Na 1 Nachlass Max Horkheimer, 42 - Korrespondenzen u.a. mit Kurt Pinthus (p. I 21, 1-130)

1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Pierre van Paassen, 31.01.1944; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Frederick M. Padelford, 25.03.1941; 1 Exposé und Beilage von Karl O. Paetel sowie sowie Briefwechsel mit Karl A. Wittfogel; 2 Briefe zwischen Karl A. Wittfogel und Margot von Mendelssohn, 01.06.1941, 04.06.1941; 2 Briefe von Max Horkheimer an D. D. Paige, August 1944; 2 Briefe zwischen Maria Pape und Max Horkheimer, 23.07.1949, 29.07.1949; 1 Brief von Fritz Pappenheim an Max Horkheimer, 11.03.1939; 2 Briefe zwischen Claire Patek-Hohenadl und Max Horkheimer, 18.02.1945, 02.03.1945; 4 Briefe zwischen Wilhelm Pauck und Max Horkheimer, 1938; 2 Briefe von Max Horkheimer an Thomas Peardon, September 1941; 2 Briefe zwischen Christine Peck und Max Horkheimer, 01.02.1944, 16.02.1944; 2 Briefe zwischen Alexander H. Pekelis und Max Horkheimer, 20.10.1941, 29.10.1941; 4 Briefe zwischen Pendle Hill Wallingford und Max Horkheimer, 21.05.1940, 1940; 1 Einladung von The People Lobby an Max Horkheimer, April 1937; 1 Brief von Franz L. Neumann an Selig Perlman, 08.10.1941; 2 Briefe zwischen Florence Pfleger und Max Horkheimer, 30.10.1944, 06.11.1944; 2 Briefe zwischen The Philharmonic-Symphony Society of New York und Max Horkheimer, 11.06.1936, 22.06.1936; 2 Briefe zwischen Philosophical Library New York und Max Horkheimer, 09.09.1941; 2 Briefe von Max Horkheimer an Donald A. Piatt, Oktober 1940; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Alfred Pinkus, 27.08.1942; 20 Briefe und Beilage zwischen Kurt Pinthus und Max Horkheimer, 1940-1942; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an das American Consul General Berlin, 20.05.1941; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an den National Refugee Service New York, 30.04.1941; 4 Briefe zwischen The Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars, New York und Friedrich Pollock, 27.09.1940-1941; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an John Simon Guggeheim von der Memorial Foundation, 08.11.1940; 3 Brief zwischen Robert Plank und Max Horkheimer, 12.07.1944, 1944; 4 Briefe und 1 Beilage zwischen Richard S. Plant und Max Horkheimer, Januar 1939; 2 Briefe zwischen Caroline S. Platt und Max Horkheimer, 06.05.1942, 08.05.1942; 1 Brief und 2 Beilagen vom Pledge for Peace Committee New York an Max Horkheimer, 10.04.1944; 1 Brief vom Popular Publications, Inc. New York an Mein, 23.10.1939; 2 Briefe von Else Heim an die Popular Publikations, Inc. New York, 1939; 1 Brief und 1 Beilage von Frederick Pollock an Leonard Powers, 03.06.1941; 2 Briefe zwischen S. Pressburger udn Max Horkheimer, 18.06.1939, 05.07.1939; 2 Briefe zwsichen dem Preston Hotel, Swampscott und Max Horkheimer, 28.04.1937, 08.05.1937; 1 Brief von Lucio José F. Weil an das Preston Hotel, Swampscott, 25.06.1936; 5 Briefe zwischen F. V. Preve und Max Horkheimer, 1937; 4 Briefe zwischen Rena Proulx und Max Horkheimer, 1934, 1937; 2 Briefe zwischen dem Psychatry Journal of the Biology and the Pathology of Interpersonal Relations Washington und Max Horkheimer, 21.08.1939, 11.09.1939;

Na 1 Nachlass Max Horkheimer, 14 - Korrespondenzen u.a. mit Hugo Fischer und Karl August Wittfogel (p. I 7, 224-429)

