OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Robotics/Components/Actuation Devices/Linear Electromagnetic

Linear Electromagnetic actuators consist of a hollow coil (solenoid) and a ferrometal rod. The rod is mounted loose in the coil and can move up and down. When current flows through the coil, the rod is pulled to the center of the coil. If the direction of the current is then reversed the solenoid will pull in the ferrometal rod. Due to Lenz's Law which states "For a current induced in a conductor, the current is in such a direction that its own magnetic field opposes the change that produced it." This means that an EMF will flow through the solenoid of the actuator to oppose the change in magnetic flux thus an electromagnetic actuator can never fully extend the full length of the rod.
Note to further modifiers: Feel free to tidy my Lenz's Law explanation up - i'm sure it could be written in a more elegant manner! --SamEEE 03:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

### Applications

This type of actuator is useful for momentary linear motion. e.g. closing a gripper.

### Design Considerations

Solenoids use a large amount of power this requires more battery power which in turn requires more battery power to move the robot. A general rule of thumb is to use a electromagnetic actuators for small operations and for larger operations prehaps consider the use of Pneumatics the output power/weight ratio is usually more favorable. For more information on Pnuematics please consult the corresponding section of this book.

#### Calculating Force

Calculating how strong the actuator is, isn't very easy. However it is possible by using a Newtonmeter to the line of action and measuring how many Newtons are exerted by the solenoid on the measuring device. There are also a way of measuring force though use of a formula however the forementioned method is usually the most practical.
# Radiation Oncology/RedJournal

* Front Page: Radiation Oncology | RTOG Trials | Randomized Trials
International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, and Physics
The Red Journal

### Gray Zone (CME Credit)

* June 1, 2020: [Breast] From Chemo Rejection to Regional Radiation: A Post-Mastectomy Dilema
* July 15, 2019: Thoracic Postoperative Radiation Therapy: To Treat or Not to Treat
# Radiation Oncology/Reirradiation/Pelvis

Pelvic Reirradiation

## General

* Review (2009): No PMID (journal not indexed) PDF Link to journal -- "The usefulness of reirradiation in the treatment of pelvic recurrence of rectal and gynaecological tumours" (Martinez FJ, Oncología (Barc.) v.29 n.10 Madrid dic. 2006)

## Rectal cancer

See Reirradiation for rectal cancer

## Gynecologic cancer

* 1987 PMID 3570061 -- "Radical reirradiation for recurrent or second primary carcinoma of the female reproductive tract." (Russell AH, Gynecol Oncol. 1987 Jun;27(2):226-32.)
** 25 pts. 14 pts (56%) were cancer free with follow-up of 10 to 61 mos. 7 of these 14 (50%) had major complications.
# Radiation Oncology/Reirradiation/Abdomen

Abdominal Reirradiation
# Radiation Oncology/Rectum/Surgery

History of Rectal Cancer
# Radiation Oncology/Reirradiation

Reirradiation

## General

* Review (2000) PMID 11034632 -- "Clinical experience with retreatment for palliation." (Morris DE, Semin Radiat Oncol. 2000 Jul;10(3):210-21.)
* Review (2000) PMID 11034631 -- "Tissue tolerance to reirradiation." (Nieder C, Semin Radiat Oncol. 2000 Jul;10(3):200-9.)
* Review (1994) PMID 10717096 -- "Retreatment Tolerance of Normal Tissues." (Stewart FA, Semin Radiat Oncol. 1994 Apr;4(2):103-111.)
Practice Patterns:
* 2008, Canada PMID 18501531 -- "Reirradiation after radical radiation therapy: a survey of patterns of practice among Canadian radiation oncologists." (Joseph KJ, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Dec 1;72(5):1523-9.)

## Abdominal Reirradiation

See page: Abdominal Reirradiation

## Lung Reirradiation

See page: Lung Reirradiation

## Pelvic Reirradiation

See page: Pelvic Reirradiation
# Principles of Microeconomics/Demand and Supply
## Why Can We Not Get Enough of Organic?

Organic food is increasingly popular, not just in the United States, but worldwide. At one time, consumers had to go to specialty stores or farmer’s markets to find organic produce. Now it is available in most grocery stores. In short, organic is part of the mainstream.
Ever wonder why organic food costs more than conventional food? Why, say, does an organic Fuji apple cost $1.99 a pound, while its conventional counterpart costs $1.49 a pound? The same price relationship is true for just about every organic product on the market. If many organic foods are locally grown, would they not take less time to get to market and therefore be cheaper? What are the forces that keep those prices from coming down? Turns out those forces have a lot to do with this chapter’s topic: demand and supply.

