‘You’re a bad driver but I just made a mistake’ : attribution differences between the ‘victims’ and ‘perpetrators’ of scenario-based aggressive driving incidents

Driver aggression is an increasing concern for motorists, with some research suggesting that drivers who behave aggressively perceive their actions as justified by the poor driving of others. Thus attributions may play an important role in understanding driver aggression. A convenience sample of 193 drivers (aged 17-36) randomly assigned to two separate roles (‘perpetrators’ and ‘victims’) responded to eight scenarios of driver aggression. Drivers also completed the Aggression Questionnaire and Driving Anger Scale. Consistent with the actor-observer bias, ‘victims’ (or recipients) in this study were significantly more likely than ‘perpetrators’ (or instigators) to endorse inadequacies in the instigator’s driving skills as the cause of driver aggression. Instigators were significantly more likely attribute the depicted behaviours to external but temporary causes (lapses in judgement or errors) rather than stable causes. This suggests that instigators recognised drivers as responsible for driving aggressively but downplayed this somewhat in comparison to ‘victims’/recipients. Recipients and instigators agreed that the behaviours were examples of aggressive driving but instigators appeared to focus on the degree of intentionality of the driver in making their assessments while recipients appeared to focus on the safety implications. Contrary to expectations, instigators gave mean ratings of the emotional impact of driving aggression on recipients that were higher in all cases than the mean ratings given by the recipients. Drivers appear to perceive aggressive behaviours as modifiable, with the implication that interventions could appeal to drivers’ sense of self-efficacy to suggest strategies for overcoming plausible and modifiable attributions (e.g. lapses in judgement; errors) underpinning behaviours perceived as aggressive.

Shifting : one-inclusion mistake bounds and sample compression

We present new expected risk bounds for binary and multiclass prediction, and resolve several recent conjectures on sample compressibility due to Kuzmin and Warmuth. By exploiting the combinatorial structure of concept class F, Haussler et al. achieved a VC(F)/n bound for the natural one-inclusion prediction strategy. The key step in their proof is a d = VC(F) bound on the graph density of a subgraph of the hypercube—oneinclusion graph. The first main result of this paper is a density bound of n [n−1 <=d-1]/[n <=d] < d, which positively resolves a conjecture of Kuzmin and Warmuth relating to their unlabeled Peeling compression scheme and also leads to an improved one-inclusion mistake bound. The proof uses a new form of VC-invariant shifting and a group-theoretic symmetrization. Our second main result is an algebraic topological property of maximum classes of VC-dimension d as being d contractible simplicial complexes, extending the well-known characterization that d = 1 maximum classes are trees. We negatively resolve a minimum degree conjecture of Kuzmin and Warmuth—the second part to a conjectured proof of correctness for Peeling—that every class has one-inclusion minimum degree at most its VCdimension. Our final main result is a k-class analogue of the d/n mistake bound, replacing the VC-dimension by the Pollard pseudo-dimension and the one-inclusion strategy by its natural hypergraph generalization. This result improves on known PAC-based expected risk bounds by a factor of O(logn) and is shown to be optimal up to an O(logk) factor. The combinatorial technique of shifting takes a central role in understanding the one-inclusion (hyper)graph and is a running theme throughout.

Corrigendum to “Shifting : one-inclusion mistake bounds and sample compression” [J. Comput. System Sci. 75 (1) (2009) 37–59]

H. Simon and B. Szörényi have found an error in the proof of Theorem 52 of “Shifting: One-inclusion mistake bounds and sample compression”, Rubinstein et al. (2009). In this note we provide a corrected proof of a slightly weakened version of this theorem. Our new bound on the density of one-inclusion hypergraphs is again in terms of the capacity of the multilabel concept class. Simon and Szörényi have recently proved an alternate result in Simon and Szörényi (2009).

