基于文本故障视角的通信保障应急预案有效性评估研究

应急通信预案作为应急通信保障的行动纲领,其文本有效性将直接影响预案有效性,进而影响到整个应急救援行动的有效性。针对预案文本有效性问题,从文本故障视角出发,基于故障树分析法构建通信保障应急预案有效性评估模型;采用语句成分分析法和伪代码转换法对预案进行故障形式诊断,结合标准故障树,计算预案的有效性并给出具体评估步骤;最终,通过4个样本预案对模型进行实例分析,结果表明:该模型能够提高预案文本故障的识别效率,对预案的编制或修订具有参考意义。     

When creativity enhances sales effectiveness: The moderating role of leader–member exchange

This study extends research on creativity by exploring the boundary conditions of the creativity–job effectiveness relationship. Building on social exchange theory, we argue that the extent to which employee creativity is related to sales—an objective work effectiveness measure—depends on the quality of leader–member exchange (LMX). We hypothesize that the relationship between creativity and sales is significant and positive when LMX is high, but not when LMX is low. Hierarchical linear modelling analysis provided support for the interaction hypothesis in a sample of 151 sales agents and 26 supervisors drawn from both pharmaceutical and insurance companies. Results showed that sales agents who were more creative generated higher sales only when they had high‐quality LMX. An ad hoc qualitative study provided a more detailed understanding of the moderator role played by LMX. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

环境影响评价中的公众参与机制研究

通过梳理分析环境影响评价相关法中公众参与的规定,对照UNEP有效的公众参与五要素,剖析环境影响评价中公众参与机制的不足,并提出完善环境影响评价中公众参与机制的对策。     

科学在环境影响评价中的作用

环境影响评价(EIA)既是一门技术又是一项制度。科学对环境影响评价的作用同样主要表现在技术和制度两方面:相应的技术规范及替代解决方案使其成为应用科学,而公众参与与制度保证使其成为公民科学。其制度特性较技术性更为基础,更为重要,科学在其中的作用需要更加重视。     

规划环评中公众参与有效性案例研究

针对规划环评的特点,通过秦皇岛经济技术开发区规划环评案例分析,就如何保证规划环境影响评价中公众参与有效性进行了探讨,提出了只有做到广泛的公众代表性、有效的公众参与形式、科学的问卷设计、合理的反馈意见处理,才能发挥公众参与在规划环境影响评价工作中的作用。     

局部蒸汽系统抑制熄灭油池火的实验研究

选取乙醇为燃料试样,进行不同条件下蒸汽灭火的全尺寸实验,研究了局部蒸汽系统抑制熄灭油池火的有效性及其影响因素,并探讨其灭火机理.实验结果表明:喷口直径是影响蒸汽灭火的关键因素,中等直径的喷口具有较好的灭火效率;喷口方位和燃料浓度也会影响灭火有效性;局部蒸汽系统的有效保护面积大于直接覆盖面积,对可燃气和氧气的稀释置换作用...     

保护层分析中独立保护层的识别研究

为阐述保护层分析(LOPA)中独立保护层(IPL)的识别规则,以及这些规则在实际应用中要注意的问题,以生产聚氯乙烯(PVC)的间歇聚合反应为例,对8个不同的LOPA场景进行分析,给出不同场景的IPL和要求时的失效概率(PFD),以及建议增加的IPL。分析结果表明,在进行IPL的识别时,应重点确认IPL的有效性和独立性。在评估IPL有效性时,应关注具有共同元件的IPL,IPL的行动能力、人员行动有效性及IPL的PFD等。在评估独立性时,应确保IPL独立于初始事件和同一场景中的其他IPL的任何构成元件。通过分析,发现PVC工艺中安全阀(PSV)设计、安全仪表功能(SIF)设计和人员行动等IPL中存在的问题,并提出相应的建议。     

Improving protected area effectiveness through consideration of different human-pressure baselines

