Despite many decades of study, the kinematics of the broad-line region of 3C 273 are still poorly understood. We report a new, high signal-to-noise, reverberation mapping campaign carried out from 2008 November to 2018 March that allows the determination of time lags between emission lines and the variable continuum with high precision. The time lag of variations in H beta relative to those of the 5100 angstrom continuum is 146.8(-1)(2.1)(+8.3) days in the rest frame, which agrees very well with the Paschen-alpha region measured by the GRAVITY at The Very Large Telescope Interferometer. The time lag of the H gamma emission line is found to be nearly the same as that for H beta. The lag of the Fe II emission is 322.0(-57)(.9)(+55.5) days, longer by a factor of similar to 2 than that of the Balmer lines. The velocity-resolved lag measurements of the H beta line show a complex structure that can be possibly explained by a rotation-dominated disk with some inflowing radial velocity in the H beta-emitting region. Taking the virial factor of f(BLR) = 1.3, we derive a BH mass of M. = 4.1(-0.4)(+0.3) x 10(8) M-circle dot and an accretion rate of 9.3 L-Edd C-2 from the H beta line. The decomposition of its Hubble Space Telescope images yields a host stellar mass of M-* = 10(11.)(3 +/- 0.7) M-circle dot, and a ratio of M./M-* approximate to 2.0 x 10(-3) in agreement with the Magorrian relation. In the near future, it is expected to compare the geometrically thick BLR discovered by the GRAVITY in 3C 273 with its spatially resolved torus in order to understand the potential connection between the BLR and the torus. ; National Key R&D Program of China [2016YFA0400701, 2016YFA0400702]; NSFC [NSFC-11873048, NSFC-11833008, NSFC-11473002, NSFC-11721303, NSFC-11690024]; Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences, CAS [QYZDJ-SSW-SLH007]; Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB23010400]; Fermi Guest Investigator grants [NNX08AW56G, NNX09AU10G, NNX12AO93G, NNX15AU81G]; CAS; People's Government of Yunnan Province ; Open access journal ; This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.
Abstract. This paper discusses how epistemic uncertainties are currently considered in the most widely occurring natural hazard areas, including floods, landslides and debris flows, dam safety, droughts, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic ash clouds and pyroclastic flows, and wind storms. Our aim is to provide an overview of the types of epistemic uncertainty in the analysis of these natural hazards and to discuss how they have been treated so far to bring out some commonalities and differences. The breadth of our study makes it difficult to go into great detail on each aspect covered here; hence the focus lies on providing an overview and on citing key literature. We find that in current probabilistic approaches to the problem, uncertainties are all too often treated as if, at some fundamental level, they are aleatory in nature. This can be a tempting choice when knowledge of more complex structures is difficult to determine but not acknowledging the epistemic nature of many sources of uncertainty will compromise any risk analysis. We do not imply that probabilistic uncertainty estimation necessarily ignores the epistemic nature of uncertainties in natural hazards; expert elicitation for example can be set within a probabilistic framework to do just that. However, we suggest that the use of simple aleatory distributional models, common in current practice, will underestimate the potential variability in assessing hazards, consequences, and risks. A commonality across all approaches is that every analysis is necessarily conditional on the assumptions made about the nature of the sources of epistemic uncertainty. It is therefore important to record the assumptions made and to evaluate their impact on the uncertainty estimate. Additional guidelines for good practice based on this review are suggested in the companion paper (Part 2).
This report provides insight in the planned enabling solutions to be developed within HYPERRIDE project. The descriptions and general specifications outlined here have to be read in context with: D2.1: Requirements on grid infrastructure - describing systemic requirements for DC and hybrid Alternating Current and Direct Current (ACDC) grid installations with derived Key Performance Indicators (KPI)s to assess the grid quality; D2.2: Use case specification - a collection of use cases for the pilot installations in HYPERRIDE and relevant technologies such as Information and Communications Technology (ICT) solutions and components (converters, breakers, measurement units). While some solutions for DC grid installations can be directly transferred from AC to DC, it is necessary that novel solutions are developed in many areas from the overall system to individual components. The areas where HYPERRIDE will provide and showcase them at the demonstration sites are: Grid planning and simulation; Grid automation methods; Protection methodologies; Safety and security; Meteorology; Converter technologies; Test and validation methods. For each individual development a start and end Technology Readiness Level (TRL) description is indicated including the development path in subsequent work packages and a general specification based on the current state of knowledge.
