The Experts below are selected from a list of 23349 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Guochun Zhao - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
reply to comment on the applicability of garnet orthopyroxene geobarometry in mantle xenoliths by paolo nimis and herman grutter
2012Co-Authors: Guochun ZhaoAbstract:Abstract Equilibrium P – T conditions of garnet-facies or garnet-spinel transition facies mantle xenoliths are suggested to be best determined through a combination of the Taylor (1998) two-pyroxene thermometer either with the Taylor (1998) garnet-orthopyroxene Barometer for TiO 2 -rich orthopyroxenes (Al/Ti 2 -poor orthopyroxenes (Al/Ti > 12.0).
-
the applicability of garnet orthopyroxene geobarometry in mantle xenoliths
2011Co-Authors: Guochun ZhaoAbstract:Abstract The various existing garnet–orthopyroxene geoBarometers calibrated based on the Al 2 O 3 or Cr 2 O 3 components in orthopyroxene buffered by coexisting garnet for mantle xenoliths, abbreviated as Al 2 O 3 -Barometer and Cr 2 O 3 -Barometer, respectively, have been extensively studied, to test their precision by applying them to phase equilibrium experimental data, and to evaluate their validity by applying them to natural pyrolites. The Cr 2 O 3 -Barometers failed in reconstructing the experimental pressures due to imprecise description of activities of garnet and orthopyroxene end members. Several of the Al 2 O 3 -Barometers showed perfect ability in reproducing the experimental pressures and successfully discerned the garnet-facies and garnet–spinel transition facies lherzolites as well as the graphite- or diamond-bearing mantle xenoliths. It is recommended that pressure and temperature estimation of mantle xenoliths may be best determined simultaneously by combining the garnet–orthopyroxene Barometer and the two-pyroxene thermometer of Taylor (1998). Orthopyroxenes containing Al 2 O 3 contents of less than 0.37 wt.% should not be used in the pressure estimation in order to avoid significant P–T errors propagated from analytical errors.
-
recalibration of the garnet muscovite gm geothermometer and the garnet muscovite plagioclase quartz gmpq geoBarometer for metapelitic assemblages
2006Co-Authors: Guochun ZhaoAbstract:The garnet–muscovite (GM) geothermometer and the garnet– muscovite–plagioclase–quartz (GMPQ) geoBarometer have been simultaneously calibrated under conditions of T 1⁄4 450–760 C and P 1⁄4 0.8–11.1 kbar, using a large number of metapelitic samples in the compositional ranges X grt Fe 1⁄4 0.53–0.81, X grt Mg 1⁄4 0.05–0.24, X grt Ca 1⁄4 0.03–0.23 in garnet, X pl Ca 1⁄4 0.17–0.74 in plagioclase, and Fe 1⁄4 0.04–0.16, Mg 1⁄4 0.04–0.13, Al 1⁄4 1.74–1.96 in muscovite on the basis of 11 oxygens. The resulting GM thermometer yielded similar temperature estimates (mostly within ±50 C) to that of the garnet–biotite thermometer, and successfully discerned the expected systematic temperature change of prograde sequences, thermal contact zones and an inverted metamorphic zone. The resulting GMPQ Barometer yielded similar pressure estimates (mostly within ±1.0 kbar) to the garnet– aluminum silicate–plagioclase–quartz (GASP) Barometer and placed the aluminosilicate-bearing samples in the appropriate aluminosilicate stability fields. Application of the GMPQ Barometer to thermal contact aureoles or rocks within limited geographical areas confirmed the expected constant pressures that should exist in these settings. The random errors of the GM thermometer and the GMPQ Barometer are estimated to be ±16 C and ±1.5 kbar, respectively. When biotite or aluminosilicate is absent in metapelites, metamorphic P–T conditions may be determined by simultaneously applying the GM thermometer and the GMPQ Barometer.
