The Stormont Papers: 50 years of Northern Ireland Debates Online

This website offers access to the Parliamentary Debates of the devolved government of Northern Ireland from June 7 1921 to the dissolution of Parliament in March 28 1972.

These papers cast a unique and valuable light on the development of the Province. The 92,000 printed pages of Parliamentary Debates are held by few institutions and they have no comprehensive subject index. Hence they have been inaccessible and difficult to use. This project, with the support of academics, archivists and politicians, has taken the Papers and fully digitised them. The resource has been available online since October 2006.

Visitors to the site can search either the full text or specific keywords (for example Prisons, Westminster or Drunkenness), or they can browse particular debates according to the combined subject index, or they can simply view the volumes.

Inference and Declaration of Independence in Task-Parallel Programs

The inherent difficulty of thread-based shared-memory programming has recently motivated research in high-level, task-parallel programming models. Recent advances of Task-Parallel models add implicit synchronization, where the system automatically detects and satisfies data dependencies among spawned tasks. However, dynamic dependence analysis incurs significant runtime overheads, because the runtime must track task resources and use this information to schedule tasks while avoiding conflicts and races.
We present SCOOP, a compiler that effectively integrates static and dynamic analysis in code generation. SCOOP combines context-sensitive points-to, control-flow, escape, and effect analyses to remove redundant dependence checks at runtime. Our static analysis can work in combination with existing dynamic analyses and task-parallel runtimes that use annotations to specify tasks and their memory footprints. We use our static dependence analysis to detect non-conflicting tasks and an existing dynamic analysis to handle the remaining dependencies. We evaluate the resulting hybrid dependence analysis on a set of task-parallel programs.

BDDT: Block-level Dynamic Dependence Analysis for Task-Based Parallelism

We present BDDT, a task-parallel runtime system that dynamically discovers and resolves dependencies among parallel tasks. BDDT allows the programmer to specify detailed task footprints on any memory address range, multidimensional array tile or dynamic region. BDDT uses a block-based dependence analysis with arbitrary granularity. The analysis is applicable to existing C programs without having to restructure object or array allocation, and provides flexibility in array layouts and tile dimensions.
We evaluate BDDT using a representative set of benchmarks, and we compare it to SMPSs (the equivalent runtime system in StarSs) and OpenMP. BDDT performs comparable to or better than SMPSs and is able to cope with task granularity as much as one order of magnitude finer than SMPSs. Compared to OpenMP, BDDT performs up to 3.9× better for benchmarks that benefit from dynamic dependence analysis. BDDT provides additional data annotations to bypass dependence analysis. Using these annotations, BDDT outperforms OpenMP also in benchmarks where dependence analysis does not discover additional parallelism, thanks to a more efficient implementation of the runtime system.

Papers in Italian Archaeology IV, Vol 4 Classical and Medieval.:The Cambridge Conference

Malone , C. and S. Stoddart. (eds.). 1985. Cambridge: British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Papers in Italian Prehistory IV - Vol 2 - Prehistory.:The Cambridge Conference

Malone , C. and S. Stoddart. (eds.). S244 1985. Cambridge: British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Papers in Italian Archaeology IV. Vol. 3. Patterns in Protohistory.:The Cambridge Conference

Malone, C.A.T. and S.K.F. Stoddart. (eds.). S245 1985. Cambridge: British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Papers in Italian Archaeology IV - Vol 1 Landscape in Italian Archaeology:The Cambridge Conference

Malone, C.A.T. and S.K.F. Stoddart. (eds.). IV. S243 1985. Cambridge: British Archaeological Reports.

Adaption and adjustment of military spouses to overseas postings: An online forum study

Little research has examined the impact of being an accompanying spouse on British military foreign postings. The aim of this qualitative study was to investigate the experiences of 13 military spouses from 11 different overseas locations. Data were collected via an online forum and thematic content analysis was conducted. Key findings revealed that, regardless of the location, reactions to overseas posting varied considerably and were related to the military spouse's personality and personal circumstances, as well as their relationship with family, husband and their support networks. Spouses experienced a loss of control over their lives that was in some cases psychologically distressing. The findings corroborate and extend the findings from a previous study that was limited to one location, further highlighting the need for pre-established support resources from the military and healthcare professionals to be readily accessible for all military spouses. Importantly, such support provision may also facilitate the military spouse in regaining some control over their everyday life, enhancing their well-being and the experience for the family.

Accountability and its Metaphors: From Forum to Agora and Bazaar

In this paper we seek to develop a ‘relational’ perspective on accountability and on so-called ‘unaccountability.’. We focus on Mark Bovens’s use of the forum metaphor in his accountability model, arguing that his relational perspective is too narrow. We advocate instead a far broader and more fundamental engagement with the idea of relational accountability. Expanding the metaphors, we point to two other accountability spaces: ‘agora,’ a primordial accountability space and ‘bazaar,’ an emergent accountability space rooted in ground-level exchange between different actors. Assertions about ‘unaccountability,’ we argue, very often reflect a failure to appreciate the fundamentally relational nature of accountability: those who use such assertions as bases for action aimed at making situations, processes or people ‘more accountable’ in fact seek to assert or impose a certain form of relationship – one that is hierarchical and monopolistic – and reflect therefore a drive to power and domination.