Definition Of Complementarity Research Articles

Relation between Planck’s Constant and Speed of Light, Predicting Proton Radius More Accurately

In twin physics, descriptions of phenomena on a quantum-mechanical as well as astronomical scale are reconciled by considering them in a complementary way. This is in agreement with the view of Heisenberg and carried out by using the definition of complementarity as given by Max Jammer. The obtained theoretical results can be identified with basic physical phenomena like the forces of nature, a series of elementary particles and gravitational waves. If the proton as described by twin physics is combined with the early ideas of Einstein about the energetic equivalence of mass and radiation, a relation between the Planck’s constant and the speed of light is found, in which the mass and radius of the proton occur, together with a factor four. This factor acts as a conversion factor from mass to radiation. Besides of that, this relation leads to a more accurate prediction of the radius of the proton.

What connects industrial relations and corporate governance? Explaining institutional complementarity

The concept of institutional complementarity is central to the recent debate on the internal logics of production regimes, redirecting our attention from the effects of single institutions to interaction effects. The article provides definitions of complementarity, coherence and compatibility and discusses the ways in which different authors describe interaction effects between corporate governance and industrial relations. It turns out that some of the interaction effects are actually direct causal links rather than effects deriving from complementarity. It is argued that complementarity may be caused by both structural similarity and incoherence, and that the concept provides only weak predictions with respect to institutional change. The article is followed by comments from Bruno Amable, Robert Boyer, Colin Crouch, Peter A. Hall, Gregory Jackson, Wolfgang Streeck, and an epilogue by Martin Höpner.

Operationalizing biodiversity for conservation planning.

Biodiversity has acquired such a general meaning that people now find it difficult to pin down a precise sense for planning and policy-making aimed at biodiversity conservation. Because biodiversity is rooted in place, the task of conserving biodiversity should target places for conservation action; and because all places contain biodiversity, but not all places can be targeted for action, places have to be prioritized. What is needed for this is a measure of the extent to which biodiversity varies from place to place. We do not need a precise measure of biodiversity to prioritize places. Relative estimates of similarity or difference can be derived using partial measures, or what have come to be called biodiversity surrogates. Biodiversity surrogates are supposed to stand in for general biodiversity in planning applications. We distinguish between true surrogates, those that might truly stand in for general biodiversity, and estimator surrogates, which have true surrogates as their target variable. For example, species richness has traditionally been the estimator surrogate for the true surrogate, species diversity. But species richness does not capture the differences in composition between places; the essence of biodiversity. Another measure, called complementarity, explicitly captures the differences between places as we iterate the process of place prioritization, starting with an initial place. The relative concept of biodiversity built into the definition of complementarity has the level of precision needed to undertake conservation planning.

An interpersonal stage model of the therapeutic process.

A 3-stage interpersonal model of the successful therapeutic process (high complementarity, low complementarity, high complementarity) has been proposed and supported in the literature. However, recent work on the interpersonal circumplex and its definition of complementarity have called into question the validity of this model. A revised conception of the stage model is proposed. This revision takes into account the moderator variables of social norms and roles, differential interpretation of hostile and friendly behaviors, manifest versus latent communication, and individual differences in adjustment. The revised model differentiates the middle conflict stage into 2 substages: the dissatisfaction substage, characterized by high negative (hostile) complementarity, and the unstable substage, characterized by low complementarity. Interpersonal models of counseling and therapy focus not on the content of treatment dialogue but on the process of the treatment itself. The issues discussed are less important than how the two participants interact around them. Interpersonal models assume that the negotiation of the therapeutic relationship is central to treatment (Carson, 1969; Kiesler, 1982). Thus the focus is placed on how clients negotiate with others to establish relationships to meet their needs. Treatment involves the delineation and alteration of clients' relationship negotiation styles. The primary construct used in conceptualizing the therapy process is complementarity, the extent to which the behaviors of the participants fit with or complement each other. The purpose of this article is to review the current interpersonal models of the counseling process, to integrate these models with the research on complementarity, and to propose a revised version of the relationship negotiation view of the therapeutic process. In interpersonal models, successful therapy has been viewed as a three-stage process involving (a) the establishment of a complementary relationship (rapport establishment); (b) the removal of inappropriate (i.e., in keeping with the client's rigid behavioral pattern) complementary interactions (conflict stage); and (c) the establishment of a new, healthier complementary interaction (Dietzel & Abeles, 1975; Kiesler, 1982; Tracey, 1985, 1986a, 1987; Tracey & Ray, 1984). Rapport is accomplished by the therapist adhering to the client's definitions of the relationship, resulting in high levels of complementarity. Then the therapist slowly moves away from the predominantly client-defined relationship (conflict stage; lower levels of complementarity) until the client adopts new, more productive methods of negotiating the relationship with the therapist. In the ending stage, a new, higher level of complementarity (resolution) that re