0 views

Uploaded by koko

Applied Research Project and Report

Applied Research Project and Report

© All Rights Reserved

- researchpaper_Impact-of-Knowledge-Management-Practices-on-Organizational-Performance-An-Evidence-From-Pakistan.pdf
- SAS for Monte Carlo Studies a Guide for Quantitative Researchers
- ASTM - G1695 - Applying Statistics to Analysis of Corrosion Data
- Term Paper on Management and Organizational Behavior
- T5 Paper Version 3
- JOURNAL READING SKIN HYDRATION.pdf
- spatstat.ppt
- [MAS] 01_Costs and Cost Concepts_for Printing
- Chapter 12
- Fatigue Scale Show.cgi
- A Study of Relationship Between Student
- Bcg Comp Chapter4
- Tea Time+With+Testers+January+2013++Year+2++Issue+XII
- 20 • Compensation
- Cvpa Salary Survey 2010
- Trends Analysis of Budgetary Provision for Construction Projects in Gombe State, Nigeria
- article à traduire en français
- f1400.pdf
- tasmu
- Survey Correlational & Ex Post Facto

You are on page 1of 12

Applied Research Project and Report

with life among immigrants and native-born?

Word Count: 3919

1. We declare that this written assignment is our own work and does not include

(i) material from published sources used without proper acknowledgment or

(ii) material copied from the work of other students.

2. We declare that this assignment has not been submitted for assessment in any

other course at any university.

3. We have a photocopy and electronic version of this assignment in our possession.

Denis Kolev

/1703578/

Dimitar Panchev

/1708387/

Mariya Yotova

/1717305/

Stanimira Marinova

/1719350/

Summary

In the following applied research project our group investigates if a difference exists

in the level of satisfaction with life among immigrants and native- born. This analysis

is based on all countries from the European Social Survey dataset, except Israel

because we want to examine the topic in question across European countries as a

whole. Through the observation of two factors, our report compares the extent to

which the immigrants and the native-born citizens in Europe differ in their level of

satisfaction with life. Using such a broad scope, we believe that this is a large enough

sample to highlight the differences within immigrants and natives in Europe as a

whole. We suppose that the tendency in various levels of satisfaction with life is built

up from different variables defining the countries. For this reason, our group decided

to choose eight different variables which we suppose are highly correlated to the

level of satisfaction with life. As a next step we grouped the chosen variables into two

factors which are as follows: satisfaction with public institutions and satisfaction with

personal life. Using the factors stated, we performed various analyses, in order to

compare the variation in their mean results. As a result, we observed that with

respect to satisfaction with public institution there is a statistically significant

difference among immigrants and natives. On the contrary, our analysis showed no

evidence of a difference between immigrants and natives when considering the

satisfaction with their personal life.

The European Union has always promoted goals and values such as equality and

openness to people and ideas. Modern thinking and acceptance is an issue that

Europe is trying to teach its citizens in order to form a better society. Each community

combines separate different elements but nowadays efforts are concentrated on

successfully coordinating them and operating as a harmonious whole. Nevertheless,

Europe is facing the largest Refugee crisis since World War II with many of the

refugees planning to establish themselves at the country they are currently in.

Europes current immigration problem is to some extent familiar to everyone and

prejudice is one of the most problematic issues that Europe faces when striving to

form a uniform society that acts as one single country. Taking into account these

uncontestable facts, our group here undertakes to analyze to what extent satisfaction

with life differs between the immigrants and the native born residents of the country.

We believe that the results obtained would give us some insight as to the extent to

which Europe has managed to overcome its prejudices and has provided better living

conditions for immigrants by treating them how an open and tolerant society would.

Immigration defined by the Oxford dictionary is: The action of coming to live

permanently in a foreign country. Europe is facing a flood of migrants from the

Middle East and Africa and this human tsunami seems unstoppable. However, what

is left unsaid is whether immigrants could ever become assimilated Europeans,

indistinguishable from the native populations. By performing our analysis, we aim to

answer part of this broadly discussed issue by comparing satisfaction of life of

immigrants to that of the native-born. For decades Europe has been a dream

destination for many immigrants, because of the higher standard of life and the

proximity of the continent. Taking into account the establishment of the European

Union, free movement between people and capital in Europe has never been easier.

