Ergativity and depth of analysis

In this paper, I argue that “depth of analysis” does not deserve the prestige that it is sometimes given in general linguistics. While language description should certainly be as detailed as possible, general linguistics must rely on worldwide comparison of languages, and this cannot be based on language-particular analyses. Rigorous quantitative comparison requires uniform measurement, and this implies abstracting away from many language-particular peculiarities. I will illustrate this on the basis of ergative patterns, starting out from I.A. Mel’čuk’s (1981) proposal for Lezgian. This proposal was not successful, but why not? And why is Baker’s (2015) theory of dependent case likewise unsuccessful? By contrast, quantitative worldwide research has found striking similarities of ergative coding patterns, which can be explained by the efficiency theory of asymmetric coding. I will argue that this success is due to a more cautious approach to understanding Human Language, which does not rely on the Mendeleyevian vision for grammar (that all grammars are made from the same innate building blocks).

Advancing integrated care and its evaluation by means of a universal typology

Health systems around the globe implement integrated care interventions to address the Triple Aim of simultaneously improving population health, patient experiences and cost-efficiency. However, the underlying definitions and conceptualisations of integrated care often differ considerably, which makes uniform measurement and comparison difficult. Rather than agreeing on one definition of integrated care, we argue that a universal typology of integrated care interventions should be developed to enable the comparison of interventions that are based on different understandings of integrated care. This universal typology should combine rankable and intangible components with unrankable and tangible sub-components, and be conceptually sound and flexible. The content of the typology should be developed by an international consortium of relevant stakeholders.

1. A brief history

‘A brief history’ shows that measurement is at least as old as civilization. Different systems and different units of measurement were developed in different places, with the physical size of natural biological objects frequently being used as a basic unit. The key drivers for a uniform measurement system were trade, the industrial revolution, and scientific advance. In 1960 the Système International d’Units (SI units) was introduced, consisting of seven basic units: length (metre), mass (kilogram), time (second), electric current (ampere), temperature (degree kelvin), quantity of substance (mole), and luminous intensity (candela). Another twenty-two named units were defined as powers and combinations of these basic seven.

A uniform measurement expression for cross method comparison of nanoparticle aggregate size distributions

Measurement methods produce incomparable results when applied to aggregated nanoparticles.

The Sensitivity of Distributional Measures to the Income Reference Period

The Income Reference Period (IRP), the measurement period of income, differs across micro-economic databases of household or individual incomes; typically it is a year, a quarter (of a year) or a month. The length of the IRP affects the shape of the income distribution and derived distributional indices, such as the Gini index. Using employment histories of German residents, this study explores the sensitivity of distributional measures to the IRP. Estimates from annual, quarterly, and monthly distributions are provided for the period from 1991-2006. Our results show that a uniform measurement period of income is a requirement for the validity of distributional analyses.