A Review of the Arcuate Structures in the Iberian Variscides; Constraints and Genetical Models

In the Iberian Variscides several first order arcuate structures have been considered. In spite of being highly studied their characterization, formation mechanisms and even existence is still debatable. Themain Ibero-Armorican Arc (IAA) is essentially defined by a predominantNW–SE trend in the Iberian branch and an E–Wtrend in the Brittany one. However, in northern Spain it presents a 180° rotation, sometimes known as the Cantabrian Arc (CA). The relation between both arcs is controversial, being considered either as a single arc due to one tectonic event, or as the result of a polyphasic process. According to the last assumption, there is a later arcuate structure (CA), overlapping a previousmajor one (IAA). Whatever themodels, they must be able to explain the presence of a Variscan sinistral transpression in Iberia and a dextral one in Armorica, and a deformation spanning from the Devonian to the Upper Carboniferous. Another arcuate structure, in continuity with the CA, the Central-Iberian Arc (CIA) was recently proposed mainly based upon on magnetic anomalies, geometry of major folds and Ordovician paleocurrents. The critical review of the structural, stratigraphic and geophysical data supports both the IAA and the CA, but as independent structures. However, the presence of a CIA is highly questionable and could not be supported. The complex strain pattern of the IAA and the CA could be explained by a Devonian — Carboniferous polyphasic indentation of a Gondwana promontory. In thismodel the CA is essentially a thin-skinned arc,while the IAA has a more complex and longer evolution that has led to a thick-skinned first order structure. Nevertheless, both arcs are essentially the result of a lithospheric bending process during the Iberian Variscides.

the health and well-being of nursing students in clinical practice . what prevents it? what promotes it?

Introduction: The training of nursing students in the context of clinical practice, is characterized by educational experiences, subject to various emotional stress (stress, ambivalence, frustration, conflict), sometimes making it very vulnerable student.However not all students use the same strategies minimizing their meanings and negative effects on the level of your health and well-being Objetiv:To analyze the perception that nursing students have about the determinants of their health status and well-being in clinical practice Methods: Exploratory research Results:The results reveal the complexity of the teaching / learning process in clinical practice, identified determinants that limit and / or promote health and well-being of students, or not contributing to their motivation, self-confidence and learning. All students value the presence of the following dimensions: affective-emotional (humanization in learning experiences); relational dynamics (interactions developed with all stakeholders); methods used (professional competence of the clinical supervisor and teacher); school curriculum (adaptation of learning in theory); socialization to the profession (become nurse).Conclusions: The results indicate, that although all students evidencing the dimensions described as fundamental to learning in clinical practice, the study results are dichotomous and ambivalent. Students 2nd and 3ºanos refer a low perception in clinical practice, the indicated dimensions, and for these source of concern and uncertainty in learning, such as limiting their health condition and well-being. For students of the 4th year, these dimensions are percecionadas as gifts, and sources of motivation, learning and catalysts such as promoting their health and well-being.