OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Handbook of Management Scales/Quality performance
## Quality performance (alpha = 0.840; composite reliability = 0.846; average variance extracted = 0.65)
### Description

Multi-item constructs served as variables for four performance measures of quality performance, delivery performance, flexibility performance and cost performance. Construct validity was given by satisfactory psychometric properties on content validity, unidimensionality, reliability, convergent and discriminant validity. The development and design of the survey instrument by an international group of senior researchers, as well as the grounding of each measurement item in empirical operations management literature, assured content validity.

### Items

Respondents were asked to indicate their performance relative to their competitors' performance on a number of dimensions, using a scale ranging from "far worse" (value = 1) to "far better" (value = 7).
* Product features
* Product performance
* Perceived overall product quality

### Source

* Power et al. (2010): The cultural characteristic of individualism/collectivism: A comparative study of implications for investment in operations between emerging Asian and industrialized Western countries. Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 206-222

### Comments

The endpoints of the scale are "far worse" (value = 1) and "far better" (value = 7). Therefore, an optimal mean value would be 4, if normal-distributed data is aimed at. However, all mean values are above 5. Therefore other endpoints might me recommendable to shift the mean value to 4.

### Related scales

* Comparative organizational performance
* Cost performance, delivery performance, and flexibility performance
* Firm's financial performance over the past 5 years
* Performance
* Organizational performance: liquidity, profitability, growth, stock market performance
# Handbook of Management Scales/Prudence
## Prudence (CR = 0.75)
### Description

Hofstede's five cultural factors are reconceptualized as ten personal cultural orientations: independence, interdependence, power, social inequality, masculinity, gender equality, risk aversion, ambiguity intolerance, tradition, and prudence. A new 40-item scale is developed to measure these personal cultural orientations. Much effort has been invested in ensuring validity, reliability, and cross-cultural measurement equivalence of the new scale.

### Definition

Prudence is defined as a personal cultural orientation that represents planning, perseverance, thrift, and future orientation.

### Items

* I believe in planning for the long term. (0.78)
* I work hard for success in the future. (0.76)
* I am willing to give up today’s fun for success in the future. (0.75)
* I do not give up easily even if I do not succeed on my first attempt. (0.72)

### Source

* Sharma (2010): Measuring Personal Cultural Orientations: Scale Development and Validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 38, No. 6, pp. 787–806
# Georgia Water/Laws/Shore Protection Act

Georgia Shore Protection Act, O.C.G.A. §§ 12-5-230 to 248

## General Description

This Act protects coastal sand dunes, beaches, sandbars, and shoals on the Georgia coast and the state’s barrier islands. Sand dunes are protected between the ocean high water mark and the first live native trees at least 20 feet tall or building built before July 1, 1979.

## Limits on Development

The Act prevents construction, development, or land alteration which affects beaches or sand dunes without first obtaining a permit from the Department of Natural Resources. It is also illegal to operate a motorized vehicle on Georgia beaches or sand dunes.

## Permits

The Act establishes a Shore Protection Committee within the Department of Natural Resources for the purpose of issuing permits. The Act gives requirements for permit applications (§ 12-5-238), procedures for granting or denying permits, and permit requirements (§ 12-5-239).

## References

* O.C.G.A. §§ 12-5-230 to 248
# Georgia Water/Laws/Surface Water Use Act

Surface Water Use Act, O.C.G.A. § 12-5-31

## General Purpose

Large water withdrawals are regulated by Georgia EPD through a water permit system based on the concept of reasonable use. Any user withdrawing or diverting more than 100,000 gallons-per-day is required to obtain a permit from EPD.

## Reasonable Use

Before issuing a permit, EPD will evaluate the reasonableness of the use by applying the criteria listed in the statute, including the number of persons using the water source; the nature, severity, or duration of any impairment adversely affecting availability for other users; any injury to public health, safety or welfare; the kinds of activities proposed; the importance and necessity of the uses and the extent of any injury caused to other water uses; diversion from or reduction in flows in other watercourses or aquifers; prior investment in land; and other relevant factors. § 12-5-31(e).

