LaGuardia Insider Newsletter, Spring 1997

- Spring 1997: LaGuardia Community College/CUNY - Editorial Advisory Board for Insider Newsletter: Editor-in-Chief, Randy Fader-Smith: Institutional Advancement, Susan Blandi: Adult and Continuing Education, Stephanie Cooper: Academic Affairs, Bill Kelly:

LaGuardia Insider Newsletter, Winter 1997

- Winter 1997: LaGuardia Community College/CUNY - Editorial Advisory Board for Insider Newsletter: Susan Blandi: Adult and Continuing Education, Stephanie Cooper: Academic Affairs, Randy Fader-Smith: Institutional Advancement, Bill Kelly: Student Affairs,

LaGuardia Insider Newsletter, Spring 1998

- Spring 1998: LaGuardia Community College/CUNY - Editorial Advisory Board for Insider Newsletter: Editor-in-Chief, Randy Fader-Smith: Institutional Advancement, Designer, Dale Cohen, Institutional Advancement, Susan Blandi: Adult and Continuing Education

LaGuardia Insider Newsletter, Fall 1998

- Fall 1998: LaGuardia Community College/CUNY - Editor-in-Chief, Randy Fader-Smith: Institutional Advancement, Designer, Dale Cohen, Institutional Advancement. Editorial Advisory Board: Susan Blandi: Adult and Continuing Education, Bill Kelly: Student Aff

LaGuardia Insider Newsletter, Spring 1999

- Spring 1999: LaGuardia Community College/CUNY - Editor-in-Chief, Randy Fader-Smith: Institutional Advancement, Designer, Dale Cohen, Institutional Advancement. Editorial Advisory Board: Susan Blandi: Adult and Continuing Education, Bill Kelly: Student A

LaGuardia Insider Newsletter, Winter 2000

- Winter 2000: LaGuardia Community College/CUNY - Editor-in-Chief, Randy Fader-Smith: Institutional Advancement, Designer, Dale Cohen, Institutional Advancement. Editorial Advisory Board: Susan Blandi: Adult and Continuing Education, Bill Kelly: Student A

Poder público, processo educativo e população: o caso da estação ecológica de Angatuba, SP, Brasil

Pós-graduação em Educação - IBRC

Construindo indicadores para a paisagem do Parque Estadual da Serra do Mar - Núcleo Santa Virgínia

Pós-graduação em Geografia - IGCE

Analysis of nonlinear dynamics of vocal folds using high-speed video observation and biomechanical modeling

Primary voice production occurs in the larynx through vibrational movements carried out by vocal folds. However, many problems can affect this complex system resulting in voice disorders. In this context, time-frequency-shape analysis based on embedding phase space plots and nonlinear dynamics methods have been used to evaluate the vocal fold dynamics during phonation. For this purpose, the present work used high-speed video to record the vocal fold movements of three subjects and extract the glottal area time series using an image segmentation algorithm. This signal is used for an optimization method which combines genetic algorithms and a quasi-Newton method to optimize the parameters of a biomechanical model of vocal folds based on lumped elements (masses, springs and dampers). After optimization, this model is capable of simulating the dynamics of recorded vocal folds and their glottal pulse. Bifurcation diagrams and phase space analysis were used to evaluate the behavior of this deterministic system in different circumstances. The results showed that this methodology can be used to extract some physiological parameters of vocal folds and reproduce some complex behaviors of these structures contributing to the scientific and clinical evaluation of voice production. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Zu den Ergebnissen des Modellprojektes der Techniker-Krankenkasse zum Qualitätsmonitoring in der ambulanten Psychotherapie - eine Replik des wissenschaftlichen Beirats

Zur Versachlichung der Diskussion über die TK-Studie zum Effekt eines Qualitätsmonitorings in der ambulanten Psychotherapie hat der wissenschaftliche Beirat die Ergebnisse aus seiner Sichtweise dargestellt. Zur Hauptfragestellung wird der Abschlussbericht zitiert, der bestätigt, dass es sich um eine konfirmatorische Untersuchung handelte. Im Kern sollte sie die Hypothesen zur Überlegenheit des TK-Modells gegenüber dem Verfahren der Gutachterverfahren überprüfen. Beim TK-Modell handelt es sich um eine „Komplexintervention“, die aus mehreren Bausteinen bestand. Die Studienergebnisse lassen somit nur die Aussage zu, dass diese Komplexintervention in ihrer Kombination keine Überlegenheit gezeigt hat. Ob einzelne Bausteine Wirksamkeit hatten, bedarf weiterer Forschung. Schließlich werden das Repräsentativitäts- und das Selektivitätsproblem der Studie bzw. der verwertbaren Stichproben erläutert und mit Verweis auf die Literatur wird deren Relevanz dargelegt.

