5 resultados para The Inclusive Community Building Ellison Model
em Helda - Digital Repository of University of Helsinki
Resumo:
We present a search for standard model (SM) Higgs boson production using ppbar collision data at sqrt(s) = 1.96 TeV, collected with the CDF II detector and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 4.8 fb-1. We search for Higgs bosons produced in all processes with a significant production rate and decaying to two W bosons. We find no evidence for SM Higgs boson production and place upper limits at the 95% confidence level on the SM production cross section (sigma(H)) for values of the Higgs boson mass (m_H) in the range from 110 to 200 GeV. These limits are the most stringent for m_H > 130 GeV and are 1.29 above the predicted value of sigma(H) for mH = 165 GeV.
Resumo:
In a search for new phenomena in a signature suppressed in the standard model of elementary particles (SM), we compare the inclusive production of events containing a lepton, a photon, significant transverse momentum imbalance (MET), and a jet identified as containing a b-quark, to SM predictions. The search uses data produced in proton-antiproton collisions at 1.96 TeV corresponding to 1.9 fb-1 of integrated luminosity taken with the CDF detector at the Fermilab Tevatron. We find 28 lepton+photon+MET+b events versus an expectation of 31.0+4.1/-3.5 events. If we further require events to contain at least three jets and large total transverse energy, simulations predict that the largest SM source is top-quark pair production with an additional radiated photon, ttbar+photon. In the data we observe 16 ttbar+photon candidate events versus an expectation from SM sources of 11.2+2.3/-2.1. Assuming the difference between the observed number and the predicted non-top-quark total is due to SM top quark production, we estimate the ttg cross section to be 0.15 +- 0.08 pb.
Resumo:
Due to the improved prognosis of many forms of cancer, an increasing number of cancer survivors are willing to return to work after their treatment. It is generally believed, however, that people with cancer are either unemployed, stay at home, or retire more often than people without cancer. This study investigated the problems that cancer survivors experience on the labour market, as well as the disease-related, sociodemographic and psychosocial factors at work that are associated with the employment and work ability of cancer survivors. The impact of cancer on employment was studied combining the data of Finnish Cancer Registry and census data of the years 1985, 1990, 1995 or 1997 of Statistics Finland. There were two data sets containing 46 312 and 12 542 people with cancer. The results showed that cancer survivors were slightly less often employed than their referents. Two to three years after the diagnosis the employment rate of the cancer survivors was 9% lower than that of their referents (64% vs. 73%), whereas the employment rate was the same before the diagnosis (78%). The employment rate varied greatly according to the cancer type and education. The probability of being employed was greater in the lower than in the higher educational groups. People with cancer were less often employed than people without cancer mainly because of their higher retirement rate (34% vs. 27%). As well as employment, retirement varied by cancer type. The risk of retirement was twofold for people having cancer of the nervous system or people with leukaemia compared to their referents, whereas people with skin cancer, for example, did not have an increased risk of retirement. The aim of the questionnaire study was to investigate whether the work ability of cancer survivors differs from that of people without cancer and whether cancer had impaired their work ability. There were 591 cancer survivors and 757 referents in the data. Even though current work ability of cancer survivors did not differ between the survivors and their referents, 26% of cancer survivors reported that their physical work ability, and 19% that their mental work ability had deteriorated due to cancer. The survivors who had other diseases or had had chemotherapy, most often reported impaired work ability, whereas survivors with a strong commitment to their work organization, or a good social climate at work, reported impairment less frequently. The aim of the other questionnaire study containing 640 people with the history of cancer was to examine extent of social support that cancer survivors needed, and had received from their work community. The cancer survivors had received most support from their co-workers, and they hoped for more support especially from the occupational health care personnel (39% of women and 29% of men). More support was especially needed by men who had lymphoma, had received chemotherapy or had a low education level. The results of this study show that the majority of the survivors are able to return to work. There is, however, a group of cancer survivors who leave work life early, have impaired work ability due to their illness, and suffer from lack of support from their work place and the occupational health services. Treatment-related, as well as sociodemographic factors play an important role in survivors' work-related problems, and presumably their possibilities to continue working.
Resumo:
Marketing of goods under geographical names has always been common. Aims to prevent abuse have given rise to separate forms of legal protection for geographical indications (GIs) both nationally and internationally. The European Community (EC) has also gradually enacted its own legal regime to protect geographical indications. The legal protection of GIs has traditionally been based on the idea that geographical origin endows a product exclusive qualities and characteristics. In today s world we are able to replicate almost any prod-uct anywhere, including its qualities and characteristics. One would think that this would preclude protec-tion from most geographical names, yet the number of geographical indications seems to be rising. GIs are no longer what they used to be. In the EC it is no longer required that a product is endowed exclusive characteristics by its geographical origin as long as consumers associate the product with a certain geo-graphical origin. This departure from the traditional protection of GIs is based on the premise that a geographical name extends beyond and exists apart from the product and therefore deserves protection itself. The thesis tries to clearly articulate the underlying reasons, justifications, principles and policies behind the protection of GIs in the EC and then scrutinise the scope and shape of the GI system in the light of its own justifications. The essential questions it attempts to aswer are (1) What is the basis and criteria for granting GI rights? (2) What is the scope of protection afforded to GIs? and (3) Are these both justified in the light of the functions and policies underlying granting and protecting of GIs? Despite the differences, the actual functions of GIs are in many ways identical to those of trade marks. Geographical indications have a limited role as source and quality indicators in allowing consumers to make informed and efficient choices in the market place. In the EC this role is undermined by allowing able room and discretion for uses that are arbitrary. Nevertheless, generic GIs are unable to play this role. The traditional basis for justifying legal protection seems implausible in most case. Qualities and charac-teristics are more likely to be related to transportable skill and manufacturing methods than the actual geographical location of production. Geographical indications are also incapable of protecting culture from market-induced changes. Protection against genericness, against any misuse, imitation and evocation as well as against exploiting the reputation of a GI seem to be there to protect the GI itself. Expanding or strengthening the already existing GI protection or using it to protect generic GIs cannot be justified with arguments on terroir or culture. The conclusion of the writer is that GIs themselves merit protection only in extremely rare cases and usually only the source and origin function of GIs should be protected. The approach should not be any different from one taken in trade mark law. GI protection should not be used as a means to mo-nopolise names. At the end of the day, the scope of GI protection is nevertheless a policy issue.