By use of density functional and coupled cluster methods, we report energetic and structural information concerning the ground states of TiOn and TiOn− (n=1–3), much of which has not previously been observed experimentally or predicted theoretically. This study establishes the following geometrical symmetries and electronic ground states: X̃ 1A′ TiO3 (Cs), X̃ 2A2′ or B22 TiO3− (D3h or C2v), and X̃ 2A1 TiO2− (C2v). In addition, the electronic ground state of TiO− is established as Δ,2 arising from the 9σ21δ configuration. This finding is contrary to the suggestion of Wu and Wang, contained in their report of recent photoelectron experiments, that ground state TiO− has a 9σ1δ2 electronic configuration and Σ−4 symmetry. The ground state minimum-energy structure for TiO3− contains no oxygen–oxygen bonds and has D3h or C2v symmetry. The first theoretical adiabatic electron affinities, as predicted by the CCSD(T)//B3LYP level of theory, for TiO, TiO2, and TiO3 are 1.25 eV, 1.60 eV, and 3.34 eV, while Wu and Wang’s photoelectron measurements for these were 1.30 eV, 1.59 eV, and 4.2 eV, respectively. The results for the mon- and dioxide cases are in excellent accord with experiment; however, the experimental result for TiO3 is approached with similar accuracy only when compared with our CCSD(T)//B3LYP value for the vertical detachment energy for TiO3− of 4.02 eV. The latter prediction reflects the fact that the theoretical structures for TiO3 and TiO3− are qualitatively different. Finally, several of the lowest-lying minima on the potential energy surfaces of TiO3 and TiO3− are elucidated.
Feminists have long been aware of the pathology and the dangers of what are now termed “adaptive preferences.” Adaptive preferences are preferences formed in unconscious response to oppression. Thinkers from each wave of feminism continue to confront the problem of women's internalization of their own oppression, that is, the problem of women forming their preferences within the confining and deforming space that patriarchy provides. All preferences are, in fact, formed in response to a (more or less) limited set of options, but not all preferences are unconscious, pathological responses to oppression. Feminist theory therefore requires a method for distinguishing all preferences from adaptive or deformed preferences. Social contract theory provides such a tool. Social contract theory models autonomous preference‐acquisition and retention at both the external level of causation and the internal level of justification. In doing so, social contract theory exposes preferences that do not meet those standards, acting as both a conceptual test that identifies adaptive preferences and as a practical tool for personal and social clarification. A social contract approach helps persons and societies to identify and to confront preferences rooted in unconscious response to oppression.
No abstract
The term "biopolitics" carries multiple, sometimes competing, meanings in political science. When the term was first used in the United States in the late 1970s, it referred to an emerging subdiscipline that incorporated the theories and data of the life sciences into the study of political behavior and public policy. But by the mid-1990s, biopolitics was adopted by postmodernist scholars at the American Political Science Association's annual meeting who followed Foucault's work in examining the power of the state on individuals. Michel Foucault first used the term biopolitics in the 1970s to denote social and political power over life. Since then, two groups of political scientists have been using this term in very different ways. This paper examines the parallel developments of the term "biopolitics," how two subdisciplines gained (and one lost) control of the term, and what the future holds for its meaning in political science.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.