## Specific provisions of the Act
### Duration

    Municipal and industrial permits are issued for a term of 10 to 50 years, after which they must be renewed. Farm use permits are issued for an unlimited term, except in the Flint River Basin in which farm use permits issued after March 2006 have a term limit of 25 years .

### Quantity

    Municipal and industrial permits are issued for a specific quantity determined by reasonable use. All Farm use permits are based on pump capacity as of July 1, 1988.

### Revocation and Modification

    Municipal and industrial permits can be revoked by EPD for extended periods of nonuse. Farm permits cannot be revoked after an initial use, though farm permits can be revoked if water was never withdrawn.

### Transfers

    Water permits are not transferable, except that farm permits may be transferred along with the accompanying land.

## References

* O.C.G.A. § 12-5-31
# Georgia Water/Laws/Water Quality Control Act

Georgia Water Quality Control Act, O.C.G.A. §§ 12-5-20

## General Description

The Georgia Water Quality Control Act declares that the water resources of the state shall be utilized prudently for the maximum benefit of the people. The Act directs that the government of the state shall assume responsibility for the quality and quantity of such water resources and the establishment and maintenance of a water quality and water quantity control program. The Act also establishes procedures governing discharge from marine toilets.

## Applicability

“Waters of the State” are considered to be any and all rivers, streams, creeks, branches, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, drainage systems, springs, wells, and all other bodies of surface or subsurface water, natural or artificial, lying within or forming a part of the boundaries of the state which are not entirely confined and retained completely upon the property of a single individual, partnership, or corporation.

## References

* O.C.G.A. §§ 12-5-20
# Georgia Water/Laws/Waterwell Standards Act

Waterwell Standards Act , O.C.G.A. §§ 12-5-120

## General Description

The Water Well Standards Act of 1985 outlines the requirements for licensing of well drillers. All water well drillers are required to be licensed by the Act based on the language, "Any person desiring to engage in the business of water well construction in this state shall apply to the council for a license as a water well contractor."

## Administration

The State of Georgia licenses well drillers through the Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Geologic Survey.

## References

* O.C.G.A. §§ 12-5-120
# Georgia Water/Laws/Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

U.S. Wild & Scenic Rivers Act (1968)

## General Description

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) was enacted to preserve the free-flowing state of rivers that are listed in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (System) or under study for inclusion in the System because of their outstanding scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. Rivers in the System are classified as wild river areas, scenic river areas, or recreational river areas. The WSRA establishes requirements applicable to water resource projects and protects both the river, or river segments, and the land immediately surrounding them.

## Administering Agencies

The Department of the Interior (through the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service) and the Department of Agriculture (through the Forest Service) manage wild and scenic rivers within their jurisdiction and conduct the necessary studies to include additional rivers or river components into the System. Under Section 2(a) of the Act, states may also propose rivers to the System and manage them.

## Substance of Act

Section 7 of the WSRA specifically prohibits federal agencies from providing assistance for the construction of any water resources projects that would adversely affect wild and scenic rivers. Assistance may be in the form of a loan, grant, or license. A water resources project is defined as a dam, water conduit, reservoir, powerhouse, transmission line, discharge to waters, or development project that would affect the free-flowing characteristics or scenic, recreational, fish and wildlife values of a wild and scenic river or study river.

## Text of Act

Available at http://www.nps.gov/rivers/wsract.html
# Georgia Water/Laws/Scenic Rivers Act of 1969

Georgia Scenic Rivers Act, O.C.G.A. §§ 12-5-350

## General Description

The Georgia Scenic Rivers Act of 1969 defines "scenic river" to mean certain rivers or section of rivers that have valuable scenic, recreational, or natural characteristics that should be preserved for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. Certain sections of rivers are named in the Act, and the process for designating other sections of Georgia rivers is described.

## Administration

The Georgia Scenic Rivers Act is administered by the Environmental Protection Division.