But here comes the question Does Europe guarantee better life? meaning whether

2

the established better conditions on the continent would improve immigrants life by

bringing them satisfaction with life. In considering that issue we must pay close

attention to the anti-discrimination law that states: people must be dealt with on an

equal basis regardless of age, sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation,

gender identity and sometimes religious and political opinions. .The promotion of

equality between people has managed to encourage progress in dealing with the

prejudices of Europeans that we have already talked about despite the fact that

discrimination is still present across countries. To explore that issue our goal is to find

whether the immigrants are more satisfied with the life they have in the country they

have established given their social, cultural and economical origin compared to the

native born population of the country. Our assumption is that immigrants have left

countries with lower quality of life in search of better conditions. For this reason we

expect them to be more satisfied with the country they live in than the native-born

who dont have a basis for comparison and are used to living in these conditions.

Nevertheless, the immigrants may feel cultural and social differences from their

native country which may affect their satisfaction with life. Furthermore, immigrants

may feel left out of the society, because of the social and ethnic prejudices.

According to Shin and Johnson (1978) life satisfaction is defined as a global

assessment of a persons quality of life according to his chosen criteria. While

keeping in mind these abstract ideas weve already discussed, we have decided to

perform a more concentrated study by using the data available to set up factors and

obtain results on the basis of which we could make conclusion for the aspect we are

exploring. To do so, we focus on 8 variables which we group into two factors. The

first factor we investigate is Satisfaction with public institutions. We regard this

factor as having much explanatory power to overall satisfaction with life. What we are

trying to explore here is whether our assumption, that institutions in the countries that

immigrants have left were less efficient, is correct and if that would be a reason for

them to judge their satisfaction with public institutions of the current country at a

higher level. Our second factor concentrates on Satisfaction with personal life as we

are interested in understanding how individuals asses their own life satisfaction in the

two groups. We expect that these results would improve our understanding of

whether Europeans have combated to a certain extent their prejudices and have

managed to accomplish the important social goal of sharing values like tolerance,

equality and acceptance of different people.

The focus of our paper is on an important aspect of contemporary Europe. It

concerns immigration, one of the biggest problems it faces nowadays. We would like

to offer a way to check whether the continent (using as an illustration both EU and

non-EU countries) does indeed bring better life for immigrants by observing their

satisfaction with life. This research gives answers to some of the question raised by

the application of the following techniques. First of all, Factor Analysis is used to

group the variables into the factors: Satisfaction with public institutions and

Satisfaction with personal life. As a second step, we use Analysis of Variance to

test for differences between immigrants and native residents for each of the factors.

We believe our research will serve as a very convenient first step in distinguishing

between the immigrants and natives with respect to two different aspects of

satisfaction with life. Nevertheless, it is up to future research to track these

differences.

Data Description

The data set used for this analysis is drawn from Round 6 of the European Social

Survey conducted in 2012 as being the most transparent and varied source on which

we could focus our research. Since the inquiry is focused on the examination of the

difference among immigrants and native-born in European countries as a whole, we

use all the countries from the dataset while excluding Israel for obvious reasons. We

define 8 variables that will be grouped into two factors later. For defining the two

groups in our analysis- immigrants and native-born, we have transformed the

Variable Born in country into Immigrant status, assuming that immigrants are the

individuals not born in the country to which they correspond. Yet, we realize that

there could be a small percentage of people who do not correspond to this way of

classification, but we believe that this percentage would have a negligibly small effect

on our analysis.

Taking into account that data sets may contain different problems such as: outliers,

missing values and errors, we start with description of the variables we use and

comment on data screening results:

Variable

Label

cntry

Country

stfeco

present state of

economy in country

stfgov

national government

stfdem

stfedu

stfhlth

way democracy

works in country

State of education in

country nowadays

State of health

services in country

nowadays

happy

sedirlf

Have a sense of

direction in your life

plinsoc

immigrstatus

Native-born or

immigrant

Scale

{AL= Albania} ;{BE=Belgium};

{BG=Bulgaria};

{CH=Switzerland}

{0,Extremely dissatisfied} ;

{1,"1'"}; {2,"2"); {3,"3"}

{0,Extremely

dissatisfied};{1,"1'"};{2,"2");

{3,"3"}

{0,Extremely

dissatisfied};{1,"1'"};{2,"2");

{3,"3"}

{0,Extremely bad}; {1,"1'"};

{2,"2"); {3,"3"};{4,"4"}

{0,Extremely bad};

