Modification Of Hypothesis Research Articles

“But I Hate Him Just the Same”: On the Rise of Concessive Markers with Same

Concessivity in English is often associated with structures like Although it was hot, she went running. Although introduces a subordinate clause. There are also several markers of concessivity associated with coordinate structures, among them, all the same and nevertheless. The development of coordinate markers of concessivity has received little attention. Here I compare the histories of three markers that arose from expressions of identity: all the same, just the same, and at the same time. All arose at various times in Late Modern English. Rich rhetorical contexts for the development of concessive uses of all the same ‘exactly the same’ are attested in corpora. Contexts for the later development in the US of just the same are less rich, and analogy to all the same is probable. Both came to be well entrenched in concessive use and are used in clause-final as well as clause-initial and occasionally clause-medial position. By contrast, at the same time functions only marginally as a concessive. It is also used as an elaborator and is not attested in clause-final position. Data are analyzed from the perspective of Diachronic Construction Grammar. Implications for some current debates are discussed, specifically for establishing when a construction has come into being, what kinds of contexts enable this emergence, and what level of abstraction is appropriate for analysis of sets of related constructions. Finally, some modifications of hypotheses about position of connectives relative to the clause are suggested.

Robotic Research: Are We Applying the Scientific Method?

Once upon a time validation of robotic research was relatively straightforward. Let us assume, for example, that a researcher had published in a journal a novel adaptive control law with a numerical example on a two-link robot. Beyond the formal proof of convergence, he supplied to the reader the differential equations used to model the system, including the corresponding dynamic parameters (nomore than 20 numbers), the eventual quantization and discretization of the controller, the solver details of the software used, and the sensor noise statistics. Not only the reviewers, thus, but also each single reader would have the possibility to re-run the numerical simulations in a half-day of work. The communitywould have the possibility to test, validate, generalize, and benchmark the algorithm. Since then, robotics has changed, the machines are nowmuch more complex in their kinematics, number of degrees of freedom, and are filled with several sensors. Also, giant steps have been made: the robots left the confined industrial cells to jump within unstructured environments, not only in the industry but also in the houses, the museums, the airports, and the post-disaster sites; they perform a number of exciting tasks such as exploration, maintenance, interaction with humans, search and rescue . . .wait, is it really so? Beyond specific outstanding experiences, beyond the claims of the constructors and lab’s directors, how many robots run, autonomously or semi-autonomously, in our daily lives? Not so many, to be honest. A few vacuum cleaning robots, this is all (Guizzo, 2015). While we have several noticeable robotic tools (parking assist systems, lane keeping assist systems, space systems), where are all the learning and adaptable robot protagonists of thousands of scientific publications in the last years? Our robots can avoid the predicted unpredicted events, but what about the unpredicted? The information required to validate the two-link example above is obviously not possible any more but why are we experiencing so large a gap between claimed and real robotics? Why has it been the case for several years now that the robotics revolution is regularly postponed to the next 10 years . . .? The grand challenge for the robotics community is to discuss, from its foundations up, the way its research is conducted. It is a huge effort involving complex interactions among the institutions, the ministries, the funding agencies, and the individual researchers’ careers. Research is funded by selection of proposals, at each call more andmore imaginative which, however, most of the time end with more or less disappointing demos. This process includes perforce to review the validation of the research process in a wide sense and, within this, the publishing process. The latter is becoming (apparently) faster and more selective with new ideas spread out and absorbed by other researchers in a very short time during which a paper placed in the hands of a reviewer or a debatable reject may be a dramatic event. The previous claims are intentionally provocative, and so is the title of this article: are we (still) applying the scientific method in robotics? Let us frankly discuss this question. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as “a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.” The strict link existingwith theory and experimentation is evident and further elaborated by, for instance, Karl Popper, who claimed that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability,

Clinical Trials with an Adaptive Choice of Hypotheses

In a clinical trial with an adaptive interim analysis it is possible to modify not only the design, but even the hypothesis(es) of interest, in a formally correct manner. Two examples of clinical trials are described where modifications of hypotheses are based on substantial scientific reasons. Generally, it is emphasized that the danger of manipulation caused by flexible designs must be controlled by very restrictive guidelines.

Apples, oranges, and ecoregions: on determining pattern in aquatic assemblages

Classification of waterbodies is a necessary step for aquatic biological assessment. Geographic classes, such as physiographic provinces, marine biogeographic provinces, and ecoregions are frequently used as a classification framework for conducting bioassessments. An alternative to such a priori classification of waterbodies is to let the biological data tell us, using various statistical exploratory techniques to identify classes that do not necessarily conform to geographic stratification. In assessment of new sites, it is often necessary to identify or predict which of several classes the new site may belong to. We classified benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages from streams of Wyoming, using 3 alternative methods: a priori establishment of ecoregions, adaptive modification of the ecoregions, and a posteriori clustering. Classification strengths were compared using similarity dendrograms. Clustering separated the sites better than ecoregions, but the clusters showed strong ecoregional affinities. The modified ecoregions were equal to the clusters in classification strength. We conclude that an iterative process that includes generation of hypotheses, exploratory data analysis, and evaluation and modification of hypotheses is most likely to produce robust classifications, regardless of specific analytical approaches used.

The early evolution of life: solution to Darwin's dilemma

Recent studies of Precambrian fossils indicate that life on Earth originated earlier than assumed, microscopic life was prevalent in the Precambrian Eon, the tempo and mode of evolution during the Precambrian period were different from other periods, and that only the Precambrian fossil record can be used as evidence of early life. Implications for future research include directing the search for the origin of life away from the geological record, modification of hypotheses about molecular change, use of Precambrian microfossils in dating younger geological units, and progress in defining the nature of major events in early evolution.

The Scientific Method and Writing in Introductory Landscape-Development Laboratories

The scientific method with a scientific writing component is emphasized at Dickinson College in introductory geology laboratories in a three-laboratory series on landscape development in the Great Valley of southcentral Pennsylvania. Our pedagogical approach is a hands-on, project-oriented one including data collection and analysis. In laboratory discussions we ask students to develop hypotheses from observations in the field and theory presented in lectures. The students then collect real-time data and/or are given historical data to use as a basis for confirming or rejecting their presuppositions. The writing assignments help the students test their hypotheses using specific examples from the data as justification for the inevitable process of hypothesis modification. The assignments serve to reinforce and clarify geologic relationships observed by students and also help them conceptualize and apply those relationships to other data sets or different landscapes. Critical review of papers places equal em...

Home sapiensorCastor fiber?

Following the development of pollen analysis in the earlier part of this century, much effort was devoted to unravelling the sequence of vegetational change during and after the retreat of the last European ice-sheets. The outlines established, questions of causation came to the fore, and the debate focused on factors such as climatic change, rate of species migration from glacial refuges, and natural vegetational succession. In more recent decades, a further factor has been widely investigated, namely the possible influence of humans on the landscape, principally as farmers and smiths. The development and modification of hypotheses is well illustrated by the Elm Decline of the Atlantic period, where climate (Iversen, 1941) or man (Troels-Smith, 1960) and occasionally disease (see refs in Simmons & Tooley, 1981, 134) have been held responsible for a widespread but by no means straightforward decline in elm pollen.

Hypothesis modification

Hypothesis modification