英文文献翻译公式

)Action of “Latvia’s Dialogues” is directed to promotion of the Inter-ethnical dialogue and development of civil society; 译：‘拉脱维亚谈话’行动引导和促进了种族之间的对话何社会文明的发展。2) Research works: in History, in Environmental protection. 译：研究工作：在历史方面，在环境保护方面。3) Research of business strategies, Law; 译：业务策略，法律方面的研究。4) Organisation and support of culture, charity events. 译：对文化、慈善事业的组织和支持5) International Diplomatic projects; 译：国际外交战略。

就是这篇英语文献，与卫生资源配置有关的~~~不要在线直接翻译的~~1. BackgroundInequitable allocation of resources is a widespread probleminmany health systems.Globally, health needs are diverse and require significant financial, human and other resources. These resources are however limited in many countries [33], thereby creating a distributional dilemma for policy-makers. Although the problems posed by resource inadequacy cannot be underesti- mated, particularly in developing countries, there is a commonly held view that, within countries of similar socio-economic standing, it is not how much a country spends, but rather how it spends its resources that deter-mines the health status of its population [1]. Evidencefromboth developed and developing countries suggests that inappropriate allocation of resources contribute greatly to inequities in health. In Australia, for example, although indigenous people have a life expectancy of nearly 20 years shorter than non-indigenous Australians [2,3], Deeble and others found that total expen-ditures per person for health services for indigenous Australians are notmuch higher than the rest of the population; a ratio of merely 1.22:1 [4]. In South Africans,the poorer health status of black people compared to white South African is believed to be partly the result of the historic imbalances and inequities in the resource allocation system.McIntyre observed that over 60%of health care spending in South Africa at the end of the 20th century was in the private sector [40], the main beneficiaries of which were the minority white population. In Madagascar, Castro-Leal et al. [5] found that the poorest 20% of the population consumes 12% ofpublic spending on health compared to 30% share of the total enjoyed by the richest 20%.The need to address inequity in health has received increased attention in recent years [6].This has exposed the mechanisms for allocation of public sector health resources to greater scrutiny. Inmany countries, policy-makers have come under pressure to abandon historical funding models which were widely perceived as inequitable and to develop explicit alternatives that would redress inequities within and between geographic regions. One issue that remains unresolved in the quest for more equitable resource distribution however, is the appropriate principle or set of principles that should guide resource allocation in order to bridge the existing gaps in equity. One major reason for the little consensus among scholars on this issue results from the diverse ways in which the term ‘equity’ is interpreted.Whatever interpretation one might have, equity remains a value-laden word; choosing between different definitions of equity therefore necessarily involvesmaking value judgements [7].The common interpretations of equity include‘equal expenditure per capita’, ‘equal inputs percapita’, ‘equal access for equal needs’, ‘equal utilisation for equal needs’, and ‘equal health’ [8]. Each of these definitions has its own benefits and difficulties with regards to measurement and operationalisation.‘Equal health’, for example, has been widely criticisedas being unrealistic, given the many factors that determine health including variations in genetic background and longstanding disparities in access to thewide range of resources which contribute to determining health outcomes. While some authors have argued that the ultimate aim of all definitions of equity is equality of health [34], others have suggested other objectives such as equality of access or equal access for equal needs[9]. Access, however, is a multidimensional concept and extremely difficult to measure.Most industrialised nations have adopted the ‘equality of access’ interpre-tation in their efforts to achieve fairness in distributionof services and resources [10–12].Many needs-based models for resource allocationin recent decades were developed on the basis of the equality of access principle. The best documented example is the Resource Allocation Working Party’s (RAWP) model developed in England in 1976. The RAWP model sought to allocate National Health Service (NHS) funds between geographical areas to secure equal opportunity of access for equal needs [39]. Countries such asAustralia,NewZealand,Canada and South Africa have taken the lead from the RAWP approach and developed their own needs-based systems with a similar aim of improving equity. A needs-based model has been also tried in Zambia [13] while Uganda has implemented a pro-poor resource allocation reform similar to needs-based funding [14]. However, efforts to improve equity through needs-based funding have overwhelmingly focused on broader geographic equitysuch as inter-regional or provincial equity. Equity at sub-regional levels has been virtually ignored in many countries, creating a knowledge vacuumregarding how resources are re-distributed by regional authorities.This lack of attention to equity at sub-regional levels could have profound implications for reducing general inequities in health. 2. Resource allocation in Ghana .Ghana is located on thewest coast ofAfrica, bordering Togo to the east, Cote d’lvoire to the west, BurkinaFaso to the north and the Gulf of Guinea to the south. It is a low-income country with a gross national income (GNI) per capita ofUS$ 320 [42].Over 40%of the estimated 20.5 million population lives below the poverty line. The population structure is significantly youthful, with about 40% of the total inhabitants under the age of 15. Rural residents make up around 55% of thetotal population. The infantmortality rate was about 60 per 1000 in 2003 while the overall life expectancy at birth for 2002 was nearly 58 years. Public sector health expenditure constituted about 2.8% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2001 [41]. For administrative purposes, Ghana is divided into 10 regions and 110 districts (Fig. 1). The government has in the past few years initiated a policy to create an additional 20–30 districts.Allocation of health resources between and within the regions and districts in Ghana has been less than equitable. Generally, regions in the Northern half the country are more deprived in terms of access to health care than those in the southern sector.The ratio GhanaHealth Service (GHS) doctors per population for example is 1:16,201 in the Greater Accra region compared to 1:66,071 in the Northern region [31]. Withinindividual regions, inequities are rife, often with communities in remote locations havingmuchmore limited access to district-based health care services. Bridging inequities in access to health care is therefore one of the main national health policy goals. This is enshrined inthe mission statement of the Ministry of Health which states that:“TheMinistry ofHealthwillwork in collaborationwith all partners in the health sector to ensure that every individual, household and community is adequately informed about health and has equitable access to high quality health and related interventions” [30].Allocation of resources within the health system is in principle, designed to achieve the equality of accessgoal through the reduction of inequities between andwithin geographic regions, including the removal of financial barriers to access to services for the mos vulnerable segments of the population. The resource allocation decision-making process is decentralised.The Ghana Health Service (GHS) uses a resource allocation formula to allocate resources to regions. At the beginning of the planning season, the GHS assigns budgetary ceilings to the 10 Regional Health Adminis-trations (RHAs) in the country.This amount is allocatedin block for all districts in the region. Each RHA uses its own region-specific resource allocation formula to re-distribute this lump sum among the districts under its jurisdiction. It is on the basis of these allocations(as determined by the RHAs) that districts plan andbudget their activities. Completed activity plans and budgetary estimates of districts are collated by the RHA and returned to the MOH/GHS headquarters for approval.Once approved, theMOHdisburses the fundsdirectly to the various districts through the RHA. The RHA at this stage cannot alter what has been disbursed to individual districts.More recently, to promote inter-regional equity, the MOH has resorted to ‘top-slicing’ the GHS budget to target the four regions noted as the most deprived in the Ghana Poverty Reduction Strat-egy (GPRS) document, namely; the Northern, Upper East, Upper West and Central region [31].The use of different resource allocation criteria by the 10 regionsmeans progress towards equitymay vary from one region to another depending on the commit-ment to promoting equity and the particular criteria and strategies employed. To date, there has not been a systematic investigation to assess the allocation of resources within regions and the extent to which equity objectives are advanced (or not) through this process.This study examines the intra-regional resource allocation systems in the Ashanti and Northern regions ofGhana in order to assess and compare progress towards equity in terms of redistribution of funds in favour of the most deprived districts.For the purposes of this study, the definition ofequity embodied in the MOH mission statement, that is, equality of access to high quality care and inter-ventions was adopted. Equitable resource allocation is defined here as allocation of equal or equivalent resources for equal needs. Because of the strong association between health status and socio-economic dis-advantage in Ghana, health needs were measured in terms of relative deprivation or disadvantage. Districts with high levels of deprivation were considered to bein greater need of resources. Resource is defined in this study largely in terms of financial resources for district-level services.