Shifting : one-inclusion mistake bounds and sample compression

We present new expected risk bounds for binary and multiclass prediction, and resolve several recent conjectures on sample compressibility due to Kuzmin and Warmuth. By exploiting the combinatorial structure of concept class F, Haussler et al. achieved a VC(F)/n bound for the natural one-inclusion prediction strategy. The key step in their proof is a d=VC(F) bound on the graph density of a subgraph of the hypercube—one-inclusion graph. The first main result of this report is a density bound of n∙choose(n-1,≤d-1)/choose(n,≤d) < d, which positively resolves a conjecture of Kuzmin and Warmuth relating to their unlabeled Peeling compression scheme and also leads to an improved one-inclusion mistake bound. The proof uses a new form of VC-invariant shifting and a group-theoretic symmetrization. Our second main result is an algebraic topological property of maximum classes of VC-dimension d as being d-contractible simplicial complexes, extending the well-known characterization that d=1 maximum classes are trees. We negatively resolve a minimum degree conjecture of Kuzmin and Warmuth—the second part to a conjectured proof of correctness for Peeling—that every class has one-inclusion minimum degree at most its VC-dimension. Our final main result is a k-class analogue of the d/n mistake bound, replacing the VC-dimension by the Pollard pseudo-dimension and the one-inclusion strategy by its natural hypergraph generalization. This result improves on known PAC-based expected risk bounds by a factor of O(log n) and is shown to be optimal up to a O(log k) factor. The combinatorial technique of shifting takes a central role in understanding the one-inclusion (hyper)graph and is a running theme throughout

Mistake, frustration and implied conditions in leases

Discusses the Court of Appeal decision in Graves v Graves on determination of a tenancy by reason of common mistake and frustration. Reviews earlier case law regarding the effects on a contract of a common mistake or frustrating event. Considers the effect of the common mistaken belief held by the parties in Graves when executing a tenancy agreement that the tenant would be entitled to housing benefit, in particular whether by reason of it a condition was implied into the tenancy that the contract would be terminated if housing benefit was unavailable.

Common Mistake in Contract Law

English law has long struggled to understand the effect of a fundamental common mistake in contract formation. Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd [1932] AC 161 recognises that a common mistake which totally undermines a contract renders it void. Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 recognises a doctrine of 'mistake in equity' under which a serious common mistake in contract formation falling short of totally undermining the contract could give an adversely affected party the right to rescind the contract. This article accepts that the enormous difficulty in differentiating these two kinds of mistake justifies the insistence by the Court of Appeal in The Great Peace [2003] QB 679 that there can be only one doctrine of common mistake. However, the article proceeds to argue that where the risk of the commonly mistaken matter is not allocated by the contract itself a better doctrine would be that the contract is voidable.

Ingestion of catfish by freshwater stingray: possible mistake or inexperience

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Intracellular imaging of nanoparticles: is it an elemental mistake to believe what you see?

In order to understand how nanoparticles (NPs <100 nm) interact with cellular systems, potentially causing adverse effects, it is important to be able to detect and localize them within cells. Due to the small size of NPs, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) is an appropriate technique to use for visualizing NPs inside cells, since light microscopy fails to resolve them at a single particle level. However, the presence of other cellular and non-cellular nano-sized structures in TEM cell samples, which may resemble NPs in size, morphology and electron density, can obstruct the precise intracellular identification of NPs. Therefore, elemental analysis is recommended to confirm the presence of NPs inside the cell. The present study highlights the necessity to perform elemental analysis, specifically energy filtering TEM, to confirm intracellular NP localization using the example of quantum dots (QDs). Recently, QDs have gained increased attention due to their fluorescent characteristics, and possible applications for biomedical imaging have been suggested. Nevertheless, potential adverse effects cannot be excluded and some studies point to a correlation between intracellular particle localization and toxic effects. J774.A1 murine macrophage-like cells were exposed to NH2 polyethylene (PEG) QDs and elemental co-localization analysis of two elements present in the QDs (sulfur and cadmium) was performed on putative intracellular QDs with electron spectroscopic imaging (ESI). Both elements were shown on a single particle level and QDs were confirmed to be located inside intracellular vesicles. Nevertheless, ESI analysis showed that not all nano-sized structures, initially identified as QDs, were confirmed. This observation emphasizes the necessity to perform elemental analysis when investigating intracellular NP localization using TEM.