A Research Roadmap for Complementary and Alternative Medicine – What We Need to Know by 2020

Background: The CAMbrella coordination action was funded within the Framework Programme 7. Its aim is to provide a research roadmap for clinical and epidemiological research for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is appropriate for the health needs of European citizens and acceptable to their national research institutes and healthcare providers in both public and private sectors. One major issue in the European research agenda is the demographic change and its impact on health care. Our vision for 2020 is that there is an evidence base that enables European citizens to make informed decisions about CAM, both positive and negative. This roadmap proposes a strategic research agenda for the field of CAM designed to address future European health care challenges. This roadmap is based on the results of CAMbrella’s several work packages, literature reviews and expert discussions including a consensus meeting. Methods: We first conducted a systematic literature review on key issues in clinical and epidemiological research in CAM to identify the general concepts, methods and the strengths and weaknesses of current CAM research. These findings were discussed in a workshop (Castellaro, Italy, September 7–9th 2011) with international CAM experts and strategic and methodological recommendations were defined in order to improve the rigor and relevance of CAM research. These recommendations provide the basis for the research roadmap, which was subsequently discussed in a consensus conference (Järna, Sweden, May 9–11th 2012) with all CAMbrella members and the CAMbrella advisory board. The roadmap was revised after this discussion in CAMbrella Work Package (WP) 7 and finally approved by CAMbrella’s scientific steering committee on September 26th 2012. Results: Our main findings show that CAM is very heterogenous in terms of definitions and legal regulations between the European countries. In addition, citizens’ needs and attitudes towards CAM as well as the use and provision of CAM differ significantly between countries. In terms of research methodology, there was consensus that CAM researchers should make use of all the commonly accepted scientific research methods and employ those with utmost diligence combined in a mixed methods framework. Conclusions: We propose 6 core areas of research that should be investigated to achieve a robust knowledge base and to allow stakeholders to make informed decisions. These are: Research into the prevalence of CAM in Europe: Reviews show that we do not know enough about the circumstances in which CAM is used by Europeans. To enable a common European strategic approach, a clear picture of current use is of the utmost importance. Research into differences regarding citizens’ attitudes and needs towards CAM: Citizens are the driver for CAM utilization. Their needs and views on CAM are a key priority, and their interests must be investigated and addressed in future CAM research. Research into safety of CAM: Safety is a key issue for European citizens. CAM is considered safe, but reliable data is scarce although urgently needed in order to assess the risk and cost-benefit ratio of CAM. Research into the comparative effectiveness of CAM: Everybody needs to know in what situation CAM is a reasonable choice. Therefore, we recommend a clear emphasis on concurrent evaluation of the overall effectiveness of CAM as an additional or alternative treatment strategy in real-world settings. Research into effects of context and meaning: The impact of effects of context and meaning on the outcome of CAM treatments must be investigated; it is likely that they are significant. Research into different models of CAM health care integration: There are different models of CAM being integrated into conventional medicine throughout Europe, each with their respective strengths and limitations. These models should be described and concurrently evaluated; innovative models of CAM provision in health care systems should be one focus for CAM research. We also propose a methodological framework for CAM research. We consider that a framework of mixed methodological approaches is likely to yield the most useful information. In this model, all available research strategies including comparative effectiveness research utilising quantitative and qualitative methods should be considered to enable us to secure the greatest density of knowledge possible. Stakeholders, such as citizens, patients and providers, should be involved in every stage of developing the specific and relevant research questions, study design and the assurance of real-world relevance for the research. Furthermore, structural and sufficient financial support for research into CAM is needed to strengthen CAM research capacity if we wish to understand why it remains so popular within the EU. In order to consider employing CAM as part of the solution to the health care, health creation and self-care challenges we face by 2020, it is vital to obtain a robust picture of CAM use and reliable information about its cost, safety and effectiveness in real-world settings. We need to consider the availability, accessibility and affordability of CAM. We need to engage in research excellence and utilise comparative effectiveness approaches and mixed methods to obtain this data. Our recommendations are both strategic and methodological. They are presented for the consideration of researchers and funders while being designed to answer the important and implicit questions posed by EU citizens currently using CAM in apparently increasing numbers. We propose that the EU actively supports an EUwide strategic approach that facilitates the development of CAM research. This could be achieved in the first instance through funding a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to foster systematic communication between EU governments, public, charitable and industry funders as well as researchers, citizens and other stakeholders. The aim of this office would be to coordinate research strategy developments and research funding opportunities, as well as to document and disseminate international research activities in this field. With the aim to develop sustainability as second step, a European Centre for CAM should be established that takes over the monitoring and further development of a coordinated research strategy for CAM, as well as it should have funds that can be awarded to foster high quality and robust independent research with a focus on citizens health needs and pan-European collaboration. We wish to establish a solid funding for CAM research to adequately inform health care and health creation decision-making throughout the EU. This centre would ensure that our vision of a common, strategic and scientifically rigorous approach to CAM research becomes our legacy and Europe’s reality. We are confident that our recommendations will serve these essential goals for EU citizens.

ESAPP Annual Report 2004

Minutes of the Advisory Board meeting 2004; summary of projects and the financial overview for 2004; perspectives for 2005.

Intermediate Report January - June 2004

Minutes of the Advisory Board meeting; status of projects and financial overview for the period; perspectives for the second half of 2004.

