正畸文献翻译
[1]m . Bohner,一些振荡准则一阶时滞动力方程,远东j .达成协议。数学。18(3)(2005)289 - 304。
[2]r·p·阿加瓦尔先生,Bohner,s h .猎隼,振动的二阶时滞动力方程,可以。达成协议。数学。问:13(2005)1 - 18。
[3]a,a Aozbekler Zafer,振荡解的二阶混合非线性微分方程在脉冲扰动,Comput。数学。:。61(2011)933 - 940。
[4]x x,z . t .徐、刘振荡的一个强制用户二阶脉冲微分方程,Comput。数学。达成。53(2007)1740 - 1749。
[5]d,a . Tiryaki Cakmak,振动性准则某些强迫二阶非线性微分方程,达成协议。数学博士。17(2004)275 - 279。
[6]r·p·阿格沃尔,s . r .优雅、振荡的某些三阶差分方程,Comput。数学。达成。42(2001)379 - 384。
[7]n . Parhi、振荡和非振动解的二阶差分方程涉及广义差异,达成协议。数学。Comput。218(2011)458 - 468。
[8]l . Erbe,s·h·a·彼得森,猎隼,振动标准二阶非线性时滞动力方程,j .数学。肛门:。333(2007)505 - 522。
[9]s r .优雅,r . p . m . Bohner Agarwal,,d .奥雷根,振动的二阶强次线性超线性和动态方程,Commun强烈。非线性科学。号码。同时。14(2009)3463 - 3471。
[10]s h .猎隼,振荡的非线性动态方程在时间尺度,达成协议。数学。Comput。148(2004)81 - 91。
[11]b . Karpuz,无界振荡的高阶非线性时滞动力方程,与我校击毙类型、电子coeffcients摆动。j .涉及。理论不同。Equ。34(2009)1 - 14。
[12]y . b .太阳,z .韩寒,y,y太阳锅、振动性定理某些第三阶非线性时滞动力方程在时间尺度、电子。j .涉及。理论不同。Equ。75(2011)1 - 14。
[13],w·冯·m·黄,强迫振动的二阶非线性动态方程在时间尺度、电子。j .涉及理论不同。Equ。36(2008)1 13。
[14]d . x。陈,振荡的标准分数di®为方程,订购不同。装备的。2012:33(2012)1 - 18。
[15]问:x张,f·邱、振动性定理二阶半线性时滞动态方程与阻尼对时间尺度,Comput。数学。:。62(2011)4185 - 4193。
[16]i Podlubny,分数微分方程、学术出版社,圣地亚哥,1999。
[17]a . a . Kilbas,h . m .斯利瓦斯塔瓦,j•j•特鲁希略,理论和应用分数微分方程,爱思唯尔科学BV,阿姆斯特丹,2006。
[18]s Das、功能分数阶微积分为系统识别和控制¯阳离子。施普林格,纽约,2008年。
[19]g·h·哈迪,j·e·利特尔伍德,g . P¶olya,不等式,第二版,剑桥大学出版社,1988年,英国剑桥。
[20]t . s .哈桑,振荡三阶非线性时滞动力方程在时间尺度、数学。Comput。造型49
『贰』 求一篇口腔方面的外文文献翻译成品急用。谢谢大哥大姐！！！！
口腔方面的外文文献翻译成品可棒提供帮助的亲，。
『叁』 考研复试中的专业文献翻译应该怎么准备
我们学校在复试的时候面试阶段也会有英文文献翻译，因为我是保研的回，之前经过答一次面试，所以我们学校的情况是会准备几段英文文献的纸条，然后进去之后你随便抽一段，读出来，有专门的老师会纠正你的英语发音，读完或者读了一部分之后会把纸条收走，让你复述内容，其实很少有人能马上复述出来的，因为在读的时候总是在注意发音，可能主要看看你的英文功底怎样吧~不要紧张，祝你成功呀~
『肆』 哪位大侠可以发些有关社区矫正的外文文献和中文翻译。强调一下，看不懂外文，呵呵。一定要有翻译。谢谢
有没有再发一份 跪谢
『伍』 英语翻译：“矫正牙齿”
Orthodontic treatment 正牙治疗，即“牙齿矫正”
Orthodontic treatment is a way of straightening or moving teeth, to improve the appearance of the teeth and how they work.
＊Orthodontics【医】正牙学
例：I will get/have orthodontic treatment. 我将要矫正牙齿。
希望回答对你有帮助。
『陆』 求外文--文献翻译（高手请进）
手译，保证质量.
