometer, Mr
Messages from Modern Inventors to the Next Generations 5. Mass Spectrometer, Mr. Koichi Tanaka, Shimadzu Corporation “Mass spectrometry” means “to determine the weight of an object.” It is crucially important to be able to determine the weight (mass) and structures of the proteins that make up living matter when diagnosing diseases and developing new drugs. Nevertheless, determining the mass of proteins, which are very small and consist of molecules, requires a variety of techniques. Mr. Tanaka created the first invention in the world to make possible the “ionization of proteins without decomposition,” which is necessary to determine the mass of proteins. For this accomplishment, he was awarded the Nobel Prize and recognized as the twelfth Japanese Nobel Laureate. What inspired you to become an inventor/researcher? When I was a child, I preferred to think and act for myself, rather than to do just what I was told to do, which is still the way I am now. Thanks in part to the instructional approaches used by my teachers, it was truly a pleasure to participate in a science class and especially experiments, in which I was pleased to discover what had been unknown or what I had not known, rather than to find out textbook results. I was fond of science and experiments and grew up in a place rich in nature, all of which made me think of studying science in the future. Especially, in my childhood, new electric appliances and cars were being developed one after another, dramatically improving our daily lives, so it was no wonder that individuals attracted to science and experiments like me aspired to become engineers. -
511795 Chicago LR 73#3.Ps
Judges as Rulemakers Emily Sherwin† In Do Cases Make Bad Law?, Frederick Schauer raises some se- rious questions about the process of judicial lawmaking.1 Schauer takes issue with the widely held assumption that judge-made law benefits from the court’s focus on a particular real-world dispute.2 Writing with characteristic eloquence, Schauer argues that the need to resolve a concrete dispute does not enhance the ability of judges to craft sound rules, but instead generates cognitive biases that distort judicial development of legal rules. Schauer’s observations about the risks of rulemaking in an adju- dicatory setting are very persuasive. Yet his overall assessment of the common law process may be too severe. In this Essay, I shall suggest that common law decisionmaking, at least in its more traditional forms, has features that can counteract the biases that worry Schauer and provide at least some protection from the errors his theory pre- dicts. Specifically, the common judicial practices of consulting prece- dent decisions and seeking analogies in the facts of prior cases broaden the perspective of judges and allow them to better assess the consequences of proposed rules. This is so even if following precedent and reasoning by analogy are not otherwise defensible. I. SCHAUER’S CASE AGAINST COMMON LAW RULEMAKING Schauer begins with the premise that judges do in fact make law.3 Prior to the twentieth century, jurists often characterized their task as discovery of rules embedded in legal tradition and common practice.4 †Professor of Law, Cornell Law School. 1 See generally Frederick Schauer, Do Cases Make Bad Law?, 73 U Chi L Rev 883 (2006). -
Efficient Algorithms for Computing Approximate Equilibria in Bimatrix
Efficient Algorithms for Computing Approximate Equilibria in Bimatrix, Polymatrix and Lipschitz Games Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of the University of Liverpool for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy by Argyrios Deligkas July 2016 Abstract In this thesis, we study the problem of computing approximate equilibria in sev- eral classes of games. In particular, we study approximate Nash equilibria and approximate well-supported Nash equilibria in polymatrix and bimatrix games and approximate equilibria in Lipschitz games, penalty games and biased games. We construct algorithms for computing approximate equilibria that beat the cur- rent best algorithms for these problems. In Chapter 3, we present a distributed method to compute approximate Nash equilibria in bimatrix games. In contrast to previous approaches that analyze the two payoff matrices at the same time (for example, by solving a single LP that combines the two players' payoffs), our algorithm first solves two independent LPs, each of which is derived from one of the two payoff matrices, and then computes an approximate Nash equilibrium using only limited communication between the players. In Chapter 4, we present an algorithm that, for every δ in the range 0 < δ ≤ 0:5, finds a (0:5+δ)-Nash equilibrium of a polymatrix game in time polynomial in 1 the input size and δ . Note that our approximation guarantee does not depend on the number of players, a property that was not previously known to be achievable for polymatrix games, and still cannot be achieved for general strategic-form games. In Chapter 5, we present an approximation-preserving reduction from the problem of computing an approximate Bayesian Nash equilibrium (-BNE) for a two-player Bayesian game to the problem of computing an -NE of a polymatrix game and thus show that the algorithm of Chapter 4 can be applied to two-player Bayesian games. -
Direct Tests of Cumulative Prospect Theory⇤
Direct Tests of Cumulative Prospect Theory⇤ B. Douglas Bernheim † Charles Sprenger‡ Stanford University and NBER UC San Diego First Draft: December 1, 2014 This Version: November 8, 2016 Abstract Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT), the leading behavioral account of decision making under uncertainty, assumes that the probability weight applied to a given outcome depends on its ranking. This assumption is needed to avoid the violations of dominance implied by Prospect Theory (PT). We devise a simple test involving three-outcome lotteries, based on the implication that compensating adjustments to the payo↵s in two states should depend on their rankings compared with payo↵s in a third state. In an experiment, we are unable to find any support for the assumption of rank dependence. We separately elicit probability weighting functions for the same subjects through conventional techniques involving binary lotteries. These functions imply that changes in payo↵rank should change the compensating adjustments in our three-outcome lotteries by 20-40%, yet we can rule out any change larger than 7% at standard confidence levels. Additional tests nevertheless indicate that the dominance patterns predicted by PT do not arise. We reconcile these findings by positing a form of complexity aversion that generalizes the well-known certainty e↵ect. JEL classification: D81, D90 Keywords:ProspectTheory,CumulativeProspectTheory,RankDependence,CertaintyEquiv- alents. ⇤We are grateful to Ted O’Donoghue, Colin Camerer, Nick Barberis, Kota Saito, and seminar participants at Cornell, Caltech, and Gary’s Conference (UC Santa Barbara) for helpful and thoughtful discussions. Fulya Ersoy, Vincent Leah-Martin, Seung-Keun Martinez, and Alex Kellogg all provided valuable research assistance. -
