Newest Papers
Modeling human performance in running.
R H Morton, J R Fitz-Clarke, E W Banister
Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985)·1990
This paper focuses on the characteristics of a model interpreting the effect of training on athletic performance. The model theory is presented both mathematically and graphically. In the model, a systematically quantified impulse of training produces dual responses: fitness and fatigue. In the absence of training, both decay exponentially with time. With repetitive training, these responses satisfy individual recurrence equations. Fitness and fatigue are combined in a simple linear difference equation to predict performance levels appropriate to the intensity of training being undertaken. Significant observed correlation of model-predicted performance with a measure of actual performance during both training and tapering provides validation of the model for athletes and nonathletes alike. This enables specific model parameters to be estimated and can be used to optimize future training regimens for any individual.
No ratings yet
View paper →The Effects of Gender and Measurement Strategy on Causal Attributions for Infertility
Marie Anne Vieyra, Howard Tennen, Glenn Affleck, George Allen, Lisa McCann
Basic and Applied Social Psychology·1990·13 citations
No abstract available
No ratings yet
View paper →What the f---'s name is fordism?
Simon Clarke
1990
There is a widespread belief that the 1980s marked a period of transition to a new epoch of capitalism,
underlying which were fundamental changes in the forms of capitalist production. There is little agreement
over the precise contours of the new epoch, or even over the term by which it is to be called, but there is a
near universal consensus that it derives from the crisis and breakdown of something called „Fordism‟. The
one thing that unites the exponents of „neo-Fordism‟, „post-Fordism‟, „post-Modernism‟, „Toyotism‟,
„Nextism‟, „Benettonism‟, „Proudhonism‟, „Japanisation‟, „flexible specialisation‟, etc. is that the new „mode
of accumulation‟, or „mode of life‟, is „Not-Fordism‟. Behind all the disagreements is a consensus that the
1960s marked the apogee of something called „Fordism‟, the 1970s was marked by the „crisis of Fordism‟,
the 1980s marked the transition to „Not-Fordism‟, which will be realised in the 1990s.
Much energy has been expended in debating the diffuse characterisations of „Not-Fordism‟. However, much
less attention has been paid to the characterisation of Fordism. In this paper I want to ask the simple question
„What in the Ford‟s name is Fordism?‟ In view of the title of the session as a whole I will keep a particular
eye on the supposed „inflexibility‟ of Fordism.1
No ratings yet
View paper →