Explanation of the. “reactor anomaly” Within the field theoretical approaches to neutrino flavor oscillations It is shown that for relatively short but macroscopic baselines, there must be a small violation of the classical inverse-square law for the neutrino flux. Numerical results provide an explanation of the long-standing “reactor anomaly”.
Explanation of the article in detail The components of the agreement’s head section clarify who shall be the Parties to the agreement. They are called the “Provider” and the “Recipient” and are the institutions competent to regulate the subject matter of the agreement. They are the legal persons that bear the rights and duties of the agreement. The signatory on the Provider side will normally be a governmental authority. The competence may however be delegated to a research institution. This depends 336 Xxxxxxxx xxx Xxxxx et al. on the domestic law of the Provider State. In order to identify who is the compe- tent authority to sign an ABS agreement, the researcher should consult the national focal point on ABS of the Provider State. Further clarity can be obtained from the international ABS Clearing-House which shall be established according to Article 14 NP (not operational as of now). Its mission is to provide information on the national focal point and/or the national authority competent for access and benefit-sharing decisions. At the time of the composition of this commentary (December 2014), the Clearing-House is entering the pilot phase. Meanwhile, however, researchers may directly consult the website of the CBD (xxx.xxx.xxx), which provides links to relevant national websites on ABS. On the Recipient side, the signatory will normally be a legal (public or private) entity such as a research organization or an industrial enterprise. The Recipient shall not be the individual researcher but the institution that employs the researcher. This ensures that the agreement survives changes of personnel and that its implementation is surveyed. The principal content of the agreement is the regulation of access to genetic resources (Article 3), their utilization (Article 4) and their transfer to third parties (Article 5.1), the management (Article 6 – dissemination of knowledge) and transfer to third parties of associated knowledge (Article 5.2), and the sharing of benefits drawn from the utilization. Benefits are regulated in Article 7 (acknowl- edgement of the role of scientists), Article 8 (recording and reporting), Article 9 (sharing of information), Article 10 (scientific collaboration with the Provider State and capacity building), and Article 11 (monetary benefits). A detailed analysis follows under the respective Articles. It is also necessary to define the geographical scope applicable for the Recipi- ent’s collection of genetic resources: the Provider State’s internal wa...
Explanation of the article in detail
Explanation of the article in detail Within the framework of capacity building, the Model Agreement foresees col- laboration between the Recipient and scientists from the Provider State. Since the collaboration is related to the utilization activities and given that the defini- tion of utilization (see Article 2) includes research and development, Article 10 implies that the collaboration may extend to all the utilization activities. The Parties have to indicate the actual level of involvement of the scientists of the Provider State from the sampling activities to the analyzing phase. This is left to the mutually agreed terms of the Model Agreement. However, given the shared research ethos of the Micro B3 Project, it is expected to create the conditions for a strong collaboration between scientists. Moreover, it is important to notice that the Micro B3 Project offers limited possibilities to attend training courses and summer schools on different relevant disciplines. This possibility could also be mentioned in the “specifications” of the Article, if agreed by the Provider and the Recipient.
