Few-Shot Common-Object Reasoning using Common-Centric Localization Network

Author(s):  
Linchao Zhu ◽  
Hehe Fan ◽  
Yawei Luo ◽  
Mingliang Xu ◽  
Yi Yang
Keyword(s):  
1988 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-246
Author(s):  
Mohammad A. Siddiqui

IntroductionCommunication today is increasingly seen as a process through whichthe exchange and sharing of meaning is made possible. Commtinication asa subject of scientific inquiry is not unique to the field of mass communication.Mathematicians, engineers, sociologists, psychologists, political scientists,anthropologists, and speech communicators have been taking an interest inthe study of communication. This is not surprising because communicationis the basic social process of human beings. Although communication hasgrown into a well developed field of study, Muslim scholars have rdrely hcusedon the study of communication. Thus, a brief introduction to the widely usedcommunication concepts and a framework for the study of communicationwithin the context of this paper is provided.In 1909, Charles Cooley defined communication from a sociologicalperspective as:The mechanism through which human relations exist and develop -all the symbols of mind, together with the means of conveyingthem through space and preserving them in time. It includes theexpression of the face, attitude and gesture, the tones of the voice,words, writing, printing, railways, telegraph, and whatever elsemay be the latest achievement in the conquest of space and time.In 1949, two engineers, Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver, definedcommunication in a broader sense to include all procedures:By which one mind may affect another. This, of course, involvesnot only written and oral speeches, but also music, the pictorialarts, the theater, the ballet, and, in kct, all human behavior.Harold Lasswell, a political scientist, defines communication simply as:A convenient way to describe the act of communication is to answerthe following question: Who, says what, in which channel, towhom, with what effect?S.S. Stevens, a behavioral psychologist, defines the act of communication as:Communication occurs when some environmental disturbance (thestimulus) impinges on an organism and the organism doessomething about it (makes a discriminatory response) . . . Themessage that gets no response is not a commnication.Social psychologist Theodore Newcomb assumes that:In any communication situation, at least two persons will becommunicating about a common object or topic. A major functionof communication is to enable them to maintain simultaneousorientation toward one another and toward the common object ofcommunication.Wilbur Schramm, a pioneer in American mass communication research,provides this definition:When we communicate we are trying to share information, anidea, or an attitude. Communication always requires threeelements-the source, the message, and the destination (thereceiver).


1887 ◽  
Vol 32 (140) ◽  
pp. 526-529

We venture to think that there was recently a considerable rapprochement between the judicial and the medical mode of viewing certain criminal acts. Friendly intercourse between judges and mental physicians has had the beneficial effect of opening the eyes of some of the former to the real nature of crimes committed by the insane, while very possibly the latter have derived benefit from the free intercommunication of ideas in regard to a just judgment of matters upon which lawyers and physicians must at bottom have a common object—simple justice. We are sure that no judge really wishes an irresponsible man to be punished, and it is very certain no medical man wishes the guilty criminal to escape the penalties of the law. There are occasions, however, when we think that judges are somewhat unduly disposed to set aside the evidence of medical men, and not only to lay down the law, but to go out of their way to influence the jury in a direction contrary to that of the medical opinion given in evidence. As an example of judicial discourtesy we might instance the petulant language of Baron Huddleston in the course of a trial at the Devon and Cornwall Assizes last November, in which he seemed to us to forget the golden rule in his brusque treatment of a medical witness. And, again, the same judge more recently acted in a way which has somewhat rudely shaken the hope and belief above expressed, and made us fear that our judges may sometimes “indifferently minister justice” in the least favourable construction of that phrase. At the Winchester assizes, in November, a young man (Russell) was charged before Baron Huddleston with murdering his grandmother. Among other witnesses, Dr. J. G. Symes, for thirty years Superintendent of the Dorset County Asylum, who had examined the prisoner by desire of the Home Office, alleged that he was of low intellect, from his mode of answering questions and his general appearance. He appeared indifferent to his position and to the act he had committed. He did not display any excitement or delusions during the interview, and appeared to know right from wrong, but, in his report to the Treasury, Dr. Symes stated that at the time of the murder he was, in his belief, of unsound mind, an opinion the judge would not allow him to express in Court. The prisoner had had fits. In his summing up, the judge animadverted upon the evidence of medical men, and he thought it proper to assert that they usurped the functions of a jury in getting into the witness-box to show their knowledge and ventilate their own fancies and theories without being able to give the reasons on which they based their conclusions. Happily, the jury, while finding the prisoner guilty of murder, strongly recommended him to mercy on account of weak intellect, and he has heen reprieved.


2020 ◽  
Vol 171 ◽  
pp. 2445-2452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Rostianingsih ◽  
Alexander Setiawan ◽  
Christopher Imantaka Halim
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document