Recent Observations of Charmed Baryons and Their Implications for Hadronic Production Processes

1980 ◽  
pp. 653-686
Author(s):  
F. Muller
1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 212-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Bjørneboe ◽  
Z. Koba ◽  
N. Törnqvist

2019 ◽  
Vol 1390 ◽  
pp. 012034
Author(s):  
A V Berezhnoy ◽  
I N Belov ◽  
A K Likhoded

2006 ◽  
Vol 50 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 7-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Osada ◽  
O. V. Utyuzh ◽  
G. Wilk ◽  
Z. Wodarczyk

Author(s):  
M. Boglione ◽  
A. Simonelli

AbstractRecent BELLE measurements provide the cross section for single hadron production in $$e^+e^-$$ e + e - annihilations, differential in thrust and in the hadron transverse momentum with respect to the thrust axis. Universality breaking effects due to process-dependent soft factors make it very difficult to relate this cross sections to those corresponding to hadron-pair production in $$e^+e^-$$ e + e - annihilations, where transverse momentum dependent (TMD) factorization can be applied. The correspondence between these two cross sections is examined in the framework of the Collins-Soper-Sterman factorization, in the collinear as well as in the TMD approach. We propose a scheme that allows to relate the TMD parton densities defined in 1-hadron and in 2-hadron processes, neatly separating, within the soft and collinear parts, the non-perturbative terms from the contributions that can be calculated perturbatively. The regularization of rapidity divergences introduces cut-offs, the arbitrariness of which will be properly reabsorbed by means of a mechanism closely reminiscent of a gauge transformation. In this way, we restore the possibility to perform global phenomenological studies of TMD physics, simultaneously analyzing data belonging to different hadron classes.


1992 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 261-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan G. Kamhi

My response to Fey’s article (1985; reprinted 1992, this issue) focuses on the confusion caused by the application of simplistic phonological definitions and models to the assessment and treatment of children with speech delays. In addition to having no explanatory adequacy, such definitions/models lead either to assessment and treatment procedures that are similarly focused or to procedures that have no clear logical ties to the models with which they supposedly are linked. Narrowly focused models and definitions also usually include no mention of speech production processes. Bemoaning this state of affairs, I attempt to show why it is important for clinicians to embrace broad-based models of phonological disorders that have some explanatory value. Such models are consistent with assessment procedures that are comprehensive in nature and treatment procedures that focus on linguistic, as well as motoric, aspects of speech.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document