Janegbert Sturm - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the kof economic Barometer version 2014 a composite leading indicator for the swiss business cycle
2014Co-Authors: Klaus Abberger, Michael Graff, Boriss Siliverstovs, Janegbert SturmAbstract:This paper presents a composite leading indicator for the Swiss business cycle corresponding to the growth rate cycle concept. It is the result of a complete overhaul of the KOF Economic Barometer that has been published by the KOF Swiss Economic Institute on a monthly basis since 1976. In line with this tradition, the calculation of the new KOF Barometer comprises two main stages. The first consists of the variable selection procedure; and in the second stage these variables are subsequently transformed into one leading indicator. Whereas in the previous versions of the KOF Barometer six to 25 variables survived the first stage, the new – less discretionary and more automated – version of the first stage is much more generous. Currently, out of a set of 476 variables resulting in 4356 transformations thereof that are tested in the first stage, 219 variables manage to enter the second stage. The increased number of variables underlying the second stage allows a relatively stable and robust KOF Barometer – compared to its previous versions – that has hence no longer to rely on filtering techniques to reduce the noise in the final indicator. In a (pseudo-) real-time analysis the characteristics of the new KOF Barometer are compared to the previous versions and other alternatives.
-
the kof economic Barometer version 2014
2014Co-Authors: Klaus Abberger, Michael Graff, Boriss Siliverstovs, Janegbert SturmAbstract:This paper presents a composite leading indicator for the Swiss business cycle corresponding to the growth rate cycle concept. It is the result of a complete overhaul of the KOF Economic Barometer that has been published by the KOF Swiss Economic Institute on a monthly basis since 1976. In line with this tradition, the calculation of the new KOF Barometer comprises two main stages. The first consists of the variable selection procedure; and in the second stage these variables are subsequently transformed into one leading indicator. Whereas in the previous versions of the KOF Barometer six to 25 variables survived the first stage, the new – less discretionary and more automated – version of the first stage is much more generous. Currently, out of a set of 476 variables resulting in 4356 transformations thereof that are tested in the first stage, 219 variables manage to enter the second stage. The increased number of variables underlying the second stage allows a relatively stable and robust KOF Barometer – compared to its previous versions – that has hence no longer to rely on filtering techniques to reduce the noise in the final indicator. In a (pseudo-) real-time analysis the characteristics of the new KOF Barometer are compared to the previous versions and other alternatives.
Peter Theuns - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
systematic screening for distress in oncology practice using the distress Barometer the impact on referrals to psychosocial care
2014Co-Authors: Sabien Bauwens, Catherine Baillon, Willem Distelmans, Peter TheunsAbstract:Purpose This study evaluates how patterns of psychosocial referral of patients with elevated distress differ in a ‘systematic screening for distress’ condition versus a ‘usual practice’ condition in ambulatory oncology practice. Methods The psychosocial referral process in a 2-week usual practice (N = 278) condition was compared with a 2-week ‘using the Distress Barometer as a screening instrument’ (N = 304) condition in an outpatient clinic with seven consulting oncologists. Results Out of all distressed patients in the usual practice condition, only 5.5% of patients detected with distress were actually referred to psychosocial counselling, compared with 69.1% of patients detected with distress in the condition with systematic screening using the Distress Barometer. Only 3.7% of patients detected with distress in the usual practice condition finally accepted this referral, compared with 27.6% of patients detected with distress in the screening condition. Conclusions Using the Distress Barometer as a self-report screening instrument prior to oncological consultation optimises detection of elevated distress in patients, and this results in a higher number of performed and accepted referrals, but cannot by itself guarantee actual psychosocial referral or acceptance of referral. There is not only a problem of poor detection of distress in cancer patients but also a need for better decision-making and communication between oncologists and patients about this issue. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
-
the distress Barometer validation of method of combining the distress thermometer with a rated complaint scale