{1,"1};{2,"2");{3,"3"};{4,"4"}

{0,Extremely unhappy};

{1,"1'"};{2,"2");{3,"3"};{4,"4"}

{0,Not at all};

{1,"1'"};{2,"2");{3,"3"};{4,"4"}

{0,Bottom of our society};

{1,"1'"};{2,"2");{3,"3"};{4,"4"}

{0,Immigrant};{1,native-born}

Measurement

Nominal

Ordinal

Ordinal

Ordinal

Ordinal

Ordinal

Ordinal

Ordinal

Ordinal

Nominal

Table 1

Univariate Analysis

Given that sometimes datasets present problems such as missing values, outliers

and other errors we start with screening the data as a first step. With regard to

4

exclude any variables that bring us sufficient information. We dont observe the

presence of outliers either.

Other patterns that we also check for are non-normality and skewness which in the

case are not present. Yet, given the large size of the sample we use, they are not

extremely relevant.

Univariate Statistics

Missing

No. of Extremes

Mean

Std. Deviation

Count

Percent

Low

High

stfeco

51178

4.00

2.594

987

1.9

745

stfgov

50683

3.96

2.580

1482

2.8

521

stfdem

50162

5.13

2.578

2003

3.8

stfedu

49638

5.58

2.419

2527

4.8

1845

stfhlth

51583

5.10

2.650

582

1.1

happy

51760

7.08

2.105

405

.8

1841

plinsoc

51056

5.41

1.856

1109

2.1

1479

650

sedirlf

51201

6.99

2.186

964

1.8

2172

a. Number of cases outside the range (Mean - 2*SD, Mean + 2*SD).

Table 2

Multivariate Analysis

For analyzing our research question, we use the following techniques: Factor

Analysis (FA) and one-way ANOVA.

Factor Analysis

The basis of factor analysis is correlation. This interdependency model, that analyzes

patterns in the data, is used to reduce a set of variables to a smaller set of factors.

First of all, we have to check if there is sufficient correlation between the eight

variables that we use. Pearsons correlation coefficient, r, is related to the strength of

the linear relationship that exist between two variables. In order to analyse these

coefficients we take a look at the correlation matrix that shows

a

Correlation Matrix

us that a sufficient relationship between the variables exist.

Besides, on the basis of the determinant of the correlation

a. Determinant = .063

matrix that we obtain we conclude that sufficient correlation

exists since the value we get is low. At the same time, this

value is higher than 0 indicating that there is no multicollinearity.

Table 3

We proceed with performing Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Test and Bartletts test. We take that

step because KMO test measures whether there is a linear correlation between the

variables. Its necessary to implement that test since obtaining results equal or close

to zero signals absence of linear relation and there is no purpose with continuing the

factor analysis. The result we get is satisfactory as it is above 0.8 revealing that the

partial correlations coefficients are small, which indicates that significant correlation

between the variables exists so we can form meaningful factors.

Moreover, we run Bartletts test for sphericity that shows the approximate ChiSquare, degrees of freedom and significance level. According to theory, at

5

significance level of 0 we can reject the null hypothesis stating that there is no

correlation between the variables. In our case, the significance level is .000 so the

null hypothesis is rejected and we conclude that there is correlation between the

variables.

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square

df

Sig.

.836

126136.816

28

.000

Table 4

so, we use Measure of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) for each individual variable,

obtained by the Anti-Image Matrix. By performing this test we check if the proportion

of common variance among variables is higher than the total sum of the squared

partial correlations.In order for the model to be considered good, that proportion

must be bigger than the sum of the squared partial correlations. By inspecting the