有几点要说明:1.人名都没有译,因为如果要译的话,只能音译,难以统一.
2.对于专业词汇,一定要核对.保证大概意思无误,但是细微之处请核对.
3.因为在这儿看不出字体(如斜体),所以只能按照我对英文文献的了解和理解来译,估计不会出什么大错,但还是请仔细核对.
4.关于中文注释和英文注释的格式,请参考以下网页:
http://zhxm5588.bokee.com/viewdiary.14816117.html
有非常详细的说明.
5.30分太少,50分也太少,译这个东西太费劲.
6.Good luck.
=========================================
参考资料
[1]W.C. Cohen, E.F. Johnston,《双管式热转换器的动力学特点》，《工业工程化学》第48期/卷（1956年）1031—1034页
[2] A. Meaburn, F.M. Hughes,《分布式太阳能收集磁场的谐振特性》，《太阳能》51期第3卷（1993年）215——221页
[3] V.P. Paruchuri, R.R. Rhinehart, 《热转换器非线性控制模型的实验解析》，载《美国控制会议汇刊》，巴尔的摩-马里兰，1994年，3533——3537页
[4] M.H.R. Fazlur Rahman, R. Devanathan, 《热转换器的反馈线性化》，载《第33届控制与决策会议汇刊》，布埃纳维斯塔湖-佛罗里达，1994年，2936-2937页
[5] L. Xia, J.A.D. Abreu-Garcı´a, T.T. Hartley, 《热转换器的建模与模拟》，载《电气和电子工程师协会（IEEE）国际系统工程会议汇刊》，俄亥俄，1991年，453–456页
[6] L. Ljung, 《系统辨识》，第二版，用户理论系列丛书，Prentice Hall 出版社，新泽西,1999年
[7] D.R. Coughanowr, 《工艺系统分析与控制》，第二版，化学工程丛书，McGraw Hill出版，1991年
[8] A. Meaburn, F.M. Hughes, 《分布式太阳能收集磁场谐振抵消（对消）的定期调整性控制策略》，《太阳能》52期（第二卷），1994年，155-166页
[9] A. Meaburn, F.M. Hughes,《应用于大型抛物出口收集器阵列的简易预测控制器》，《太阳能》56期（6卷），（1996年），583–595页
[10] L. Cuiyan, Z. Dongchun, Z. Xianyi, 《重复控制的理论与应用》，载《SICE札幌年会汇刊》，2004年，27–34页
『柒』 求未成年人社区矫正外文翻译，谢谢啦
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL INTERVENTIONS
In their seminal article, Andrews and his colleagues (1990) argued that to be effective in
recing recidivism, correctional programs must provide treatment that is clinically relevant
and draws from the psychological literature of behavioral modification. They found
that juvenile correctional programs that were most effective in recing recidivism were
those that ascribed to three major principles: the delivery of services to high-risk cases, the
targeting of criminogenic needs, and the use of cognitive and behavioral modalities. Specifically,
they found that juvenile correctional programs that ascribed to these principles
had a relatively strong effect (mean phi = .29) when compared both to rehabilitative programs
that did not (mean phi = –.07) and to more traditional criminal sanctions, such as probation
and restitution (mean phi = –.06).
A follow-up meta-analysis in 1999 concted by Dowden and Andrews (1999) proced
similar results. Their examination of more than 200 effect sizes found that overall, juvenile
correctional treatment had a weak, albeit significant, average effect size (phi = .08). Furthermore,
their results again suggested that programs that used a cognitive behavioral treatment
modality, targeted high-risk youth, and attempted to change criminogenic needs were all
more effective (phi = .28) than those programs that did not (phi = –.08).
Lipsey (1999) also used the meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of juvenile correctional
treatment. His analysis examined more than 200 correctional interventions for
serious youthful offenders and concluded that correctional interventions with specific characteristics
were effective in recing recidivism. Of interest, Lipsey also examined 83
programs for institutionalized youth, 8 of which were categorized as community residential
facilities. Lipsey’ results suggest that although on average, there were positive effects for
the community-based residential facilities, there was significant variation in the effect sizes
within this group. The small number of studies precluded an analysis of characteristics of
effective community-based residential facilities. However, in the larger analysis of programs
for institutionalized offenders, Lipsey noted that the characteristics of treatment modality,
program ration, and treatment implementation were associated with increases in program
effect size.
