Developing Box-Pushing Behaviours Using Evolutionary Robotics

The context of this report and the IRIDIA laboratory are described in the preface. Evolutionary Robotics and the box-pushing task are presented in the introduction.The building of a test system supporting Evolutionary Robotics experiments is then detailed. This system is made of a robot simulator and a Genetic Algorithm. It is used to explore the possibility of evolving box-pushing behaviours. The bootstrapping problem is explained, and a novel approach for dealing with it is proposed, with results presented.Finally, ideas for extending this approach are presented in the conclusion.

Push or pull? : The relationship between quality of care and use of complementary and alternative medicine among patients with lung cancer in Sweden

Little is known about relationships between quality of care (QoC) and use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among patients with lung cancer (LC). Purpose: This study examines CAM-use among patients with LC in Sweden, associations between QoC and CAM-use among these patients, and reported aspects of LC-care perceived as particularly positive and negative by patients, as well as suggestions for improving QoC. Methods: Survey data from 94 patient members of the Swedish LC patient organization about CAM-use and QoC as measured by the instrument “Quality from the patient’s perspective” were analyzed. Results: Fifty (53%) LC-patients used CAM, with 40 of the CAM-users reporting that CAM helped them. The most common CAMs used were dietary supplements and natural remedies, followed by prayer. Significantly more patients reported using prayer and meditation for cure than was the case for other types of CAM used. Less than half the CAM-users reported having spoken with staff from the biomedical health care system about their CAM-use. Patients provided numerous suggestions for improving LC-care in a variety of areas, aiming at a more effective and cohesive care trajectory. No differences in QoC were found between CAM-users and non-CAM-users, but differences in CAM-use i.e. type of CAM, reasons for using CAM, and CAM-provider consulted could be associated with different experiences of care. Conclusions: It is important to recognize that CAM-users are not a homogeneous group but might seek different types of CAMs and CAM-providers in different situations depending on experiences of care.