Do technology shocks drive hours up or down? A little evidence from an agnostic procedure

This paper analyzes the robustness of the estimate of a positive productivity shock on hours to the presence of a possible unit root in hours. Estimations in levels or in first differences provide opposite conclusions. We rely on an agnostic procedure in which the researcher does not have to choose between a specification in levels or in first differences. We find that a positive productivity shock has a negative impact effect on hours, but the effect is much shorter lived, and disappears after two quarters. The effect becomes positive at business-cycle frequencies, although it is not significant. © 2005 Cambridge University Press.

Memorability as a measure of processing: a unit analysis of prose and list learning.

The percentage of subjects recalling each unit in a list or prose passage is considered as a dependent measure. When the same units are recalled in different tasks, processing is assumed to be the same; when different units are recalled, processing is assumed to be different. Two collections of memory tasks are presented, one for lists and one for prose. The relations found in these two collections are supported by an extensive reanalysis of the existing prose memory literature. The same set of words were learned by 13 different groups of subjects under 13 different conditions. Included were intentional free-recall tasks, incidental free recall following lexical decision, and incidental free recall following ratings of orthographic distinctiveness and emotionality. Although the nine free-recall tasks varied widely with regard to the amount of recall, the relative probability of recall for the words was very similar among the tasks. Imagery encoding and recognition produced relative probabilities of recall that were different from each other and from the free-recall tasks. Similar results were obtained with a prose passage. A story was learned by 13 different groups of subjects under 13 different conditions. Eight free-recall tasks, which varied with respect to incidental or intentional learning, retention interval, and the age of the subjects, produced similar relative probabilities of recall, whereas recognition and prompted recall produced relative probabilities of recall that were different from each other and from the free-recall tasks. A review of the prose literature was undertaken to test the generality of these results. Analysis of variance is the most common statistical procedure in this literature. If the relative probability of recall of units varied across conditions, a units by condition interaction would be expected. For the 12 studies that manipulated retention interval, an average of 21% of the variance was accounted for by the main effect of retention interval, 17% by the main effect of units, and only 2% by the retention interval by units interaction. Similarly, for the 12 studies that varied the age of the subjects, 6% of the variance was accounted for by the main effect of age, 32% by the main effect of units, and only 1% by the interaction of age by units.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Analysis of traumatic injuries presenting to a referral hospital emergency department in Moshi, Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Injuries represent a significant and growing public health concern in the developing world, yet their impact on patients and the emergency health-care system in the countries of East Africa has received limited attention. This study evaluates the magnitude and scope of injury related disorders in the population presenting to a referral hospital emergency department in northern Tanzania. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients presenting to the emergency department at Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre was performed. A standardized data collection form was used for data abstraction from the emergency department logbook and the complete medical record for all injured patients. Patient demographics, mechanism of injury, location, type and outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Ten thousand six hundred twenty-two patients presented to the emergency department for evaluation and treatment during the 7-month study period. One thousand two hundred twenty-four patients (11.5%) had injuries. Males and individuals aged 15 to 44 years were most frequently injured, representing 73.4% and 57.8%, respectively. Road traffic injuries were the most common mechanism of injury, representing 43.9% of injuries. Head injuries (36.5%) and extremity injuries (59.5%) were the most common location of injury. The majority of injured patients, 59.3%, were admitted from the emergency department to the hospital wards, and 5.6%, required admission to an intensive care unit. Death occurred in 5.4% of injured patients. CONCLUSIONS: These data give a detailed and more robust picture of the patient demographics, mechanisms of injury, types of injury and patient outcomes from similar resource-limited settings.