Brock vs Western (1982)

Brock tries around Western goalie. Pictured here are Roger Vanoosteven to the left and Joe D'Annunzio to the right.

Brock vs McMaster (1989)

Pictured here are Ken Thorup (#5) and Chris Hayes (#9). #14 is unknown. Brock won 15/13, 14/16, 15/13, 4/15, 15/12.

Brock vs Concordia

Marty Calder of Brock wrestles Anthony Merlo of Concordia. This photograph has been translated into a painting which can now be seen just outside the Ian D. Beddis Gymnasium.

Comparison of non-HDL cholesterol and waist circumference vs. triglyceride levels and waist circumference in predicting coronary heart disease risk

BACKGROUND: Dyslipidemia is recognized as a major cause of coronary heart disease (CHD). Emerged evidence suggests that the combination of triglycerides (TG) and waist circumference can be used to predict the risk of CHD. However, considering the known limitations of TG, non-high-density lipoprotein (non-HDL = Total cholesterol - HDL cholesterol) cholesterol and waist circumference model may be a better predictor of CHD. PURPOSE: The Framingham Offspring Study data were used to determine if combined non-HDL cholesterol and waist circumference is equivalent to or better than TG and waist circumference (hypertriglyceridemic waist phenotype) in predicting risk of CHD. METHODS: A total of3,196 individuals from Framingham Offspring Study, aged ~ 40 years old, who fasted overnight for ~ 9 hours, and had no missing information on nonHDL cholesterol, TG levels, and waist circumference measurements, were included in the analysis. Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (ROC) Area Under the Curve (AUC) was used to compare the predictive ability of non-HDL cholesterol and waist circumference and TG and waist circumference. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to examine the association between the joint distributions of non-HDL cholesterol, waist circumference, and non-fatal CHD; TG, waist circumference, and non-fatal CHD; and the joint distribution of non-HDL cholesterol and TG by waist circumference strata, after adjusting for age, gender, smoking, alcohol consumption, diabetes, and hypertension status. RESULTS: The ROC AUC associated with non-HDL cholesterol and waist circumference and TG and waist circumference are 0.6428 (CI: 0.6183, 0.6673) and 0.6299 (CI: 0.6049, 0.6548) respectively. The difference in the ROC AVC is 1.29%. The p-value testing if the difference in the ROC AVCs between the two models is zero is 0.10. There was a strong positive association between non-HDL cholesterol and the risk for non-fatal CHD within each TO levels than that for TO levels within each level of nonHDL cholesterol, especially in individuals with high waist circumference status. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the model including non-HDL cholesterol and waist circumference may be superior at predicting CHD compared to the model including TO and waist circumference.

The effects of estimating good vs. poor knowledge of results during acquisition of a spatial motor task

Recent studies have shown that providing learners Knowledge of Results (KR) after “good trials” rather than “poor trials” is superior for learning. The present study examined whether requiring participants to estimate their three best or three worst trials in a series of six trial blocks before receiving KR would prove superior to learning compared to not estimating their performance. Participants were required to push and release a slide along a confined pathway using their non-dominant hand to a target distance (133cm). The retention and transfer data suggest those participants who received KR after good trials demonstrated superior learning and performance estimations compared to those receiving KR after poor trials. The results of the present experiment offer an important theoretical extension in our understanding of the role of KR content and performance estimation on motor skill learning.

Summons - Shaw vs. Hoover et al. 1851

A summons to Henry Hoover of the Township of Thorold in the county of Welland, William Cowan of the Village of Dunville in the county of Haldimand, James Park and John H. Casper of the township of Thorold in the county of Welland.

Presentation from the Office of Macdonald and Rykert regarding the Case of O'Connor vs. the Great Western Railway Co.

Presentation from the Office of Macdonald and Rykert regarding the Case of O’Connor vs. the Great Western Railway Co. This is a handwritten, 9 ½ page double sided document). Some of the witnesses for the plaintiff included: Robert Johnson, John Ryder, Edward Duffy, Gilbert Gregory, John Cutter, James Patterson, Samuel Rush and Francis Bigger, among others. They claimed that the Great Western Railway Co. was destroying their land. Jacob Dittrick claimed that the culverts were not large enough to carry off water. Mr. Jackson noticed injury to his flats. Wild grass was destroying the bottom grass, May 6, 1836.

Alleviating Negative Spillover of a Brand-Harm Crisis: Sensegiving vs. Sensehiding in a Competitor’s Denial Response Strategy

A brand-harm crisis not only affects the scandalized brand, but may also influence competing brands. Thus, marketers of competing brands need to develop response strategies for reducing negative spillover effects. This research takes a competitor’s perspective and introduces two types of response strategies used to convey a sense of denial: sensegiving and sensehiding. It also investigates how the effects of response strategies are contingent upon brand relatedness and individual thinking styles. The results from three experimental studies show that using a sensegiving strategy reduces negative spillover effects more than using a sensehiding strategy. Additionally, the studies suggest that the observed difference in the effects of response strategy tends to be greater when the level of brand relatedness is high than when it is low. However, individual thinking styles (holistic vs. analytic) seem to have little impact on consumers’ responses to the two denial strategies. This research contributes to the brand-harm crisis literature and provides novel insights into a competitor’s response to potential negative spillover effects.