A rapid cache-aware procedure positioning optimization to favor incremental development

Author(s):  
E. Mezzetti ◽  
T. Vardanega
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-130
Author(s):  
Emma Cave ◽  
Caterina Milo

In the context of medical advice to patients, the UK decision in Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board rejected the application of Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee. This article argues that the rejection is neither complete nor settled. We explore doctrinal, conceptual and practical limitations of Montgomery to demonstrate the vestiges of Bolam’s relevance to medical advice. Medical advice does not end with disclosure of material risk but incorporates information on prognosis, diagnosis and treatment alternatives. Montgomery does not always apply in these cases, nor outside the medical mainstream or where patients lack capacity to consent. We identify ways in which the extension of patient-centred care in the giving of medical advice can be achieved through incremental development of Montgomery and application of the Bolitho gloss to require that processes conform to Montgomery principles of partnership and autonomy.


1996 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen J. Trammell ◽  
Mark G. Pleszkoch ◽  
Richard C. Linger ◽  
Alan R. Hevner

Author(s):  
Ann M. Novak ◽  
David F. Treagust

AbstractWe explore how students developed an integrated understanding of scientific ideas and how they applied their understandings in new situations. We examine the incremental development of 7th grade students’ scientific ideas across four iterations of a scientific explanation related to a freshwater system. We demonstrate that knowing how to make use of scientific ideas to explain phenomena needs to be learned just as developing integrated understanding of scientific ideas needs to be learned. Students participated in an open-ended, long-term project-based learning unit, constructing one explanation over time to address, “How healthy is our stream for freshwater organisms and how do our actions on land potentially impact the water quality of the stream?” The explanation developed over several weeks as new data were collected and analyzed. Students discussed evidence by revisiting scientific ideas and including new scientific ideas. This research investigates two questions: (1) As students engage in writing a scientific explanation over time, to what extent do they develop integrated understanding of appropriate scientific ideas? and (2) When writing about new evidence, do these earlier experiences of writing explanations enable students to make use of new scientific ideas in more sophisticated ways? In other words, do earlier experiences allow students to know how to make use of their ideas in these new situations? The results indicated statistically significant effects. Through various iterations of the explanation students included richer discussion using appropriate scientific ideas. Students were also able to make better use of new knowledge in new situations.


2013 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas DC Bennett

This article considers the nature of common law development as exemplified by the recent privacy case of Jones v. Tsige. The author focuses on Jones, in which the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized the novel privacy tort of “intrusion upon seclusion”. Using a detailed analysis of the case as its basis, the article explores issues which have much wider significance for the judicial development of privacy laws: the process of incremental elaboration of the law, the moral impulses at work within it, and the relevance of imagination to its operations. By drawing out these discrete issues and analyzing the role that each plays in Jones, the article offers a framework for examining such questions in future privacy cases. Moreover, this article argues that the judgment in Jones brings valuable clarity to the analysis of the process of common law development. In particular, the essay concludes that the novel privacy tort recognized in Jones is the result of a legitimate incremental development rather than an instance of undue judicial activism.


2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 3-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge Velasquez ◽  
Klaus Piech ◽  
Sebastian Lehnhoff ◽  
Lars Fischer ◽  
Steffen Garske

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document