All issues
Volume 16 (1949)
- Issue 5-6 Pages 113-
- Issue 4 Pages 91-
- Issue 3 Pages 61-
- Issue 2 Pages 3A-
- Issue 1 Pages 1-
Volume 16, Issue 4
Displaying 1-4 of 4 articles from this issue
- |<
- <
- 1
- >
- >|
-
T. Usui1949 Volume 16 Issue 4 Pages 91-94,A11
Published: 1949
Released on J-STAGE: November 19, 2010
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSThe author worked for 4 months, as a statistician, in the department of the the vital statistics of the Model Health Center of Kanagawa Prefecture The purpose of his work was to find some interesting problems in vital statistics available in the Health Center. The author could find following problems and studied them in detail during this period.
1. How exactly the registration of V.D. and T.B. was?
2. From where wives came to marry to husbands who were burn in Kanagawa prefecture? Comparing present and past materials the author could find the percentage of the wife born in -Kanagawa prefecture reduced to fifty-three per cent at present from eighty-seven per cent in the past.
3. The percentages of birth and death of residents in Kanagawa Prefecture who have “Honseki” in other prefectures. He estimated them four to five per cent.View full abstractDownload PDF (831K) -
S. Ookubo1949 Volume 16 Issue 4 Pages 95-101,A11
Published: 1949
Released on J-STAGE: November 19, 2010
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSAnalyzing the number of deaths from Influenza in the past the author noticed :
1. Age distribution and the seasonal variation during the pandemic of 1918-20 much differed from those of other years.
2. The onset of the pandemic was in September in south and west part of Japan, and October in north and east part, showing clearly the rapid spreading of this disease.View full abstractDownload PDF (829K) -
A. Takamiya1949 Volume 16 Issue 4 Pages 102-104,A11
Published: 1949
Released on J-STAGE: November 19, 2010
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSThe author measured the girth of upper arm of the 1110 repatriates from Kita Ooagari Island and South Manchuria, and of 497 natives of Okinawa Islands repatriated from Japan. He compared their mean values of different districts each other, and he also compared them with that of general Japanese people reported before the war. He noticed that the girth of upper arm of repatriated people was less than that of general Japanese.View full abstractDownload PDF (691K) -
N. Mimura1949 Volume 16 Issue 4 Pages 105-112,A12
Published: 1949
Released on J-STAGE: November 19, 2010
JOURNAL FREE ACCESS1. Distinction of the threshold of judgment and the threshold of perception, as has been proposed by Professor Hukuda, is adopted and procedure of their determination is standardized under his guidance and instruction.
2. A method of point scoring and integration is introduced as the siandard procedure. Subjects are required to taste each 10 c. c. of sample solution with the whole mouth and allowed to think it over before deciding whether it has “no taste” “some undefinable or uncertain taste” (both scored as 0 point), “a definite but just definable taste”, which is right (scored as 3 points), “distinct taste” (scored as 4 points), “definitely stronger taste” (scored as 5 points). For each concentration three trials are made, and the sums (“a”s in Figg. 1 and 2) of points scored for each concentration are plotted against concentration (“C” in the figures) ; then the concentration correspoding to the level of 9 points is interpolated to define the threshold of perception technically (Cp), In Fig. 2 a perpendicular DS is placed so that the area ABR is equal to the area DSRB, which technically determines the position of S representing the threshold of judgment (Cj).
3. Effect of diferent system of scoring is also examined (Fig. 3) and discussed on.
4. Two alternative methods are tried and found to give about the same result as the procedure above mentioned. They are, however, inferior to the method of point scoring and integration, from theoretical or practical point of view.
5. Explanation of Tables :
Table 1: Threshold of perception in normal concentrations of 50 male adults for the taste of NaCl. Data for subjects Nos. 11-40 are omitted. I, II, ... V represent different systems of scoring. The numbers at the bottom are the averages of 50 subjects.
Table 2: Threshold of judgment of the same subjects as in the Table 1.View full abstractDownload PDF (1785K)
- |<
- <
- 1
- >
- >|