Previous assessments of the effectiveness of protected areas (PAs) focused primarily on changes in human pressure over time and did not consider the different human-pressure baselines of PAs, thereby potentially over- or underestimating PA effectiveness. We developed a framework that considers both human-pressure baseline and change in human pressure over time and assessed the effectiveness of 338 PAs in China from 2010 to 2020. The initial state of human pressure on PAs was taken as the baseline, and changes in human pressure index (HPI) were further analyzed under different baselines. We used the random forest models to identify the management measures that most improved effectiveness in resisting human pressure for the PAs with different baselines. Finally, the relationships between the changes in the HPI and the changes in natural ecosystems in PAs were analyzed with different baselines. Of PAs with low HPI baselines, medium HPI baselines, and high HPI baselines, 76.92% (n=150), 11.11% (n=12), and 22.86% (n=8) , respectively, showed positive effects in resisting human pressure. Overall, ignoring human-pressure baselines somewhat underestimated the positive effects of PAs, especially for those with low initial human pressure. For PAs with different initial human pressures, different management measures should be taken to improve effectiveness and reduce threats to natural ecosystems. We believe our framework is useful for assessing the effectiveness of PAs globally, and we recommend it be included in the Convention on Biological Diversity Post-2020 Strategy.     

规划环境影响评价项目实施有效性的评估

从管理程序、技术方法、内容设置、评价结论及规划实施的保障措施等方面,建立了评估规划环境影响评价实施有效性的指标体系,包括“早期介入、公众参与的有效性、评审制度的严格性、工作程序的合理性、评价方法的实用性、技术手段的先进性、指标体系的全面性和合理性、环境质量评价标准的有效性、累积影响评价、替代方案、评价结论的明确性、规划评价结论的有效采纳、缓解和跟踪措施”等13项指标,并在对9个规划环境影响评价案例实施有效性评估的基础上,分析了当前该领域普遍存在的问题,包括规划环境影响评价介入时机晚、替代方案较少、公众参与普遍流于形式和对累积影响考虑不够等.      

Driver injury in near- and far-side impacts: Update on the effect of front passenger belt use

Purpose: This is a study that updates earlier research on the influence of a front passenger on the risk for severe driver injury in near-side and far-side impacts. It includes the effects of belt use by the driver and passenger, identifies body regions involved in driver injury, and identifies the sources for severe driver head injury.

Methods: 1997–2015 NASS-CDS data were used to investigate the risk for Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) 4 + F driver injury in near-side and far-side impacts by front passenger belt use and as a sole occupant in the driver seat. Side impacts were identified with GAD1 = L or R without rollover (rollover ≤ 0). Front-outboard occupants were included without ejection (ejection = 0). Injury severity was defined by MAIS and fatality (F) by TREATMNT = 1 or INJSEV = 4. Weighted data were determined. The risk for MAIS 4 + F was determined using the number of occupants with known injury status MAIS 0 + F. Standard errors were determined.

Results: Overall, belted drivers had greater risks for severe injury in near-side than far-side impacts. As a sole driver, the risk was 0.969 ± 0.212% for near-side and 0.313 ± 0.069% for far-side impacts (P < .005). The driver's risk was 0.933 ± 0.430% with an unbelted passenger and 0.596 ± 0.144% with a belted passenger in near-side impacts. The risk was 2.17 times greater with an unbelted passenger (NS). The driver's risk was 0.782 ± 0.431% with an unbelted passenger and 0.361% ± 0.114% with a belted passenger in far-side impacts. The risk was 1.57 times greater with an unbelted passenger (P < .10). Seat belt use was 66 to 95% effective in preventing MAIS 4 + F injury in the driver. For belted drivers, the head and thorax were the leading body regions for Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 4+ injury. For near-side impacts, the leading sources for AIS 4+ head injury were the left B-pillar, roof, and other vehicle. For far-side impacts, the leading sources were the other occupant, right interior, and roof (8.5%).

Conclusions: Seat belt use by a passenger lowered the risk of severe driver injury in side impacts. The reduction was 54% in near-side impacts and 36% in far-side impacts. Belted drivers experienced mostly head and thoracic AIS 4+ injuries. Head injuries in the belted drivers were from contact with the side interior and the other occupant, even with a belted passenger.