## Introduction to Demand and Supply

In this chapter, you will learn about:
* Demand, Supply, and Equilibrium in Markets for Goods and Services
* Shifts in Demand and Supply for Goods and Services
* Changes in Equilibrium Price and Quantity: The Four-Step Process
* Price Ceilings and Price Floors
An auction bidder pays thousands of dollars for a dress Whitney Houston wore. A collector spends a small fortune for a few drawings by John Lennon. People usually react to purchases like these in two ways: their jaw drops because they think these are high prices to pay for such goods or they think these are rare, desirable items and the amount paid seems right.
When economists talk about prices, they are less interested in making judgments than in gaining a practical understanding of what determines prices and why prices change. Consider a price most of us contend with weekly: that of a gallon of gas. Why was the average price of gasoline in the United States $3.71 per gallon in June 2014? Why did the price for gasoline fall sharply to $2.07 per gallon by January 2015? To explain these price movements, economists focus on the determinants of what gasoline buyers are willing to pay and what gasoline sellers are willing to accept.
As it turns out, the price of gasoline in June of any given year is nearly always higher than the price in January of that same year; over recent decades, gasoline prices in midsummer have averaged about 10 cents per gallon more than their midwinter low. The likely reason is that people drive more in the summer, and are also willing to pay more for gas, but that does not explain how steeply gas prices fell. Other factors were at work during those six months, such as increases in supply and decreases in the demand for crude oil.
This chapter introduces the economic model of demand and supply—one of the most powerful models in all of economics. The discussion here begins by examining how demand and supply determine the price and the quantity sold in markets for goods and services, and how changes in demand and supply lead to changes in prices and quantities.
# DESCRIPTION:

Returns specific REBOL component info if enabled.
COMPONENT? is a function value.

# ARGUMENTS

* name -- (Type: word)
# DESCRIPTION:

Compresses a string series and returns it.
COMPRESS is a native value.

# ARGUMENTS

* data -- Data to compress (Type: any-string)
# DESCRIPTION:

Returns TRUE when connected to the Internet.
CONNECTED? is a native value.
# DESCRIPTION:

Returns a copy of a value.
COPY is an action value.

# ARGUMENTS

* value -- Usually a series (Type: series port bitset)

# REFINEMENTS

* /part -- Limits to a given length or position.
** range -- (Type: number series port pair)
* /deep -- Also copies series values within the block.
# DESCRIPTION:

Returns the trigonometric cosine in degrees.
COSINE is a native value.

# ARGUMENTS

* value -- (Type: number)

# REFINEMENTS

* /radians -- Value is specified in radians.
# DESCRIPTION:

Returns a copy of a value.
CP is an action value.

# ARGUMENTS

* value -- Usually a series (Type: series port bitset)

# REFINEMENTS

* /part -- Limits to a given length or position.
** range -- (Type: number series port pair)
* /deep -- Also copies series values within the block.
# DESCRIPTION:

Confirms a user choice.
CONFIRM is a function value.

# ARGUMENTS

* question -- Prompt to user (Type: series)

# REFINEMENTS

* /with
** choices -- (Type: string block)
# DESCRIPTION:

Creates an object, but without evaluating its specification.
CONSTRUCT is a native value.

# ARGUMENTS

* block -- Object specification block (Type: block)

# REFINEMENTS

* /with -- Provide a default base object
** object -- (Type: object)
# DESCRIPTION:

Defines a unique (underived) object.
CONTEXT is a function value.

# ARGUMENTS

* blk -- Object variables and values. (Type: block)
# DESCRIPTION:

Evaluates a block of expressions, only evaluating parens, and returns a block.
COMPOSE is a native value.

# ARGUMENTS

* value -- Block to compose (Type: any)

# REFINEMENTS

* /deep -- Compose nested blocks
* /only -- Inserts a block value as a block
# Scriptapedia/Chickens and Eggs
### Context and Purpose of the Script

This script is used to introduce concepts of causal loop diagram (CLD) and provide an example of feedback loops to those without knowledge of system dynamics. The purpose of the script is to provide a universal and easy to understand metaphor for complex systems.