Also of interest, research concted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy
indicates that staff characteristics are important factors in determining the effectiveness of
juvenile correctional interventions (Barnoski, 2004). Barnoski (2004) reviewed a variety of
forms of juvenile correctional interventions and found that counselors who were categorized
as competent ring quality assurance checks consistently proced higher effect sizes than counselors who were not. Furthermore, the findings indicate that counselors who were categorized as incompetent proced clients who were more likely to reoffend. These
findings are consistent with prior research that suggests that programs with trained and qualified staff are more likely to have an impact on recidivism (see Gendreau & Ross, 1979;
Palmer, 1994).
Research that uses general
A follow-up meta-analysis in 1999 concted by Dowden and Andrews (1999) proced
similar results. Their examination of more than 200 effect sizes found that overall, juvenile
correctional treatment had a weak, albeit significant, average effect size (phi = .08). Furthermore,
their results again suggested that programs that used a cognitive behavioral treatment
modality, targeted high-risk youth, and attempted to change criminogenic needs were all
more effective (phi = .28) than those programs that did not (phi = –.08).
Lipsey (1999) also used the meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of juvenile correctional
treatment. His analysis examined more than 200 correctional interventions for
serious youthful offenders and concluded that correctional interventions with specific characteristics
were effective in recing recidivism. Of interest, Lipsey also examined 83
programs for institutionalized youth, 8 of which were categorized as community residential
facilities. Lipsey’s results suggest that although on average, there were positive effects for
the community-based residential facilities, there was significant variation in the effect sizes
within this group. The small number of studies precluded an analysis of characteristics of
effective community-based residential facilities. However, in the larger analysis of programs
for institutionalized offenders, Lipsey noted that the characteristics of treatment modality,
program ration, and treatment implementation were associated with increases in program
effect size.
Also of interest, research concted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy
indicates that staff characteristics are important factors in determining the effectiveness of
juvenile correctional interventions (Barnoski, 2004). Barnoski (2004) reviewed a variety of
forms of juvenile correctional interventions and found that counselors who were categorized
as competent ring quality assurance checks consistently proced higher effect
sizes than counselors who were not. Furthermore, the findings indicate that counselors who
were categorized as incompetent proced clients who were more likely to reoffend. These
findings are consistent with prior research that suggests that programs with trained and qualified
staff are more likely to have an impact on recidivism (see Gendreau & Ross, 1979;
Palmer, 1994).
Research that uses general measures of treatment integrity to predict program effectiveness
has found modest to strong correlations with recidivism. When measuring the program
integrity of 38 alt halfway houses, Lowenkamp, Latessa, et al. (2006) found that overall
698 Criminal Justice and Behavior integrity scores had r values ranging from .24 to .33. Gray (1997) examined community based correctional interventions and found a correlation of .41 between treatment integrity and program outcome. Nesovic (2003) examined more than 250 correctional programs and found that measures of treatment integrity maintained a correlation of .51 with recidivism.
Taken as a whole, research on interventions with juvenile offenders suggests that measures
of treatment integrity play an important role in the effective rection in recidivism. Characteristics such as the risk level of the youth that are served, the treatment modality and
targets, and staff characteristics have been found to be important factors that improve the
likelihood of recing recidivism. This body of research provides a compelling argument
regarding the importance of examining treatment integrity when evaluating juvenile correctional interventions, because it provides a look into the “black box” of correctional
interventions (Holsinger, 1999). That is, although outcome evaluations help in understanding
whether programs are effective, understanding treatment integrity provides an explanation
as to why programs are effective or not. Furthermore, understanding why their specific
program is effective or not provides practitioners with the tools to improve struggling programs
and to sustain programs that perform well.
The current research seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of Ohio’s CCFs. In doing so, it
examines how differences in treatment integrity correspond with program recidivism. The
measures of treatment integrity used in the current project are drawn from the CPAI designed
by Gendreau and Andrews (1996). Program effectiveness is measured using a quasi-experimental design to determine whether program participants were less likely to engage in
recidivism than a matched control group.
『捌』 求关于社区矫正的外文文献和翻译，在网上找了半天都下不下来，急求，谢谢了！
我处禁止上传文件，相关PDF外文文献有，翻译得靠你自己，希望能满足你的专需要，能帮到你，多多给点属悬赏分吧，急用的话请多选赏点分吧，这样更多的知友才会及时帮到你，我找到也是很花时间的，如果需要请直接网络 私信 或者 Hi 中留言贴出你在 网络知道的问题链接地址 及 邮箱地址