Hamburg, Universiẗat, Diss., 2005. / Erscheinungsjahr an der Haupttitelstelle: 2004.

There is no abstract available for this thesis.

In this thesis, we study the spectral properties of the hierarchical Anderson model. This model is an approximation of the Anderson tight-binding model on Zd , with the usual discrete Laplacian replaced by a hierarchical long-range interaction operator. In the hierarchical Anderson model, we are given a countable set X endowed with a hierarchical structure. The free hierarchical Laplacian is a self-adjoint operator Delta acting on the Hilbert space l 2( X ). The spectrum of Delta consists of isolated infinitely degenerate eigenvalues. We look at small random perturbations of the operator Delta. The disorder is modeled by a random potential Vo, (Vopsi)(x) = o( x)psi(x) for psi ∈ l 2( X ). The numbers o(x) are identically distributed independent random variables with a bounded density. The hierarchical Anderson model is the random self-adjoint operator Ho = Delta + Vo. We prove the following two results. If the model has a spectral dimension dsp ≤ 4 then, almost surely, the spectrum of Ho is dense pure-point. The second result is on eigenvalue statistics. For dsp < 1, the energy levels for Ho are asymptotically a Poisson point process in the thermodynamic limit, after a proper rescaling.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1978. / Typescript. Vita. Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 159-162).

Thesis (M.A.)--Eastern Illinois University, 2010. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 78-81).

Dresden, Techn. Universiẗat, Diss., 2004.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The primary purpose of this research was to determine whether terminal objectives of the associate degree program in nursing at Anderson College were being met by the first class of graduates--those who graduated in June, 1975. The study was done to determine if a difference existed between the ratings of competency by the graduate and by his/her supervisor. If there were areas of difference, what were the differences and what were the degrees of difference?The data were collected utilizing two rating scales consisting of fifteen statements of competencies for a beginning nurse practitioner graduate of Anderson College, Anderson, Indiana. Two questionnaires were used, one for the graduate and one for the supervisor, with identical rating scales. The rating scales were devised from a list of terminal objectives set up by the faculty of the department of nursing during the formative stages of the nursing program. These questionnaires were validated by two separate juries of nursing experts.The jury concerned with the questionnaire being sent to the graduate was made up of eight members of the department of nursing at Anderson College. Twenty head nurses from St. Johns Hospital, Anderson, Indiana, composed the jury that validated the questionnaire being sent to the employer. The employer was requested to have the graduate's immediate supervisor return the completed form to the department of nursing, Anderson College.A sample of seventy-five graduates of the first class of nursing students of the associate degree program, Anderson College and forty-three employers of various nursing services were used for the study population. Each graduate nurse was mailed a questionnaire with a request for permission to contact his/her employer. Of the seventy-five questionnaires sent to the graduate nurses, forty-five (sixty percent) of the forms were returned. Two graduates who responded would not give permission to contact their employers. The return of the questionnaires from the supervisors was ninety-nine percent. Of the forty-three forms sent out to the supervisors, only one form was not returned.The graduates responding to the questionnaire included forty-two females and three males, members of the first graduating class of the associate degree program in nursing, Anderson College, June, 1975.Results of the rating scale were evaluated by utilizing the t-test. Since the graduates rated themselves and were also rated by their supervisors, the groups were matched. Consequently, the results were analyzed with a t-test of matched samples.