### Status

Promising

### Primary Nature of Group Task

Presentation

### Time

Preparation time: 5 minutes
Time required during session: 10–15 minutes
Follow-up time: 0 minutes

### Materials

* Markers or pens
* A white board or flip chart papers

### Inputs

* A story of chickens reproduction, growth, overcrowding, and injuries.
* A graph over time of chicken population growth dynamic.
* A drawing with chicken crossing roads if preferred.

### Outputs

* A causal loop diagram of chicken population growth dynamic with variables, polarity, feedback loops, and delays.
* Familiarity with the concepts of feedback loops (reinforcing and balancing), causal relationships with polarities between variables, and how to interpret dynamics from a causal loop diagram.

### Roles

Modeler or facilitator with training in system dynamics or community based system dynamics

### Steps

* First, the facilitator will tell a story of chickens reproducing, population growth, overcrowding, and injuries, while drawing a picture of the narrative.
* Then, the facilitator will present a graph over time to describe this dynamic – of chicken population growth with a hope of sustained growth, and a fear of collapse.
* The facilitator then draws a causal loop diagram to represent the reinforcing and balancing loops of the story. The facilitator then explains that the model functions as a “dynamic hypothesis” of the structure that may create this behavior.
* The presentation should highlight
** Polarity,
** What a variable means (it varies)
** Feedback loops (reinforcing and balancing)
** Delays
* (S)he then asks if there are other factors or structures, and can add on other sources of injuries, other factors that reduce eggs, etc. and maps those factors onto the CLD, to demonstrate that models are meant to be tools for dialogue and thinking. As participants nominate additional links, the facilitator adds those links to the model.

### Evaluation Criteria

Participants contribute variables indicating understanding of dynamic variables

### Authors

Originally developed by Brian Biroscek. Refined and expanded by Peter Hovmand, Ellis Ballard and the Social System Design Lab

### History

None

### Revisions

None

### References

None

### Notes

None
# Scriptapedia/Citing ''Scriptapedia''

Content from Scriptapedia should be appropriately cited when used in publications and derivative works. The suggested format for citing Scriptapedia is:
Hovmand, Peter S., Etiënne A. J. A. Rouwette, David F. Andersen, and George. P. Richardson. 2015. Scriptapedia.
# Scriptapedia/Concept Model
## Concept Model

This script is used at the start of a group model building project to introduce the process of modeling and symbolism of a model to participants.

### Status

Best practices

### Primary nature of group task

Presentation

### Time

Preparation time: 180 minutes
Time required during session: 45 minutes
Follow-up time: 0 minutes

### Materials

* White board or flip chart paper on easel with markers
* Computer and projector

### Inputs

None

### Outputs

* Familiarity with stock and flow diagrams and causal links
* Understanding that maps can be quantified and simulated
* Understanding that models can be created for the group's problem(s)
* Understanding that the model is owned by the group and can be repeatedly modified and improved

### Roles

* Modeler Facilitator to design the concept model
* Modeler to show and run the formal model

### Steps

* The Modeler Facilitator draws by hand the first version of the concept model on the white board. The modeler demonstrates/draws the tub with faucet and drain to explain stock & flow diagrams.
* The Modeler Facilitator then projects the first quantified version of the concept model from the computer. The first quantified version of the concept model is identical to the first version drawn on the white board. Next, the modeler simulates and traces the behavior produced by the model.
* The Modeler then elicits additional elements from participants adding one or more elements to the first version of the model on the white board to get an amended concept model (second version). Project the second version of the concept model from the computer. Simulate the second version of the concept model and trace its behavior over time. The behavior should be different, and the group should be told, “Behavior is a consequence of structure."
* Repeat step 3.
* The Modeler Facilitator summarizes the lessons as follows: the symbols that will be used, concept models can be quantified and simulated, behavior can be generated endogenously, changing structure changes behavior, maps and models can be repeatedly refined, and groups can own the models they create.

### Evaluation Criteria:

* Participants are talkative, wanting to tell the modeler how the model is wrong and can be improved.
* Participants can use the symbols and terms of system dynamics to express their own experience and knowledge of systems.

### Authors

George P. Richardson

### History

First described by Richardson and Andersen (1995) and then published by Richardson (2013).

### Revisions

None

### References

Richardson, G. P. and Andersen, D. F. (1995), Teamwork in group model building. System Dynamics Review, 11, 113–137.
Richardson, G. P. (2013). Concept models in group model building. System Dynamics Review, 29, 42-55.