Practitioners and policymakers working in environmental arenas make decisions that can have large impacts on ecosystems. Basing such decisions on high‐quality evidence about the effectiveness of different interventions can often maximize the success of policy and management. Accordingly, it is vital to understand how environmental professionals working at the science‐policy interface view and use different types of evidence, including evidence syntheses that collate and summarize available knowledge on a specific topic to save time for decision‐makers. We interviewed 84 senior environmental professionals in Canada working at the science‐policy interface to explore their confidence in, and use of, evidence syntheses within their organizations. Interviewees value evidence syntheses because they increase confidence in decision‐making, particularly for high‐profile or risky decisions. Despite this enthusiasm, the apparent lack of available syntheses for many environmental issues means that use can be limited and tends to be opportunistic. Our research suggests that if relevant, high quality evidence syntheses exist, they are likely to be used and embraced in decision‐making spheres. Therefore, efforts to increase capacity for conducting evidence syntheses within government agencies and/or funding such activities by external bodies have the potential to enable evidence‐based decision‐making. ; Additional co-authors: Karen E. Smokorowski, Steven M. Alexander, Steven J. Cooke
[Image: see text] Rising antimicrobial resistance challenges our ability to combat bacterial infections. The problem is acute for tuberculosis (TB), the leading cause of death from infection before COVID-19. Here, we developed a framework for multiple pharmaceutical companies to share proprietary information and compounds with multiple laboratories in the academic and government sectors for a broad examination of the ability of β-lactams to kill Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb). In the TB Drug Accelerator (TBDA), a consortium organized by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, individual pharmaceutical companies collaborate with academic screening laboratories. We developed a higher order consortium within the TBDA in which four pharmaceutical companies (GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, MSD, and Lilly) collectively collaborated with screeners at Weill Cornell Medicine, the Infectious Disease Research Institute (IDRI), and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), pharmacologists at Rutgers University, and medicinal chemists at the University of North Carolina to screen ∼8900 β-lactams, predominantly cephalosporins, and characterize active compounds. In a striking contrast to historical expectation, 18% of β-lactams screened were active against Mtb, many without a β-lactamase inhibitor. One potent cephaloporin was active in Mtb-infected mice. The steps outlined here can serve as a blueprint for multiparty, intra- and intersector collaboration in the development of anti-infective agents.
The Arctic is experiencing rapidly warming conditions, increasing predator abundance, and diminishing population cycles of keystone species such as lemmings. However, it is still not known how many Arctic animals will respond to a changing climate with altered trophic interactions. We studied clutch size, incubation duration and nest survival of 17 taxa of Arctic-breeding shorebirds at 16 field sites over 7years. We predicted that physiological benefits of higher temperatures and earlier snowmelt would increase reproductive effort and nest survival, and we expected increasing predator abundance and decreasing abundance of alternative prey (arvicoline rodents) to have a negative effect on reproduction. Although we observed wide ranges of conditions during our study, we found no effects of covariates on reproductive traits in 12 of 17 taxa. In the remaining taxa, most relationships agreed with our predictions. Earlier snowmelt increased the probability of laying a full clutch from 0.61 to 0.91 for Western Sandpipers, and shortened incubation by 1.42days for arcticola Dunlin and 0.77days for Red Phalaropes. Higher temperatures increased the probability of a full clutch from 0.60 to 0.93 for Western Sandpipers and from 0.76 to 0.97 for Red-necked Phalaropes, and increased daily nest survival rates from 0.9634 to 0.9890 for Semipalmated Sandpipers and 0.9546 to 0.9880 for Western Sandpipers. Higher abundance of predators (foxes) reduced daily nest survival rates only in Western Sandpipers (0.9821-0.9031). In contrast to our predictions, the probability of a full clutch was lowest (0.83) for Semipalmated Sandpipers at moderate abundance of alternative prey, rather than low abundance (0.90). Our findings suggest that in the short-term, climate warming may have neutral or positive effects on the nesting cycle of most Arctic-breeding shorebirds. ; National Fish and Wildlife Foundation [2010-0061-015, 2011-0032-014, 0801.12.032731, 0801.13.041129]; Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act [F11AP01040, F12AP00734, F13APO535, 4073]; Arctic Goose Joint Venture; Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.; Bureau of Land Management; Canada Fund for InnovationCanada Foundation for Innovation; Canada Research ChairsCanada Research Chairs; Cape Krusenstern National Monument grant; Centre for Wildlife Ecology at Simon Fraser University; Churchill Northern Studies Centre; Cornell University Graduate School Mellon Grant; Ducks Unlimited Canada; Environment and Climate Change Canada; FQRNT (Quebec)FQRNT; Government of Nunavut; Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada; Kansas State University; Kresge Foundation; Liz Claiborne and Art Ortenberg Foundation; Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences; Mississippi Flyway Council; Murie Science and Learning Center