diagonal of the anti-image correlation matrix, we observe that values range from

0.762 to 0.868, which shows that the matrix is suitable for factor analysis

Anti-image Matrices

How

How

satisfied

How

satisfied

State of

Have a

with

State of

How

Your

satisfied

with the

health

sense of

present

education

happy place

with the

way

services

direction

state of

in country

are

in

national

democracy

in country

in your

economy

nowadays

you society

government works in

nowadays

life

in

country

country

Antiimage

Correl

ation

How satisfied

with present

state of

economy in

country

How satisfied

with the

national

government

How satisfied

with the way

democracy

works in

country

State of

education in

country

nowadays

State of health

services in

country

nowadays

How happy are

you

Your place in

society

Have a sense

of direction in

your life

.847

-.445

-.183

-.035

-.114

-.091

-.097

.001

-.376

-.036

-.069

.039

-.018

-.023

-.203

-.105

-.089

-.034

-.012

-.399

-.046

.002

-.014

-.101

-.070

.046

-.231

-.293

-.216

-.445

.807

-.183

-.376

.865

-.035

-.036

-.203

.838

-.114

-.069

-.105

-.399

.850

-.091

.039

-.089

-.046

-.101

.828

-.097

-.018

-.034

.002

-.070

-.231

.854

.001

-.023

-.012

-.014

.046

-.293

-.216

.760

Table 5

On the basis of the performed tests we conclude that there is sufficient correlation

and common variance in our sample dataset and therefore we proceed with the

Factor Analysis.

We are at the phase at which we have to define the number of factors. We do so by

observing Eigen-values which are equal to the sum of the squared loadings for a

given factor. These values represent the proportion of total variance explained by

each factor in the initial solution. According to the Latent root criterion or Kaisers

rule the optimal number of factors to use is those that have an eigen-value above 1.

We take into account the fact that the use of a larger number of factors would not

explain much more of the variation, because unique variance starts to dominate

common variance. By observing the scree plot a plot of the Eigen-values against

the number of factors we consider extracting two factors as an adequate decision.

Chart 1

Our goal for this factor analysis is including only those variables for which the

extracted factors explain an adequate amount of variance.For this reason we

proceed with observation of the communalities. The extraction column of the table

represents the percentage of common variance given the extracted factor model.

Typically, it should be above 0.2. In our case, variables are above 0.36 which we

believe is sufficiently high extraction so we can safely go on.

Communalities

How satisfied with the national government

How satisfied with the way democracy works in country

State of education in country nowadays

State of health services in country nowadays

How happy are you

Your place in society

Have a sense of direction in your life

Extraction

.585

.623

.635

.386

.423

.482

.363

.364

Table 6

We also observe the total sample variance explained by the two factors

looking at the Total variance explained table. We obtain considerably satisfactory

value close to 50 %.

Factor

Initial Eigenvalues

% of Variance Cumulative %

45.330

45.330

Total

3.626

1.286

16.070

61.400

.787

9.836

71.236

.636

7.950

79.186

.557

6.965

86.151

.437

5.462

91.613

.377

4.713

96.326

.294

3.674

100.000

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Total

% of Variance Cumulative %

3.145

39.312

39.312

Total % of Variance Cumulative %

2.581

32.267

32.267

.716

1.280

8.950

48.262

15.994

48.262

Table 7

procedure extracts that factor which explains the most variance, then that pattern is

followed in a descending order with respect to variance but there exist many

equivalent solutions. The one we get is the first initial solution which is difficult to

interpret. More accurately, we operate with the Varimax rotation technique, which

rotates the axes but keeps them perpendicular. This orthogonal method of rotation

reduces the amount of variables that have high loadings and thus we can interpret

them easily. Furthermore Keisers experiment illustrates that the factor pattern

realized with Varimax rotation tends to be more invariant with respect to other

rotation techniques.

Pattern Matrix

Factor

1

How satisfied with the national

government

.775

works in country

.769

economy in country

.729

nowadays

.614

.594

.645

.599

.554

a

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

Table 8

On the basis of the table above we notice that each variable is strongly associated

with only one of the factors. Then, each factor would be interpreted on the basis of

the variables that load strongly onto it. The variables included in our first factor are:

stfgov, stfdem, stfeco, stfhlth, stfedu. Our second factor includes the following

variables: happy, sedirlf, plinsoc.

Factor 1 represents: Satisfaction with public institutions

Factor 2 represents: Satisfaction with personal life

After having defined the factors, we find factor scores and create a new latent

variable for each factor that is used in the analysis.

ANOVA

We implement one-way Analysis of Variance for each of our two defined factors. By

doing so, we measure the difference among the means of different sampled groups,

in our case the difference in level of satisfaction with life between immigrants and

natives.

The assumptions for ANOVA are that populations are normally distributed with equal

variances and also that samples are randomly and independently drawn. So before

we continue, we perform some tests to assure if these assumptions are met.

