首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
On p. 1725 of Ref. 1, in the 20th line in the righthand column, the printed phrase "two-step time diffraction" should read as "two-step diffraction."  相似文献   

2.
In our recent Letter1 a line of text was dropped in printing. On p. 2024 the beginning of the paragraph above Fig. 3 should read as follows: "Surprisingly, the 0.5-muJ pulse energy used in these microexplosions...".  相似文献   

3.
In Ref. 1, the second sentence of the abstract should read as follows: "As compared with other methods that make use of these materials, we have achieved higher sensitivity with good spatial resolution."  相似文献   

4.
Optics and Spectroscopy - Equation (25) should be read as follows:  相似文献   

5.
Optics and Spectroscopy - The ACKNOWLEDGMENTS should read as follows:  相似文献   

6.
Russian Physics Journal - There was a misprint in the third author’s name. It should read Yangyang Ju instead of Yu Yang yang.  相似文献   

7.
Doklady Physics - The list of affiliations should read as follows:  相似文献   

8.
弭宝国  王硕军 《大学物理》2006,25(5):32-33,59
对传统的超重、失重演示实验进行了改进,使弹簧秤的指针能静止在超重(或失重)的位置上,从而能准确地读出读数,提高演示效果.  相似文献   

9.
Recently, a new technique has been demonstrated which effectively refocusses the dephasing effects of spins moving during application of MR imaging gradients. This paper presents an analysis of imaging axes significance in spin dephasing for motion occurring along the slice select, read and phase-encoding directions. A flow phantom under constant flow conditions in all experiments was used to provide complete spin dephasing when "traditional" imaging gradients were used. The MAST technique was used to refocus along various combinations of imaging axes, and variable number of terms from the Taylor expansion of motion along them. Results indicate that motion along any imaging axis can be refocussed effectively when MAST gradients are used along only the slice select and read axis.  相似文献   

10.
Physics of the Solid State - The name of the fifth author should read Mohrain.  相似文献   

11.
Russian Physics Journal - There was a misprint in the second author’s name. It should read D. A. Goncharova instead of D. A. Goncharov.  相似文献   

12.
Russian Physics Journal - The last paragraph of the article should read “The work was performed according to the Government research assignment for ISPMS SB RAS, project No. III.23.2.6.”  相似文献   

13.
Gunbina  A. A.  Lemzyakov  S. A.  Tarasov  M. A.  Edelman  V. S.  Yusupov  R. A. 《JETP Letters》2020,112(12):799-799
JETP Letters - Page 542, the sentence under Fig. 3 should read as follows: According to Fig. 3, the maximum radiation response is 2 × 109 V/W, which is 2.5 times greater than that at...  相似文献   

14.
Russian Physics Journal - There was a misprint in the first author’s affiliation (V. A. Klimenov). It should read National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University instead of National Research...  相似文献   

15.
Russian Physics Journal - The name of the fourth author should read A. N. Ponomarev.  相似文献   

16.
Optics and Spectroscopy - should read “porphyrazine” instead of “porphyrazin”; should read “intersystem crossing” instead of “intercombinational...  相似文献   

17.
Russian Physics Journal - The name of the second author should read S. I. Koshoridze instead of S. I. Kosharidze.  相似文献   

18.
Physics of the Solid State - E-mail address of the corresponding author should read: e.vasinovich@gmail.com  相似文献   

19.
In our recent Letter,(1) several typographical errors were present. On p. 487, in Fig. 2, the equations for the following Mueller matrix elements should read as S(14) = (RO - LO), S(22) = (HH + VV) - (HV + VH), S(23) = (PH + MV) - (PV + MH), S(24) = (RH + LV) - (RV + LH), S(32) = (HP + VM) - (HM + VP), S(33) = (PP + MM) - (PM + MP), S(34) = (RP + LM) - (RM + LP), S(41) = (OR + OL), S(42) = (HR + VL) - (HL + VR), S(43) = (PR + ML) - (PL + MR), and S(44) = (RR + LL) - (RL + LR). Also on p. 487, in the left-hand column, line 10 from the top should read as follows: mfp? = 1/[mua + mus(1 - g)], was 0.957 cm.  相似文献   

20.
In educational large-scale assessment studies such as PISA, item response theory (IRT) models are used to summarize students’ performance on cognitive test items across countries. In this article, the impact of the choice of the IRT model on the distribution parameters of countries (i.e., mean, standard deviation, percentiles) is investigated. Eleven different IRT models are compared using information criteria. Moreover, model uncertainty is quantified by estimating model error, which can be compared with the sampling error associated with the sampling of students. The PISA 2009 dataset for the cognitive domains mathematics, reading, and science is used as an example of the choice of the IRT model. It turned out that the three-parameter logistic IRT model with residual heterogeneity and a three-parameter IRT model with a quadratic effect of the ability θ provided the best model fit. Furthermore, model uncertainty was relatively small compared to sampling error regarding country means in most cases but was substantial for country standard deviations and percentiles. Consequently, it can be argued that model error should be included in the statistical inference of educational large-scale assessment studies.  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号