grants; National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; National Park Service; National Science Foundation (Office of Polar Programs Grant) [ARC-1023396]; National Science Foundation (Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant)National Science Foundation (NSF) [1110444]; Natural Resources Canada (Polar Continental Shelf Program); Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; Northern Studies Training Program; Selawik National Wildlife Refuge; Trust for Mutual Understanding; Universite du Quebec a Rimouski; University of Alaska Fairbanks; University of Colorado Denver; University of Missouri Columbia; University of Moncton; US Fish and Wildlife Service (Migratory Bird Management Division, Survey, Monitoring and Assessment Program); US Fish and Wildlife Service (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge System's Challenge Cost Share Program); US Fish and Wildlife Service (Avian Influenza Health and Influenza programmes); US Geological Survey (USGS) (Changing Arctic Ecosystem Initiative, Wildlife Program of the USGS Ecosystem Mission Area); W. Garfield Weston Foundation; Alaska Department of Fish and Game ; E.L.W compiled the field data, designed and performed the statistical analyses and wrote the manuscript. B.K.S. assisted with design of analyses and preparation of the manuscript. R.B.L., S.C.B. and H.R.G. led development of standardized field protocols and coordinated field work. B.K.S., R.B.L., S.C.B., H.R.G. and all other authors, who are listed in alphabetical order, designed and conducted the field studies, contributed to interpreting the results and assisted with editing the manuscript. Major support for the ASDN was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (grants 2010-0061-015, 2011-0032-014, 0801.12.032731 and 0801.13.041129), the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (grants F11AP01040, F12AP00734 and F13APO535) and the Arctic Landscape Conservation Cooperative. Additional funding for participating field sites was provided by: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Arctic Goose Joint Venture, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Bureau of Land Management, Canada Fund for Innovation, Canada Research Chairs, Cape Krusenstern National Monument grant, Centre for Wildlife Ecology at Simon Fraser University, Churchill Northern Studies Centre, Cornell University Graduate School Mellon Grant, Ducks Unlimited Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, FQRNT (Quebec), Government of Nunavut, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Kansas State University, Kresge Foundation, Liz Claiborne and Art Ortenberg Foundation, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Mississippi Flyway Council, Murie Science and Learning Center grants, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, National Park Service, National Science Foundation (Office of Polar Programs Grant ARC-1023396 and Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant 1110444), Natural Resources Canada (Polar Continental Shelf Program), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Discovery Grant and Northern Supplement), Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (grant 4073), Northern Studies Training Program, Selawik National Wildlife Refuge, Trust for Mutual Understanding, Universite du Quebec a Rimouski, University of Alaska Fairbanks, University of Colorado Denver, University of Missouri Columbia, University of Moncton, US Fish and Wildlife Service (Migratory Bird Management Division, Survey, Monitoring and Assessment Program, Alaska National Wildlife Refuge System's Challenge Cost Share Program and Avian Influenza Health and Influenza programmes), US Geological Survey (USGS) (Changing Arctic Ecosystem Initiative, Wildlife Program of the USGS Ecosystem Mission Area), and the W. Garfield Weston Foundation. Logistical support was provided by Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Barrow Arctic Science Consortium, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Kinross Gold Corporation, Umiaq LLC, Selawik National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS), ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc., Cape Krusenstern National Monument (National Park Service) and Sirmilik National Park (Parks Canada). We thank local communities and landowners, including the Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation, the people of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Sitnasuak Native Corporation, the Kuukpik Corporation and the North Slope Borough for permitting us to conduct research on their lands.; Animal handling, marking and monitoring procedures were approved by Environment and Climate Change Canada, Government of Nunavut, Kansas State University, National Park Service, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, University of Alaska Fairbanks, University of Moncton, US Fish & Wildlife Service and US Geological Survey. All applicable international, national and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. We thank A. Tygart for assistance in compiling JAGS for use on the Beocat supercomputer at Kansas State University, D. Payer and S. Freeman for their work at Canning River, and H. Meltofte, P. Battley, B. Ross, J. Sutton, L. Martin and the Sandercock lab for comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. We thank the many field assistants who were involved in data collection, especially field crew leaders K. Bennet, M. Burrell, J. Cunningham, E. D'Astous, S. Carvey, A. Doll, L. Pirie Dominix, K. Gold, A. Gottesman, K. Grond, P. Herzog, B. Hill, D. Hodgkinson, A. J. Johnson, D. Pavlik, M. Peck, L. Pollock, S. Sapora, B. Schwarz, F. Smith, H. M. Specht, M. VanderHeyden, B. M. Walker and B. Wilkinson. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government. ; Public domain authored by a U.S. government employee