### Notes

None
# Scriptapedia/Boundary Objects and Failure Modes in GMB
## Boundary Objects and Failure Modes (Hovmand, 2014)

In system dynamics and group model building, a boundary object is defined as: "A tangible representation of dependencies across disciplinary, organizational, social or cultural lines that all participants can modify. It can effectively advance shared understanding when participants can transform the representation to show more clearly their understanding of the dependencies among them and the implications for each participant’s resources, operations and goals." (Black and Andersen, 2012,195)
In system dynamics, boundary objects have three essential characteristics (Black and Andersen, 2012).
* First, they are tangible two- or three-dimensional word sparse representations (e.g., diagrams with few words).
* Second, these representations are sufficient for participants to show key concepts, actions, and the relationships between them.
* Third, they are accessible and modifiable by all participants.
To this list, Black reminds us that boundary objects are social constructions and there are several different ways that visual representations can fail to be boundary objects (Black, 2013 ). In particular, Black has identified three general failure modes for boundary objects:
* The visual representation is owned by one stakeholder group or knowledge domain with others deferring to this representation. This can happen when a model is no longer seen as the group’s model, but the system dynamics expert’s model and participants automatically defer to the system dynamics expert’s representation of their issue. Or, the visual representation is dominated by detail from one stakeholder or knowledge domain.
* Each stakeholder group or knowledge domain develops their own independent visual representation to the exclusion of the others. This occurs, for example, when rather than trying to negotiate and resolve the semantic differences and priorities between different stakeholder perspectives, the group fragments and each decides to build their own visual representation while ignoring other viewpoints.
* The visual representation covers all stakeholder groups and knowledge domains without being selective in identifying key concepts, actions, and relationships. Similar to the second example, rather than resolving the semantic differences, the group ends up with a visual representation that essentially includes everything.

## References

Hovmand, P. S. (2014). Community based system dynamics. New York: Springer.
Black, L. J., & Andersen, D. F. (2012). Using visual representations as boundary objects to resolve conflict in collaborative model-building applications. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29,194–208.
Black, L.J. (2013). When visual representations are boundary objects in system dynamics. System Dynamics Review, 29 (2), 70–86.
# Scriptapedia/Causal mapping in small groups
## Name of the script (author's variation of the script if applicable)

Describe the context and purpose of the script.

### Status:

Established practice Promising practice Under development

### Primary nature of group task:

Convergent Divergent Evaluative Presentation

### Time

Preparation time: NN minutes
Time required during session: NN minutes
Follow-up time: NN minutes

### Materials

* Material 1
* Material 2

### Inputs:

* Input 1
* Input 2

### Outputs:

* Output 1
* Output 2

### Roles

* Role 1
* Role 2

### Steps

* Step 1
* Step 2
** Substep 2.1
** Substep 2.2

### Evaluation Criteria:

* First criteria
* Second criteria

### Authors

List the names of the people or community that created the script along with the year

### History

History and motivation for developing the script

### Revisions

Revisions since the script was last published

### References

References

### Notes

Notes on use of script and variations
# Proto-Turkic/Introduction

The various Turkic languages share a common ancestor. Though no surviving examples of this language have been found (that is to say, it is unattested), linguistic reconstruction allows for insight to be gained about how the language worked and operated.
Yet, there are lexical descriptions about Proto-Turkic, but little is known about its grammar and morphology. Some linguists like András Roná-Tas in his chapter The reconstruction of Proto-Turkic and the genetic question, have described the grammar of Proto-Turkic. However, his reconstructions have Common Turkic features like -z- in place of -ŕ- (like rat but palatalized with y as in young), and he said that:
Because of this, the users BurakD53 and DanielWhernchend have reconstructed the Proto-Turkic grammar by relying on some sources and also, original research.
    It is not recommended to use this book as a reference in Wikipedia article as it represents original researches of two users.
# Proto-Turkic
## Table of Contents

Welcome to the Proto-Turkic page! Here we will assist Wikibooks, together with Wiktionary, to consider the content of the reconstructed language, which is supposed to have been spoken between 500 BCE and 100 AD. Such a language was spoken in Mongolia before the Turks' Oghur tribe migrated to the west, somewhere north of the Black Sea! Proto-Turkic language, which we can call a kind of Xiongnu language, is the ancestor of all Turkic languages today.