### Rivers currently designated as ‘scenic’ by the Georgia Legislature

* The portion of the Jacks River contained within the Cohutta National Wilderness Area and located in Fannin and Murray counties, Georgia, which portion extends a length of approximately 16 miles;
* The portion of the Conasauga River located within the Cohutta National Wilderness Area and located in Fannin, Gilmer, and Murray counties, Georgia, which portion extends a length of approximately 17 miles;
* The portion of the Chattooga River and its West Fork which are now designated as part of the Chattooga National Wild and Scenic River and located in Rabun County, Georgia, which portion extends a length of approximately 34 miles; and
* The portion of Ebenezer Creek from Long Bridge on County Road S 393 to the Savannah River and located in Effingham County, Georgia, which portion extends a length of approximately seven miles.
* Note that other Georgia rivers can be designated as ‘scenic’ by future legislative acts. See O.C.G.A. § 12-5-352.

## References

* O.C.G.A. §§ 12-5-350
# Georgia Water/Laws/Water Supply Act

Georgia Water Supply Act (Reservoir Construction), O.C.G.A. §§ 12-5-470 to 482

## General Description

This Act gives the Department of Natural Resources the authority to build water supply reservoirs. It authorizes DNR to acquire property and contract with local governments to begin and maintain reservoir projects that will sell and distribute water supply to local counties and municipalities. The Act specifies the powers of DNR and the relationship with local governments. The Act makes it the duty of DNR to select the site for such projects but provides for checks on DNR powers.

## References

* O.C.G.A. §§ 12-5-470 to 482
* For a more detailed summary of the Act as passed in 1989, see 6 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 163 (1989).
# Georgia Water/Laws/Uniform Conservation Easement Act

Georgia Uniform Conservation Easement Act, O.C.G.A. §§ 44-10-1 to 8

## General Description

The Act creates the standards for the use of conservation easements for the purpose of protecting forest, open-spaces, and agricultural land. A conservation easement is a restriction on a piece of land that prevents development and maintains the land in its current state. These provisions do not directly relate to water resources, but the conservation measures may help to maintain natural waterways and water quality.

## Creation and recordation

A conservation easement is created, transferred, and recorded in the same way as other easements. The easement is recorded in the county Superior Court.

## Practical Information

A conservation easement is a way to protect a piece of green space into the future. Placing a conservation easement on a piece of property can result in tax advantages for the land owner. These easements are often held and managed by community nonprofit groups such as land trusts.

## References

* O.C.G.A. §§ 44-10-1 to 8
# Georgia Water/Laws/Surface Mining Act

Georgia Surface Mining Act, O.C.G.A. §§ 12-4-70

## General Description

Georgia's Surface Mining Act regulates all surface mining in Georgia, including the coastal zone. Dredging or ocean mining of materials are not directly regulated by State authority, except that sand and gravel operations are subject to the Shore Protection Act.

## Purposes

Georgia’s Surface Mining Act was enacted with the following purposes:
* Assist in achieving and maintaining an efficient and productive mining industry and to assist in increasing economic and other benefits attributable to mining.
* Advance the protection of fish and wildlife, and the protection and restoration of land, water, and other resources affected by mining.
* Assist in the reduction, elimination, or counteracting of pollution or deterioration of land, water, and air attributable to mining.
* Encourage programs that will achieve comparable results in protecting, conserving, and improving the usefulness of natural resources.

## Administration and Permitting

The act designates the Environmental Protection Division of the Department of Natural Resources to be the administering agency and to have several mandatory duties and powers, including the appraisal of permit applicants and revoking permits & denying renewals of those who refuse to carry out their plans of mining land use.

## References

* O.C.G.A. §§ 12-4-70
# Historical Rhetorics/Rhetoric's Medieval Resurgence/Erickson, Keith V. "The Significance of ''Doctrina'' in Augustine's ''De Doctrina Christiana.''
## Erickson, Keith V. "The Significance of Doctrina in Augustine's De Doctrina Christiana. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 15.3-4 (1985): 105-108.

