1. |
- Kanai, M, et al.
(author)
-
- 2023
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
2. |
- Niemi, MEK, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
3. |
- Aamodt, K., et al.
(author)
-
The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC
- 2008
-
In: Journal of Instrumentation. - 1748-0221. ; 3:S08002
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- ALICE (A Large Ion Collider Experiment) is a general-purpose, heavy-ion detector at the CERN LHC which focuses on QCD, the strong-interaction sector of the Standard Model. It is designed to address the physics of strongly interacting matter and the quark-gluon plasma at extreme values of energy density and temperature in nucleus-nucleus collisions. Besides running with Pb ions, the physics programme includes collisions with lighter ions, lower energy running and dedicated proton-nucleus runs. ALICE will also take data with proton beams at the top LHC energy to collect reference data for the heavy-ion programme and to address several QCD topics for which ALICE is complementary to the other LHC detectors. The ALICE detector has been built by a collaboration including currently over 1000 physicists and engineers from 105 Institutes in 30 countries, Its overall dimensions are 16 x 16 x 26 m(3) with a total weight of approximately 10 000 t. The experiment consists of 18 different detector systems each with its own specific technology choice and design constraints, driven both by the physics requirements and the experimental conditions expected at LHC. The most stringent design constraint is to cope with the extreme particle multiplicity anticipated in central Pb-Pb collisions. The different subsystems were optimized to provide high-momentum resolution as well as excellent Particle Identification (PID) over a broad range in momentum, up to the highest multiplicities predicted for LHC. This will allow for comprehensive studies of hadrons, electrons, muons, and photons produced in the collision of heavy nuclei. Most detector systems are scheduled to be installed and ready for data taking by mid-2008 when the LHC is scheduled to start operation, with the exception of parts of the Photon Spectrometer (PHOS), Transition Radiation Detector (TRD) and Electro Magnetic Calorimeter (EMCal). These detectors will be completed for the high-luminosity ion run expected in 2010. This paper describes in detail the detector components as installed for the first data taking in the summer of 2008.
|
|
4. |
|
|
5. |
|
|
6. |
|
|
7. |
|
|
8. |
- Bousquet, J., et al.
(author)
-
Building Bridges for Innovation in Ageing : Synergies between Action Groups of the EIP on AHA
- 2017
-
In: The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging. - : Springer Nature. - 1279-7707 .- 1760-4788. ; 21:1, s. 92-104
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The Strategic Implementation Plan of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP on AHA) proposed six Action Groups. After almost three years of activity, many achievements have been obtained through commitments or collaborative work of the Action Groups. However, they have often worked in silos and, consequently, synergies between Action Groups have been proposed to strengthen the triple win of the EIP on AHA. The paper presents the methodology and current status of the Task Force on EIP on AHA synergies. Synergies are in line with the Action Groups' new Renovated Action Plan (2016-2018) to ensure that their future objectives are coherent and fully connected. The outcomes and impact of synergies are using the Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the EIP on AHA (MAFEIP). Eight proposals for synergies have been approved by the Task Force: Five cross-cutting synergies which can be used for all current and future synergies as they consider overarching domains (appropriate polypharmacy, citizen empowerment, teaching and coaching on AHA, deployment of synergies to EU regions, Responsible Research and Innovation), and three cross-cutting synergies focussing on current Action Group activities (falls, frailty, integrated care and chronic respiratory diseases).
|
|
9. |
- Sabatini, F. M., et al.
(author)
-
sPlotOpen - An environmentally balanced, open-access, global dataset of vegetation plots
- 2021
-
In: Global Ecology and Biogeography. - : Wiley. - 1466-822X .- 1466-8238.
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Motivation Assessing biodiversity status and trends in plant communities is critical for understanding, quantifying and predicting the effects of global change on ecosystems. Vegetation plots record the occurrence or abundance of all plant species co-occurring within delimited local areas. This allows species absences to be inferred, information seldom provided by existing global plant datasets. Although many vegetation plots have been recorded, most are not available to the global research community. A recent initiative, called 'sPlot', compiled the first global vegetation plot database, and continues to grow and curate it. The sPlot database, however, is extremely unbalanced spatially and environmentally, and is not open-access. Here, we address both these issues by (a) resampling the vegetation plots using several environmental variables as sampling strata and (b) securing permission from data holders of 105 local-to-regional datasets to openly release data. We thus present sPlotOpen, the largest open-access dataset of vegetation plots ever released. sPlotOpen can be used to explore global diversity at the plant community level, as ground truth data in remote sensing applications, or as a baseline for biodiversity monitoring. Main types of variable contained Vegetation plots (n = 95,104) recording cover or abundance of naturally co-occurring vascular plant species within delimited areas. sPlotOpen contains three partially overlapping resampled datasets (c. 50,000 plots each), to be used as replicates in global analyses. Besides geographical location, date, plot size, biome, elevation, slope, aspect, vegetation type, naturalness, coverage of various vegetation layers, and source dataset, plot-level data also include community-weighted means and variances of 18 plant functional traits from the TRY Plant Trait Database. Spatial location and grain Global, 0.01-40,000 m(2). Time period and grain 1888-2015, recording dates. Major taxa and level of measurement 42,677 vascular plant taxa, plot-level records. Software format Three main matrices (.csv), relationally linked.
|
|
10. |
- Sloot, Frea, et al.
(author)
-
Inventory of current EU paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes
- 2015
-
In: Journal of Medical Screening. - : SAGE Publications. - 0969-1413 .- 1475-5793. ; 22:2, s. 55-64
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: To examine the diversity in paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in Europe. Methods: Themes for comparison of screening programmes derived from literature were used to compile three questionnaires on vision, hearing, and public health screening. Tests used, professions involved, age, and frequency of testing seem to influence sensitivity, specificity, and costs most. Questionnaires were sent to ophthalmologists, orthoptists, otolaryngologists, and audiologists involved in paediatric screening in all EU full-member, candidate, and associate states. Answers were cross-checked. Results: Thirty-nine countries participated; 35 have a vision screening programme, 33 a nation-wide neonatal hearing screening programme. Visual acuity (VA) is measured in 35 countries, in 71% of these more than once. First measurement of VA varies from three to seven years of age, but is usually before age five. At age three and four, picture charts, including Lea Hyvarinen, are used most; in children over four, Tumbling-E and Snellen. As first hearing screening test, otoacoustic emission is used most in healthy neonates, and auditory brainstem response in premature newborns. The majority of hearing testing programmes are staged; children are referred after 1–4 abnormal tests. Vision screening is performed mostly by paediatricians, ophthalmologists, or nurses. Funding is mostly by health insurance or state. Coverage was reported as >95% in half of countries, but reporting was often not first-hand. Conclusion: Largest differences were found in VA charts used (12), professions involved in vision screening (10), number of hearing screening tests before referral (1–4), and funding sources (8).
|
|