1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Rosel Favez, 03.12.1935; 5 Briefe zwischen Sidney B. Fay von der Bureau of International Search Cambridge, Massachusetts und Max Horkheimer, 1939-1941; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an James Feibleman, 02.03.1942; 5 Briefe von Hans Feibelmann an Max Horkheimer, 1936-1937; 2 Briefe zwischen Babette Feigenbaum und Max Horkheimer, 29.04.1941, 05.05.1941; 1 Brief von Arthur Feiler an Max Horkheimer, 15.10.1939; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Adolf Feitler, 03.01.1935; 3 Briefe zwischen Frederick V. Filed von dem American Council Institute of Pacific Relations und Max Horkheimer, 1937, 05.04.1937; 9 Briefe zwischen Thea Field, Lowell Field und Max Horkheimer, 1935-1941; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Finkelstein, 18.09.1941; 7 Briefe zwischen Harry Finkelstein und Max Horkheimer, 1936-1940; 1 Brief von Louis Finkelstein an Robert MacIver, 29.05.1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Louis Finkelstein und Max Horkheimer, 06.06.1940, 04.06.1940; 15 Briefe zwischen Hugo Fischer und Max Horkheimer, 1937-1938; 1 Brief von Hugo Fischer an P. Tillich; 1 Brief von Hugo Fischer an Karl A. Wittfogel, 17.06.1940; 2 Briefe von Max Horkheimer an Ernest Manheim, April 1942; 1 Brief von Alexander Farquharson an Max Horkheimer, 20.01.1940; 3 Briefe zwischen dem Institute of International Education, New York Edgar J. Fisher und Max Horkheimer, Oktober 1938, 18.10.1938; 10 Briefe zwischen Paul Fischer und Max Horkheimer, 1938-1940; 2 Briefe zwischen der Hessian Hills School New York und Max Horkheimer, 21.02.1938, 28.02.1938; 2 Briefe zwischen Dorothy Canfield Fisher und Max Horkheimer, 24.01.1939, 19.01.1939; 1 Brief von Ossip K. Flechtheim an Max Horkheimer, 04.01.1941; 2 Briefe zwischen der University of Minnesota, Minneapolis und Max Horkheimer, 02.08.1945, 15.09.1945; 3 Briefe zwischen Leo Löwenthal und Max Horkheimer, 1943-1945, 17.08.1945; 2 Briefe zwischen der University of Denver, Colorado und Max Horkheimer, 11.05.1943, 28.05.1943; 1 Brief von dem Institute Universitaire De Hautes Etudes Internationales Genf an Max Horkheimer, 25.01.1939; 1 Brief von Hans Kelsen an Max Horkheimer, 30.01.1939; Lebenslauf und 2 Empfehlungsschreiben von Max Fleischmann für Prof. Edwin Borchard; 1 Brief von der Columbia University in the City of New York an Franz Neumann, 17.04.1940; 3 Briefe zwischen Philipp Flesch und Max Horkheimer, 26.03.1940, 1939-1940; 17 Briefe zwischen Babette Fletcher, Theo Fletcher und Max Horkheimer, 1941-1950; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Abraham Flexner, 07.06.1939; 1 Brief von Robert Fließ an Max Horkheimer, 24.10.1938; 1 Brief von der Foreign Policy Association New York an Max Horkheimer, 03.11.1934; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Rudolf Forster, 10.01.1940; 2 Briefe von der Fortune Time & Life Building New York und Max Horkheimer, 1938-1940; 4 Briefe zwischen Siegmund H. Foulkes (Fuchs) und Max Horkheimer, 1936-1937, 31.12.1936; 5 Briefe zwischen Elsie M. Foulstone und Max Horkheimer, 1941; 1 Brief von Mary Fox an Max Horkheimer, 09.12.1938; 5 Briefe zwischen Ernst Fraenkel und Max Horkheimer, 1936-1938; 1 Heiratsanzeige Liesl Frank; 7 Briefe zwischen Philipp Frank und Max Horkheimer, 1937-1939; 6 Briefe zwischen Lothar G. Frank und Max Horkheimer, 1941; 7 Briefe zwischen Felix Frankfurter und Max Horkheimer, 1937-1941; 2 Briefe zwischen Joseph Freeman und Max Horkheimer, 22.11.1944; 1 Brief von der Free Synagogue New York an Max Horkheimer, 14.11.1938; 2 Briefe zwsichen Benjamin Freilichmann und Max Horkheimer, 07.01.1939, 23.01.1939; 2 Briefe zwischen dem Frenkel Travel Service New York und Max Horkheimer, 21.02.1936, 23.02.1936; 2 Briefe zwischen Hugo Freund und Max Horkheimer, 14.11.1938, 18.11.1938; 2 Briefe zwischen Julius A. Jr. Freynick und Max Horkheimer, 11.09.1939, 18.09.1939;