Erickson argues that De Doctrina Christiana (the untranslated title) can be read on many levels, and that far from being a simple how-to book of instruction, Augustine is looking to speak to multiple audiences with more subtlety and rhetorical awareness than any one of the four books included might suggest.
To unveil this more significant purpose and explain the cohesion of the text, Erickson calls attention to the single word in the title doctrina, and explores this word and its multilayered meanings in order to define De Doctrina Christiana as “a neoclassical rhetoric designed to serve the Christian Paideia” (105).
Erickson explains that Augustine sought to incorporate the seemingly disparate notions of Roman life and Christian life, “Because the Romans had incorporated wholesale the Greek Paideia, an outrage to Christian leaders who saw in Greek life values contrary to those held by the Church” (105-06).
By valuing all the sources of one's education and knowledge,Erickson writes that Augustine contextualized ideas from Plato, Cicero, and many others in a way that could (and should) be used in Christian culture, “Augustine legitimized a Christian Paideia which led man to Christ and beatitude through rhetoric; his argument became the ‘fundamental charter of a Christian culture’” (106).
# Historical Rhetorics/Rhetoric's Medieval Resurgence/Schaeffer, John D. “The Dialectic of Orality and Literacy: The Case of Book 4 of Augustine’s De doctrina christiana.” ''PMLA'' 111.5 (October 1996): 1133-1145.

Schaeffer, John D. “The Dialectic of Orality and Literacy: The Case of Book 4 of Augustine’s De doctrina christiana.” PMLA 111.5 (October 1996): 1133-1145.
Schaeffer’s argument centers on his discussion of the important role of orality in Augustine’s treatise: “If book 4 of the De doctrina is read as advice on how to deliver an extemporaneous sermon, Augustine’s recommendations suggest that he is not simply opposing classical rhetoric: he is…returning to the orally based rhetoric of republican Rome, which he is adapting to a textually based religion attended by an emerging sense of interiority” (1134).
Schaeffer suggests that those who see “orality and literacy as a binary opposition” have missed the point of De doctrina’s book 4: “Book 4 makes more sense read according to an ‘ideological’ model…as a product of social institutions that support and incorporate a mixture of orality and literacy” (1135). He argues that the low literacy rates of late antiquity equate to an emphasis on orality over textuality but also reveal important connections between orality and the texts being performed. In fact, he says, “every text involved a performance" (1136). This does not mean, however, that the texts themselves are unimportant, for “the predominance of oral performance…must not obscure the fact that these performances were of and about written texts” (1136).
The same interiority that produces wisdom produces prayer that is at once formulaic, rhetorical, and sincere; it is at once text (read: Scripture) based and extemporaneous, just like the kind of rhetorical oratory Augustine encourages throughout book 4 (1139).
# Historical Rhetorics/Plato's Relationship to Rhetoric/The Praise of Isocrates

Coulter, James A. "Phaedrus 279A: The Praise of Isocrates." Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 8 (1967): 225-236.
In “Phaedrus 279A: The Praise of Isocrates,” James A. Coulter attempts to reexamine a specific portion of the text that classical scholars up to the point he was writing in 1967 had speculated but never before tried to conclude that Socrates’ judgment of Isocrates’ character in section 279A of the Phaedrus contained any trace of sarcasm about or irony within it. As such, the aim of Coulter’s article is to reexamine this passage in light of his position that Socrates’ seemingly well-intentioned “praise” towards Isocrates actually reveals deeply embedded jabs at his rhetorical counterpart.
Coulter analyzes closely and methodically a series of references Socrates makes that signify he used in a very subtle and inferential manner hints of intertextuality referring to previous negative encounters Isocrates has had in the past with his other counterparts, particularly Alcidamas and Antisthenes. Coulter concludes that while on the surface Socrates’ assessment of Isocrates’ thought and character may seem flattering and quite frankly rather innocent, in actuality Socrates’ choices of nuanced terminology, textual organization, and subtle intertextuality within the paragraph length pseudo-encomium contain elements that would intentionally “infuriate the recipient” (225).
While Coulter does not take the time to evaluate the overall usefulness of his arguments within the field as a whole, it can only be assumed that rightly repositioning Plato as infinitely disdainful and oppositional of Isocratean rhetorical philosophy only serves to reinforce our own previously – and comfortably – held belief that Plato (not even while on a long, relaxing walk outside the friendly confines of Athens) would never truly “praise” Isocrates.
# Historical Rhetorics/Rhetoric's Medieval Resurgence
## Chapter Eight: Rhetoric's Medieval Resurgence (?)

The title for this week isn't a statement it is a question. Do what extent does Augustine promote rhetoric? The answer to this question, I believe, will be imbricated in the Q Question, to whether rhetoric refers to a reality and transmits Truths already in existence or instantiates reality and transforms our experience of it.