9

First we run the test of variance homogeneity. The result shows p-values equal to

zero for our first factor, while the value for our second factor is equal to 0.497. We

interpret these results that for our first factor the assumption for homogeneity is not

met since we reject the null-hypothesis that states that variances in the

subpopulations are the same at a 0.05 significance level. Even though ANOVA is a

fairly robust to violation of this assumption, we must interpret the results of the

analysis with care especially since our two groups are not of approximately equal

sizes.

Levene Statistic

df1

df2

Sig.

23.013

48947

.000

.461

48947

.497

Table 9

We also include Normal P-P Plots in order to check if the other assumption of

ANOVA, stating that populations are normally distributed, is satisfied:

Chart 2

From the plots above we conclude that each factor exhibits normal distribution with

very little deviations. After we have checked if the assumptions of ANOVA are met,

we would now want to proceed with testing whether there is a difference in the mean

of level of satisfaction with life between the two groups we analyse: immigrants and

natives. In order to make conclusions, we take as our null hypothesis the hypothesis

that the two means are equal, and we hope that we will have sufficient information to

reject the hypothesis, thus proving that the two means are different. The hypothesis

we want to test is:

H0: For a given factor, natives = immigrants

H1: the two means are different

10

Satisfaction with

public institutions

Satisfaction with

personal life

Between Groups

Within Groups

ANOVA

Sum of Squares

375.499

36111.246

df

1

48946

Mean Square

375.499

.738

F

508.960

Sig.

.000

Total

Between Groups

Within Groups

36486.745

2.036

29124.389

48947

1

48946

2.036

.595

3.422

.064

Total

29126.426

48947

Table 10

After performing the analysis of variance, we can see from the table above that pvalue for our first factor it 0.000 therefore we can conclude that the null hypothesis is

rejected. We interpret that result as the presence of significant difference between

satisfaction with public institutions from the point of view of natives and from that of

immigrants. On the other hand, the p-value for our second factor shows us the

evidence that we cannot reject the null hypothesis. That result gives us the

explanation that no significant difference in satisfaction with personal life exists

between immigrants and natives.

Given the results that we obtain on the first tests we perform checking the

assumptions for ANOVA in which we found that the assumption for homogeneity is

not satisfied for our first factor, we decide to confirm our result with further test. We

decide to run Robust Test of Equality of Means which does not require the

assumption for homogeneity of variances to be met. From the table below, we can

observe that we obtain similar results to those stated above regarding mean for

immigrants and mean for natives for each factor.

Robust Tests of Equality of Means

a

institutions

Satisfaction with personal life

Statistic

df1

df2

Sig.

Welch

462.282

4783.758

.000

Brown-Forsythe

462.282

4783.758

.000

Welch

3.382

4859.988

.066

Brown-Forsythe

3.382

4859.988

.066

a. Asymptotically F distributed.

Table 11

Conclusion

The analysis performed aims at investigating whether indeed a difference exists

between how satisfied with his or her life would an immigrant be with respect to the

native population of any country. In the course of our work, we distinguished two

factors that we examined, considering them to have much explanatory power to the

topic in question.

We explored the degree of satisfaction with life more in-depth by considering the

results for Satisfaction with public institutions and Satisfaction with personal life

as being our two factors. How people answer questions regarding the state of country

and its public institutions together with peoples perception for their own life are

diverse factors affecting the same general topic. As far as the former factor is

considered, our analysis showed evidence of the existence of a difference between

immigrants and natives satisfaction with public institutions. One of the main reasons

11

for immigration is the search for better life. Thus, we believe that this difference

stems from the fact that immigrants come from countries with worse conditions so

their perception of public institutions is higher than that of the natives who are used to

be living at that quality. With regard to the latter factor, results were just the opposite

it showed no sign of a statistically significant difference. However, we must pay

close attention to the interpretation of the result obtained since the data we used for

analysis is quite subjective.

In conclusion, we believe that our analysis has presented some interesting

observations. Nevertheless, the topic under research is quite complex and we would

suggest a more in-depth research taking into account the results we already

introduced.