Evaluating the U.S. Global Health Policy Initiative

In understanding that the efforts made in improving global health affects the health of U.S. citizens, a policy analysis of President Barak Obama's Global Health Initiative was conducted. Using materials gathered from experts in the field of health and their findings and recommendations, paired with the current policies of other G8 countries that pledged to support the efforts of improving global health, the analysis was conducted using four specifically defined criteria. The set criteria determine the appropriateness, responsiveness, effectiveness and equity of Obama's GHI in comparison to other G8 country health policies and overall global health priorities. G8 countries without a specific global health policy, or with a policy that was not in English were excluded from this study and Switzerland, headquarters of the World Health Organization, was added due to its membership in the OECD, and the fact that it has a specific foreign health policy. In evaluating the U.S. Global Health Initiative it is clear that in terms of implementing foreign policy specific to health, the United States is on the forefront alongside the United Kingdom and Switzerland. Other G8 Countries have pledged monies and in order to Millennium Development Health Goals by 2015. The U.S. Global Health Policy does not address issues necessary to meet Millennium Development Goals in Health. Instead the Global Health Initiative is focused narrowly on Fighting and rolling back the HIV/Aids Epidemic based on President Bush's PEPFAR policy. Policy recommendations for a more effective and efficient Global Health Initiative include building upon the PEPFAR policy foundation in order to strengthen health systems worldwide, allowing individuals and communities to combat unnecessary death and disease through research, education, and other preventative methods.^

The application of principal component analysis on human development indicators: Temporal approach from 1999 to 2010

Background and Objective. Ever since the human development index was published in 1990 by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), many researchers started searching and corporative studying for more effective methods to measure the human development. Published in 1999, Lai’s “Temporal analysis of human development indicators: principal component approach” provided a valuable statistical way on human developmental analysis. This study presented in the thesis is the extension of Lai’s 1999 research. ^ Methods. I used the weighted principal component method on the human development indicators to measure and analyze the progress of human development in about 180 countries around the world from the year 1999 to 2010. The association of the main principal component obtained from the study and the human development index reported by the UNDP was estimated by the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. The main principal component was then further applied to quantify the temporal changes of the human development of selected countries by the proposed Z-test. ^ Results. The weighted means of all three human development indicators, health, knowledge, and standard of living, were increased from 1999 to 2010. The weighted standard deviation for GDP per capita was also increased across years indicated the rising inequality of standard of living among countries. The ranking of low development countries by the main principal component (MPC) is very similar to that by the human development index (HDI). Considerable discrepancy between MPC and HDI ranking was found among high development countries with high GDP per capita shifted to higher ranks. The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between the main principal component and the human development index were all around 0.99. All the above results were very close to outcomes in Lai’s 1999 report. The Z test result on temporal analysis of main principal components from 1999 to 2010 on Qatar was statistically significant, but not on other selected countries, such as Brazil, Russia, India, China, and U.S.A.^ Conclusion. To synthesize the multi-dimensional measurement of human development into a single index, the weighted principal component method provides a good model by using the statistical tool on a comprehensive ranking and measurement. Since the weighted main principle component index is more objective because of using population of nations as weight, more effective when the analysis is across time and space, and more flexible when the countries reported to the system has been changed year after year. Thus, in conclusion, the index generated by using weighted main principle component has some advantage over the human development index created in UNDP reports.^

X Jornadas de Estudios Clásicos - U.C.A. - Buenos Aires. 23/25-6-1999

Fil: Buisel, María Delia. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación; Argentina.

X Jornadas de Estudios Clásicos - U.C.A. - Buenos Aires. 23/25-6-1999

Fil: Buisel, María Delia. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación; Argentina.

X Jornadas de Estudios Clásicos - U.C.A. - Buenos Aires. 23/25-6-1999

Fil: Buisel, María Delia. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación; Argentina.

Debris flow magnitudes: a global catalog

The episodic occurrence of debris flow events in response to stochastic precipitation and wildfire events makes hazard prediction challenging. Previous work has shown that frequency-magnitude distributions of non-fire-related debris flows follow a power law, but less is known about the distribution of post-fire debris flows. As a first step in parameterizing hazard models, we use frequency-magnitude distributions and cumulative distribution functions to compare volumes of post-fire debris flows to non-fire-related debris flows. Due to the large number of events required to parameterize frequency-magnitude distributions, and the relatively small number of post-fire event magnitudes recorded in the literature, we collected data on 73 recent post-fire events in the field. The resulting catalog of 988 debris flow events is presented as an appendix to this article. We found that the empirical cumulative distribution function of post-fire debris flow volumes is composed of smaller events than that of non-fire-related debris flows. In addition, the slope of the frequency-magnitude distribution of post-fire debris flows is steeper than that of non-fire-related debris flows, evidence that differences in the post-fire environment tend to produce a higher proportion of small events. We propose two possible explanations: 1) post-fire events occur on shorter return intervals than debris flows in similar basins that do not experience fire, causing their distribution to shift toward smaller events due to limitations in sediment supply, or 2) fire causes changes in resisting and driving forces on a package of sediment, such that a smaller perturbation of the system is required in order for a debris flow to occur, resulting in smaller event volumes.