2009Co-Authors: Sabien Bauwens, Catherine Baillon, Wim Distelmans, Peter TheunsAbstract:Objective: Screening instruments may enhance the clinician's ability to detect elevated levels of distress in cancer patients, but these are often neither suitable nor effective for the routine of daily care for cancer patients. The newly developed Distress Barometer (DB) was intended to provide medical doctors with a convenient tool to interpret ‘at single glance’ the nature and the intensity of distress in ambulatory cancer patients. The DB, i.e. a combination of the Distress Thermometer (DT) and a new tool, the Colored Complaint Scale was developed to improve the specificity of distress screening without decreasing the sensitivity of the Distress Thermometer. Methods: Distress was screened in a sample of 538 out-patients, using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the new Distress Barometer (DB). Results: The results confirm the validity of the Dutch version of the DT against the HADS as standard measure. In addition, it was found that the overall accuracy of the new DB was higher, with a sensitivity of 0.79 and a specificity of 0.81. Conclusion: These results indicate that the Distress Barometer, which is convenient for both patients and doctors, can be used as an acceptable, brief and sufficiently accurate method for detecting distress in cancer patients. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Yannis Siskos - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A survey of customer satisfaction Barometers: Some results from the transportation-communications sector
2004Co-Authors: Evangelos Grigoroudis, Yannis SiskosAbstract:Abstract The most important efforts that have been reported for the development of generic satisfaction Barometers during the last years refer to individual business organisations, industry sectors or the total of national economies. The main aim of these efforts is the data collection either for comparative analysis of companies’ performance regarding customer satisfaction or for monitoring the evolution of global and partial satisfaction indices. In addition, the generic satisfaction Barometers provide the ability to correlate basic economical dimensions with customer satisfaction like productivity variations at a national level or changes in the general consumer price index. This study presents the most important efforts for the measurement of customer satisfaction at the transportation-communications sector within the frame of development and installation of national satisfaction Barometers. Furthermore, the models, which constitute the basic methodological tools for the measurement and the analysis of the presented satisfaction Barometers, are briefly presented through this paper.
Liudong Ren - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
empirical garnet biotite plagioclase quartz gbpq geobarometry in medium to high grade metapelites
2004Co-Authors: Jian Zhang, Liudong RenAbstract:On the basis of the net transfer reactions among garnet, biotite, plagioclase and quartz (for both Mg and Fe end-member models), the garnet–biotite–plagioclase–quartz (GBPQ) geoBarometer was empirically calibrated under physical conditions of P ¼ 1� 0–11� 4 kbar and T ¼ 515–878 � C, based on the input garnet–biotite temperatures and garnet–aluminosilicate–plagioclase– quartz (GASP) pressures of 224 natural aluminosilicate-bearing metapelitic samples collated from the literature. The calibrations are internally consistent with the asymmetric quaternary solid solution model of garnet, the symmetric quaternary solid solution model of biotite, and the Al-avoidance ternary solid solution model of plagioclase in calibrating the garnet–biotite geothermometer and the GASP geoBarometer. The resulting two GBPQ Barometer formulae reproduce the input GASP pressures well within � 1� 0 kbar (mostly within � 0� 5 kbar). For both aluminosilicate-bearing and aluminosilicate-absent metapelites, the two GBPQ barometry formulae yielded identical pressures, whether the sample was included or not included in calibrating the GBPQ barometry. The random error of the GBPQ barometry may be expected as � 1� 2 kbar. The dP/dT slopes of these two GBPQ formulae are close to that of the GASP Barometer in P–T space. Applications of the GBPQ barometry of aluminosilicate-absent metapelites to the rocks within a thermal contact aureole, or rocks within a limited geographical area without post-metamorphic structural discontinuity, show no obvious pressure change. It may be concluded that the two GBPQ barometry formulae derived in this study may be used as practical tools for metamorphic pelites under the conditions of 515–878 � C and 1� 0–11� 4 kbar, in the composition range of Xgros >3% in garnet, Xan >17% in plagioclase, and X bio >3% in biotite. Application of the GBPQ Barometer beyond the calibration range should be undertaken with caution.