References:

1. Power point lectures and slides

2. Shin & Johnson (1978)

3. Oxford Dictionaries Immigration

4. Wikipedia Anti-discrimination law

5. Europes Immigrant Problem Robert Weissberg

12

- researchpaper_Impact-of-Knowledge-Management-Practices-on-Organizational-Performance-An-Evidence-From-Pakistan.pdfUploaded byAyesha Aman
- SAS for Monte Carlo Studies a Guide for Quantitative ResearchersUploaded byoriontherecluse
- ASTM - G1695 - Applying Statistics to Analysis of Corrosion DataUploaded byjimeneaj
- Term Paper on Management and Organizational BehaviorUploaded byaassmmrr
- T5 Paper Version 3Uploaded byrgovindan123
- JOURNAL READING SKIN HYDRATION.pdfUploaded byKulit Januari 2017
- spatstat.pptUploaded byAgatha Astrisele
- [MAS] 01_Costs and Cost Concepts_for PrintingUploaded byCykee Hanna Quizo Lumongsod
- Chapter 12Uploaded byramankrs
- Fatigue Scale Show.cgiUploaded byPrincyFernando
- A Study of Relationship Between StudentUploaded byIndra Kumari Bajracharya
- Bcg Comp Chapter4Uploaded bygaurav1249
- Tea Time+With+Testers+January+2013++Year+2++Issue+XIIUploaded bysahaj
- 20 • CompensationUploaded byAnneXu
- Cvpa Salary Survey 2010Uploaded byTony Peterz Kurewa
- Trends Analysis of Budgetary Provision for Construction Projects in Gombe State, NigeriaUploaded byIjrei Journal
- article à traduire en françaisUploaded bysaidunivers
- f1400.pdfUploaded byrehoboath
- tasmuUploaded byKichu Krishnan Unni
- Survey Correlational & Ex Post FactoUploaded byErwin Jay Cabantac
- IndicatorsUploaded bycooltest11
- Risk Management Explained - Reduce Risk by Combining Risky Stocks Into a PortfolioUploaded bynabamita pyne
- EssayUploaded byKainat Khowaja
- Artigo Sharp - Energy Bench MarkingUploaded byJoao Guilherme Candido Silva
- MMWUploaded byMarc Cadiz
- An Appraisal of Entrepreneurial Skills of Construction Professionals to Thedevelopment of the Service Sector in Nigeria 2169 026X 1000212 (1)Uploaded byNico Scheepers
- 3018-12409-1-PB.pdfUploaded byRahul
- fhlm crack cocaine 0Uploaded byapi-303079344
- SSC CGL Syllabus 2016Uploaded byAshish Sehgal
- Product FlyerUploaded byRichard Wijendra

- Developmental Changes in Brain Function Underlying Inhibitory Control in Autism Spectrum DisordersUploaded bytonylee24
- Chapter- 5 is- Lm Model Econ- 102 2Uploaded byabhishek
- Niti DuggalUploaded byAnusha Naidu
- Summative Math ProjectUploaded bykmmutch
- engine thrust analysisUploaded byapi-248987755
- Major ClustUploaded byWii Nguyen
- APTRANSCO SYLLABUSUploaded byAnil Yvs
- Extra - Cramer's RuleUploaded byPuok Wui Ng
- Parameters for a 2D-FE Induction Motor ModelUploaded byAkshay Gatkal
- Equilibrium ConstantUploaded byMs azmat
- Study on Named Entity Recognition for Polish Based on Hidden Markov Models -- posterUploaded byMichał Marcińczuk
- How Critical Are IEC 60034-27-3 Maximum ValuesUploaded byMaycon Maran
- PC7-Training-SeepzUploaded byBalaji Mugunthan
- ICE-04Uploaded byKshitiz Rawat
- WSRP StandardsAndGuideline-Canal DesignUploaded byNitin S Jog
- JwaUploaded byJohn Arens
- 04_1PROBABILITYUploaded byeamcetmaterials
- python litvin Chapter 05Uploaded byOmar Atreides
- IJREI_Numerical simulation model of solar air heater using ansys-14Uploaded byIjrei Journal
- technology enhanced unitUploaded byapi-256475437
- Kevin MacDermid- The Sunyaev-Zeldovich EffectUploaded byNestorr50
- deflection of beamsUploaded byChaitanya Kumar
- kiatrabile2016.pdfUploaded byarief_7
- assign iam.pdfUploaded byEngr Faheem Akhtar
- Mat Lab IntroUploaded byanamiya2007
- Organizational Analysis: Week 5 Questions (Contingency TheoryUploaded byapi-25897035
- Rolling Ressistance of Truck TireUploaded bygdanon
- Losses in PSCUploaded bySandeep Reddy
- ec-6 syllabusUploaded byshashwatbhattacharya
- MTH 1212 2Uploaded byMuhammad Ehsan Norsiake