Na 1 Nachlass Max Horkheimer, 493 - Korrespondenzen mit Mitarbeitern (u.a. Gerhard Brand, Ludwig von Friedeburg und Jürgen Habermas) aus dem Institut für Sozialforschung (p. V 193, 1 - 212)

Briefe zwischen Mitarbeitern des Instituts für Sozialforschung und Max Horkheimer, 1964-1973; 13 Briefe und Beilagen zwischen dem Verwaltungsleiter IfS Siegfried Geissler und Max Horkheimer, 1968-1973; 9 Briefe zwischen Klaus Körber (Institut für Sozialforschung) und Max Horkheimer, 1971-1973; 2 Briefe zwischen dem Professor Rudolf Gunzert und Max Horkheimer, 1972; 2 Briefe zwischen Dr. Joachim Bergmann (Institut für Sozialforschung) und Max Horkheimer, 1971; 2 Briefe zwischen dem Professor Gerhard Brandt und Max Horkheimer, 1971; 6 Briefe zwischen Herbert Ludwig (Institut für Sozialforschung) und Max Horkheimer, 1966-1967; 3 Briefe von Max Horkheimer an Professor Franz Böhm, 1966; Briefe zwischen den Mitarbeitern des Instituts für Sozialforschung und Max Horkheimer, 1955-1959; 4 Briefe von Jürgen Habermas an Max Horkheimer, Frankfurt, 1957-1959; 3 Briefe zwischen Christoph Oehler und Max Horkheimer, 1959; 13 Briefe zwischen Ludwig von Friedeburg und Max Horkheimer, 1955-1959; 1 Brief von Werner Wilkening an Max Horkheimer, 1958; 1 Brief von Gerhard Brandt an Max Horkheimer, 1958; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an den Dekan Helmut Viebrock, 1958; 2 Briefe von Egon Becker mit Helge Pross und Ludwig Friedeburg an Max Horkheimer, Frankfurt, 1958-1959; 2 Briefe von Helge Pross mit Egon Becker und Ludwig Friedeburg an Max Horkheimer, Frankfurt, 1958-1959; 1 Brief von Dieter Arenz an Max Horkheimer, Frankfurt, 1956; Briefe vom und an das Institut für Sozialforschung (Advisory Board of the Institute of Social Research), 1940-1947; Briefe und Briefentwürfe an und von Mitgliedern des Advisory Board betreffend die Zusendung von Max Horkheimer "Eclipse of Reason" und Karl August Wittvogel/Olga Lang, "Chinese Family and Society"; vom Institut für Sozialforschung, 1946-1947; 1 Brief von Edwin Borchard vom Institut für Sozialforschung, 1947; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an Alfred E. Cohn, Los Angeles, 1947; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an Stephan Duggan, Los Angeles, 1947; 2 Briefe zwischen Lloyd K. Garrison und Friedrich. Pollock, 1947; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an Calvin B. Hoover, Los Angeles, 1947; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an Philip C. Jessup, Los Angeles, 1947; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an Wesley C. Mitchell, Los Angeles, 1947; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an William A. Neilson, Los Angeles, 1947; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an Frederick M. Padelford, Los Angeles, 1947; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an Thorsten Sellin, Los Angeles, 1947; 3 Briefe zwischen John Whyte und Friedrich Pollock, 1947; 2 Briefe zwischen Louis Wirth und Friedrich Pollock, 1947; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an Howard Woolston, Los Angeles, 1947; 1 Brief von George H. Sabine an das Institut für Sozialforschung, Ithaca, New York, 1946; Briefe und Briefentwürfe an und von Mitgliedern des Advisory Board betreffend den Druck eines neuen Briefkopfs des Instituts, 1940; 1 Brief von Leo Löwenthal, Pacific Palisades an Margot von Mendelssohn, 1942; 1 Brief von Leo Löwenthal an Margot von Mendelssohn, Pacific Palisades, 1942; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an K. Pilser, 1942; 2 Briefe zwischen Charles A. Beard und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Edwin M. Borchard und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 3 Briefe zwischen Henry Sloane Coffin und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Morris R. Cohen und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Alfred E. Cohn und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Stephen Duggan und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen dem Soziologen Henry Pratt Fairchild und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Sidney B. Fay und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Lloyd K. Garrison und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Calvin B. Hoover, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Robert M. Hutchins und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Philip C. Jessup und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Lewis L. Lorwin und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Robert S. Lynd und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Robert M. MacIver und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe von Max Horkheimer an Charles H. McIlwain, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Charles E. Merriam und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Wesley C. Mitchell und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen William A. Nielson und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 5 Briefe zwischen Howard W. Odum und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 3 Briefe zwischen Frederick M. Padelford und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 3 Briefe von Max Horkheimer an Max Radin, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen George H. Sabine und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Thorsten Sellin und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen James T. Shotwell und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 1 Brief von dem Soziologen Louis Wirth an Franz Neumann, Chicago, 1940; 1 Brief von Louis Wirth an Franz L. Neumann, Chicago, 1940; 3 Briefe zwischen Howard Woolston und Max Horkheimer, 1940;