### St. Augustine. On Christian Teaching. Trans. and Intro R.P.H. Green. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 1999.

Relevant Secondary Sources
* Anderson, Floyd D. "De Doctrina Christiana 2.18.28: The Convergence of Athens and Jerusalem." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 15.3-4 (1985): 102-105.
* Camper, K. M. (2013). The stylistic virtues of clarity and obscurity in Augustine of Hippo's De doctrina christiana. Advances in the History of Rhetoric, 16(1), 58-81. doi: 10.1080/15362426.2013.764832
* Erickson, Keith V. "The Significance of ''Doctrina'' in Augustine's ''De Doctrina Christiana.'' Rhetoric Society Quarterly 15.3-4 (1985): 105-108.
* Friedman, Alice T. "The Influence of Humanism on the Education of Girls and Boys in Tudor England." History of Education Quarterly 25.1-2 (1985): 57-70.
* Fulkerson, Gerald. "Augustine's Attitude Toward Rhetoric in 'De Doctrina Christiana': the Significance of 2.37.55." Rhetoric Society Quarterly. 15.3/4 (1985): 108-111.]]
* Johnson, W. R. “Isocrates Flowering: The Rhetoric of Augustine.” ''Philosophy & Rhetoric'' (1976): 217–31.
* King, Andrew A. "St. Augustine's Doctrine of Participation As a Metaphysic of Persuasion." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 15.3-4 (1985):112-116.
* Mazzeo, Joseph Anthony. "St. Augustine's Rhetoric of Silence." Journal of the History of Ideas 23 (1962): 175–96.
* Nauert, Charles G., Jr. "The Clash of Humanists and Scholastics: An Approach to Pre-Reformation Controversies." The Sixteenth Century Journal 4.1 (1973): 1-18.
* Schaeffer, John D. “The Dialectic of Orality and Literacy: The Case of Book 4 of Augustine’s De doctrina christiana.” ''PMLA'' 111.5 (October 1996): 1133-1145.
* Seigel, JE. ""Civic Humanism" or Ciceronian Rhetoric? The Culture of Petrarch and Bruni." Past and Present 34 (1966): 3-48.
* Stuever, Nancy. "Petrarch's Invective contra medicum: An Early Confrontation of Rhetoric and Medicine." MLN 108.4 (1993) 659-679.
* Tell, David. "Beyond Mnemotechnics: Confession and Memory in Augustine." Philosophy & Rhetoric 39.3 (2006): 233-253.
* Vickers, Brian. "The Recovery of Rhetoric: Petrarch, Eramsus, Perelman." History of the Human Sciences 3.3 (1990): 415-441.
* Wertheimer, Molly, ed. “Panel on the Most Significant Passage in Saint Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana: Five Nominations.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 15.3–4 (1985): 101–18.
* Wiethoff, William E. "The Merits of De Doctrina Christiana." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 15.3-4 (1985): 116-119.
Professors Kristine Johnson, Kilian McCurrie, and Jeff Ringer have compiled a bibliography dedicated to "The History of Rhetoric and Christian Tradition" [.doc]
# Historical Rhetorics/Rhetoric's Medieval Resurgence/Fulkerson, Gerald. "Augustine's Attitude Toward Rhetoric in 'De Doctrina Christiana': the Significance of 2.37.55."

Fulkerson looks at thematic similarities between books II and IV in De Doctrina Christiana and concludes that, despite the time lapse between their compositions, Augustine’s continual “hostility toward perceptive rhetoric was not a product of his old age.” (110) He concludes that focusing so intently on the mission of the Christian teacher forces rhetoric to take a back seat to usefulness.
Fulkerson sees book IV as an extension of book II. Where book II sets out guidelines for what a Christian preacher should study (What is useful to the interpretation of the scriptures, only what is useful, and nothing excessively), book IV focuses on the utility of eloquence rather than its artfulness.
While eloquence is “of great value in urging evil or justice” and “should therefore be obtained for the uses of the good in the service of truth” Fulkerson sees Augustine as subjugating they study of style to the service and spreading of the scriptures. Rhetoric, for Augustine, is not useful as a persuasive tool so much as it is potentially distracting from the mission of the Christian preacher.