scholarly journals Shared randomness and device-independent dimension witnessing

2017 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julio I. de Vicente
2015 ◽  
Vol 92 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amit Mukherjee ◽  
Arup Roy ◽  
Some Sankar Bhattacharya ◽  
Subhadipa Das ◽  
Md. Rajjak Gazi ◽  
...  

1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas F. Skinner

The heuristic similarity between innovativeness and uniqueness motivation was investigated. Fifty-eight male and 107 female first-year undergraduates completed the Need for Uniqueness Scale (NUS; Snyder and Fromkin, 1980) and Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI; Kirton, 1976). As predicted, Innovators obtained significantly higher scores on uniqueness motivation than did Adaptors (p < .001), and Need for Uniqueness correlated substantially with Innovation (r=0.55). These findings provide support for the hypothesis that uniqueness-seeking may simply be a manifestion of extreme innovativeness rather than an independent dimension of personality.


2016 ◽  
Vol 94 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie Sikora ◽  
Antonios Varvitsiotis ◽  
Zhaohui Wei

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 043021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhaohui Wei ◽  
Jamie Sikora

Author(s):  
Plamen Bokov ◽  
Donies Jallouli‐Masmoudi ◽  
Flore Amat ◽  
Véronique Houdouin ◽  
Christophe Delclaux

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-98
Author(s):  
Gholamreza Medadian ◽  
Dariush Nejadansari Mahabadi

In this paper we propose a more explicit framework for definition and evaluation of objectivity and (inter)subjectivity in the modality domain. In the proposed operational framework, we make a basic distinction between the modality notions that serve an ideational function (i.e., dynamic modal notions) and those with an interpersonal function (i.e., deontic and epistemic evaluations). The modality notions with ideational and interpersonal functions are content and person-oriented, respectively. While all dynamic modal notions are characterized by objectivity, deontic and epistemic modal notions may display a degree of (inter)subjectivity depending on their embedding context. Our main claim is that (inter)subjectivity can hardly be argued to be the inherent property of certain modality forms and types, but rather it is essentially a contextual effect. We functionally-operationally define (inter)subjectivity as the degree of sharedness an evaluator attributes to an epistemic/deontic evaluation and its related evidence/deontic source. (Inter)subjectivity is realized by (at least) one or a combination of three contextual factors, viz. the embedding syntactic pattern, the linguistic context and the extralinguistic context of a modality marker. Since both descriptive and performative modal evaluations involve a degree of (inter)subjectivity, performativity, which refers to speaker’s current commitment to his evaluation, is viewed as an independent dimension within modal evaluations and plays no part in the expression of (inter)subjectivity.  


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document