Relation Exchange As the Model of Bounded Rationality
Relation exchange as the model of bounded rationality June 16, 2017 Sung Sup Rhee Emeritus professor at Soongsil University [email protected] This paper is a preliminary version which is prepared for the presentation at 2017 KEA- APEA conference, July 7-8, 2017. Title: Relation exchange as the model of bounded rationality Author: Sung Sup Rhee/Emeritus professor at Soongsil University/[email protected] Abstracts: Kahneman (2003) presented the scheme of human cognitive system, which presents the steps of sensory order. Human cognition begins with perceptions, from which intuition comes off as fast, parallel, automatic, effortless and emotional system. Reasoning is slow, serial, controlled, effortful and rule-governed system of cognition. The architecture of rational agent model is built on the unrealistic assumption of single cognitive system which has the logical ability of a flawless system of reasoning. However, upon encountering the need to make decision, individuals are likely to act intuitively because intuition is more accessible than reason, which is at odds with the premise of rational agent model and prompts the launching of empiricism approach (Hume 1739). The process of sympathy and consent may be considered as the conduit between different cognitive systems of different individuals. Then, the relational interactions among individuals, i.e. relation exchange should be conceived as the outcome of sympathy-consent process (Rhee 2012b, 2016b). The fundamentality of relation exchange in comparison with value exchange vindicates the legitimacy of relation exchange as the model of bounded rationality. Keywords Cognitive system, accessibility, sympathy-consent process, relation exchange, open/indeterminate system, bounded rationality JEL code: D01, D03 I. -
Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases Author(S): Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman Source: Science, New Series, Vol
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases Author(s): Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 185, No. 4157, (Sep. 27, 1974), pp. 1124-1131 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1738360 Accessed: 15/04/2008 14:50 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaas. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org occupation from a list of possibilities (for example, farmer, salesman, airline pilot, librarian, or physician)? How do people order these occupations from most to least likely? In the representa- Judgment under Uncertainty: tiveness heuristic, the probability that Steve is a librarian, for example, is Heuristics and Biases assessed by the degree to which he is representative of, or similar to, the stereotype of a librarian. -
THE HUMAN SIDE of MECHANISM DESIGN a Tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont
THE HUMAN SIDE OF MECHANISM DESIGN A Tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont Daniel McFadden Department of Economics University of California, Berkeley December 4, 2008 [email protected] http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~mcfadden/index.shtml ABSTRACT This paper considers the human side of mechanism design, the behavior of economic agents in gathering and processing information and responding to incentives. I first give an overview of the subject of mechanism design, and then examine a pervasive premise in this field that economic agents are rational in their information processing and decisions. Examples from applied mechanism design identify the roles of perceptions and inference in agent behavior, and the influence of systematic irrationalities and sociality on agent responses. These examples suggest that tolerance of behavioral faults be added to the criteria for good mechanism design. In principle-agent problems for example, designers should consider using experimental treatments in contracts, and statistical post-processing of agent responses, to identify and mitigate the effects of agent non-compliance with contract incentives. KEYWORDS: mechanism_design, principal-agent_problem, juries, welfare_theory JEL CLASSIFICATION: D000, D600, D610, D710, D800, C420, C700 THE HUMAN SIDE OF MECHANISM DESIGN A Tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont Daniel McFadden1 1. Introduction The study of mechanism design, the systematic analysis of resource allocation institutions and processes, has been the most fundamental development -
Doing the Right Thing: Business Ethics, Moral Indeterminancy & Existentialism
DOING THE RIGHT THING: BUSINESS ETHICS, MORAL INDETERMINANCY & EXISTENTIALISM Charles Sherwood London School of Economics Tutor: Susanne Burri Winner: Postgraduate Category Institute of Business Ethics Student Essay Competition 2017 Introduction Business ethics is a subject of growing interest to academics and practitioners alike. But can moral theory really guide business decision-making? And, can it do so when it matters? i.e. when those decisions get difficult. Difficult managerial decisions have many characteristics. They are important, often hurried, sometimes contentious. But, perhaps above all, they are ambiguous. We are unsure what is the right choice. Imagine the following… Arlette, an executive in a foreign-aid charity, needs to get vital supplies across a frontier to refugee families with children nearing starvation. Her agent on the ground is asked by border guards for a $5,000 bribe, some of which they will pocket personally and the rest of which will help fund a terror campaign. False, dishonest and illegal accounting will be required to disguise the use of the funds from donors and regulators. Arlette is coming up for promotion. She tries to explain the problem to her superior. He is impatient and just tells her to get the job done. Should Arlette allow the agent to pay the bribe? Moral theories struggle to resolve this kind of ambiguity, because they prove indeterminate in one of two ways: either they advocate a single, ‘monolithic’ principle that is all but impossible to apply in complex situations like the above; or they offer an array of principles that individually are more easily applied, yet conflict with each other.