### Classification

Generally Proto-Turkic, known as the ancestor of Common Turkic languages and Proto-Bulgar known as the ancestor of Oghuric languages. There are conflicts about classification. Proto-Turkic, which is mentioned in the aforementioned book, has been more often called Pre-Proto-Turkic by Turcologists.

### About

* Introduction
* Contributors

### History

* Classification of Turkic languages

### Pronunciation and Alphabet

* Alphabet
* Phonology
* Vocabulary table

### Lessons

* Lesson one: Pronouns and numbers
* Lesson two: Basics
* Lesson three: Locative-ablative case and plurality
* Lesson four: Past tenses and vowel harmony
* Lesson five: Vocabulary
* Lesson six: Genitive, accusative and dative cases
* Lesson seven: Suffixes used to create new words with new meanings
* Lesson eight: Verbals
* Lesson nine: Optatives, necessitatives and questions
* Lesson ten: Vocabulary 2
* Lesson eleven: Equative, instrumental and imperatives
* Lesson twelve: Converbs and sentence formation
* Final lesson: Abilities, future tense and present continuous

## References

* 1 2 Karademir, F. (2016). TÜRK DİLİNİN TARİHÎ DÖNEMLERİNİ ADLANDIRMA SORUNU . Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim (TEKE) Dergisi, 5 (4), 0-0. DOI: 10.7884/teke.589
* ↑ Róna-Tas, András (1991). (Translator: İsa Sarı) Türkolojiye Giriş (An Introduction to Turkology). Ankara: Nobel Yayınları. p.49
* ↑ Ölmez, Mehmet (2003-01-01). "Age of Turkish and Turkic languages / Türkçenin ve Türk Dillerinin Yaşı Konusu". Toplum ve Bilim, 96, Bahar, 62-74.
# Proto-Turkic/Alphabet

Hi! Welcome to the Proto-Turkic alphabet.

## Alphabet

Since Proto-Turkic is a configuration language like other proto-languages, it is expressed with Latin letters.
| Uppercase | Lowercase | Pronunciation | Pronunciation |
| Uppercase | Lowercase | IPA value | Closest approximation |
| A | a | /ä/ | cacao |
| Ā | ā | /äː/ | Same as above but longer |
| Ạ | ạ | /ə/ | bird |
| Ạ̄ | ạ̄ | /əː/ | Same as above but longer |
| Ӑ | ӑ | (unclear) | (unclear) |
| B | b | /b/ | bird |
| Č | č | /tʃ/ | check |
| D | d | /d/ | dark |
| E | e | /ɛ/ | met |
| Ē | ē | /ɛː/ | Same as above but longer |
| Ẹ | ẹ | /e/ | Australian bed |
| Ẹ̄ | ẹ̄ | /eː/ | Same as above but longer |
| Ӗ | ӗ | (unclear) | (unclear) |
| G | g | /ɡ/ | guard |
| H | h | /h/ | heart |
| I | i | /i/ | Same as below but shorter |
| Ī | ī | /iː/ | see |
| Ï | ï | /ɨ/ | roses |
| Ï̄ | ï̄ | /ɨː/ | Same as above but longer |
| K | k |
| L | l |
| Ĺ | ĺ |
| M | m |
| N | n |
| Ń | ń |
| Ŋ | ŋ |
| O | o |
| Ō | ō |
| Ö | ö |
| Ȫ | ȫ |
| P | p |
| R | r |
| Ŕ | ŕ |
| S | s |
| T | t |
| U | u |
| Ū | ū |
| Ü | ü |
| Ǖ | ǖ |
| Y | y |
Unlike today's Turkic languages, there are no /z/ and /š/ sounds in Proto-Turkic. Instead, there are palatalized sounds /ŕ/ and /ĺ/ whose later became /z/ and /š/ in Common Turkic, but /r/ and /l/ instead in Oghur languages. The letters ⟨J j⟩, however, are usually used over ⟨Y y⟩.

## Diacritics
### Carons

Carons on the letter ⟨č⟩ is pronounced /tʃ/ as in charge.

### Macrons

Vowel letters with lines on them give the same sound as letters without, but are pronounced long.

### Dots

Dots below on the letters ⟨ạ⟩ and ⟨ẹ⟩ represents a schwa /ə/ and a closed /e/, respectively.

### Breves

The usage of breves on the letters ⟨ă⟩ and ⟨ĕ⟩ is unclear.