模式语义链元建模及其应用

大粒度的模型转换是模型驱动软件开发场景下的重要技术需求，仅通过定义通用模型转换语言不足以满足这一需求，其中一个原因是通用模型转换语言工作在特定建模语言的元模型层次而非一般设计意图层次上．文中提出一种模式语义链(PSL)元建模方法．通过重型扩展统一建模语言(UML)元模型以直接形式化描述可表达一般设计意图的模式，并应用UML动作语义和元模型继承实现模式自动生成及转换．该方法为实现一船设计意图层次上的大粒度模型转换提供了有效支持．     

大学英语教学低起点高目标的反思及应对策略

本文结合目前大学英语教学现状及社会对外语人才的要求，尝试着探讨大学英语教学低起点的缘由和高目标要求的应对策略。其意在为大学外语教学建立特殊的机制，充分发挥教育资源的整合效益，起到优化教学过程，达到最优化教学效果，最终最大限度地满足社会对各类外语人才的需要。     

论主导文化的艺术形态及其关于艺术的话语精神——以精神文明建设“五个一工程”评选中影视艺术获奖文本为例

文章把对主导文化艺术形态的分析和对精神文明建设“五个一工程”评选中电影艺术、电视剧艺术获奖文本的分析结合起来 ,梳理了主导文化在当代文化语境中关于艺术的几个主要方面的话语精神。     

新时期大学生成长观教育面临的主要问题

社会主义市场经济的建立和发展使人的主体性意识进一步增强,为大学生的发展提供了更加广阔的空间,对大学生的素质提出了更高的要求,也给教育工作者提出了新的要求.从个人才干增长与社会需要、奉献与索取、成长中的自由与必然三个方面阐述新时期大学生成长观教育中所面临的主要问题,以期在教育工作中做到有的放矢.     

在线固溶条件下的输出辊道受热分析

为满足300系列奥氏体不锈钢轧后在线目溶处理的要求，针对某厂已有设备条件，进行在线固溶处理输出辊道的改造，利用ANSYS有限元分析软件，通过对不同结构和材质条件下输出辊道的受热分析，为输出辊道的改造提供了理论依据。结果表明，将原有的铸铁辊道改为陶瓷辊道能够满足生产的要求。     

中国经济持续发展中的生态环境问题与逆转战略

本文应用生态学、经济学、市场学、环境学、灾害学的观点，分析了中国经济发展中环境的面临的主要问题和退化症结，根据市场经济发展的要求，提出了生态环境上合理、经济效益上合算、整治技术上先进的对策，为综合整治中国生态环境提供基本思路。     

粉粒状物料透气性系数的测定

对经过分级的六种均齐粉粒状物料进行透气性系数测定。结果表明:球形小米颗粒((?)_p=1.70mm),透气性系数K=1.191×10~(-9)m~2,在整个固定床范围内都符合达西定律;石灰石粉((?)_P=0.900mm),K=5.831×10~(-10)m~2。文中还讨论了达西定律的适用依据和透气性系数的影响因素。     

Ruin Probability with Variable Premium Rate and Disturbed by Diffusion in a Markovian Environment

We consider a risk model with a premium rate which varies with the level of free reserves. In this model, the occurrence of claims is described by a Cox process with Markov intensity process, and the influence of stochastic factors is considered by adding a diffusion process. The integro-differential equation for the ruin probability is derived by a infinitesimal method.     

M-泛函的经验似然置信区间

利用经验似然思想，分别讨论不含附加信息和含附加信息时，M-泛函的经验似然置信区间，并推广Zhang Biao (1997) 在独立同分布下的结果。     

Newton's Easy Quadratures ``Omitted for the Sake of Brevity'

In the 1687 Principia, Newton gave a solution to the direct problem (given the orbit and center of force, find the central force) for a conic-section with a focal center of force (answer: a reciprocal square force) and for a spiral orbit with a polar center of force (answer: a reciprocal cube force). He did not, however, give solutions for the two corresponding inverse problems (given the force and center of force, find the orbit). He gave a cryptic solution to the inverse problem of a reciprocal cube force, but offered no solution for the reciprocal square force. Some take this omission as an indication that Newton could not solve the reciprocal square, for, they ask, why else would he not select this important problem? Others claim that ``it is child's play' for him, as evidenced by his 1671 catalogue of quadratures (tables of integrals). The answer to that question is obscured for all who attempt to work through Newton's published solution of the reciprocal cube force because it is done in the synthetic geometric style of the 1687 Principia rather than in the analytic algebraic style that Newton employed until 1671. In response to a request from David Gregory in 1694, however, Newton produced an analytic version of the body of the proof, but one which still had a geometric conclusion. Newton's charge is to find both ``the orbit' and ``the time in orbit.' In the determination of the dependence of the time on orbital position, t(r), Newton evaluated an integral of the form ∫dx/x <sup>n</sup> to calculate a finite algebraic equation for the area swept out as a function of the radius, but he did not write out the analytic expression for time t = t(r), even though he knew that the time t is proportional to that area. In the determination of the orbit, θ (r), Newton obtained an integral of the form ∫dx/√(1−x<sup>2</sup>) for the area that is proportional to the angle θ, an integral he had shown in his 1669 On Analysis by Infinite Equations to be equal to the arcsin(x). Since the solution must therefore contain a transcendental function, he knew that a finite algebraic solution for θ=θ(r) did not exist for ``the orbit' as it had for ``the time in orbit.' In contrast to these two solutions for the inverse cube force, however, it is not possible in the inverse square solution to generate a finite algebraic expression for either ``the orbit' or ``the time in orbit.' In fact, in Lemma 28, Newton offers a demonstration that the area of an ellipse cannot be given by a finite equation. I claim that the limitation of Lemma 28 forces Newton to reject the inverse square force as an example and to choose instead the reciprocal cube force as his example in Proposition 41. (Received August 14, 2002) Published online March 26, 2003 Communicated by G. Smith