Step 2 经过平滑的形象，消除噪音，下一步就是要找到优势兵力，采取梯度的形象。Sobel算子进行二维空间梯度测量的形象。然后，大约绝对梯度幅度（边缘强度）各点可以找到。 Sobel算子的使用对3x3卷积口罩，一个梯度估计在X方向（栏）和其他的梯度估计的Y方向（行） 。它们如下所示： 规模，或EDGE强度，梯度近似然后使用公式：Step 3 寻找边缘方向是小事，一旦梯度在X和Y方向是众所周知的。然而，你会产生错误时sumX等于零。因此，在代码中必须有一个限制规定只要发生。每当梯度在x方向等于零，边缘的方向，必须等于90度或0度，取决于什么的价值梯度的Y方向等于。如果青的值为零，边缘方向将等于0度。否则边缘方向将等于90度。公式为寻找边缘方向是：不是非常标准，但希望能给你带来点帮助

图4显示了仪器的测试标本（测试 对象） 。墙上的标本12.5毫米thick.The温度测量了1.5毫米热要素Ktype 。该位置如图所示。在一些实验水注入标本和煮干。 一些测试进行了不同的热负荷和 不同的灌装水内的标本。这些报告[ 5 ] [ 6 ] 。在这三起案件的介绍将提交。 模拟已用VessFire 。这是一个 系统模拟火灾反应的工艺设备。它 模拟热传导和执行的应力计算 3维壳牌。同时该系统模拟 存货处理气相和液相分开。 两阶段相联系，通过蒸发，冷凝， 传热和疏散（用于排污模拟） 。那个 整个系统联系在一起，以一个多物理模拟。 见[ 1 ]和[ 2 ] 。 VessFire是假设接触火焰在kW/m2 。印第安纳州 一般的流量可以在不同时间和空间，但在这种情况下， 热负荷是恒定的空间。热流包括 辐射热和对流换热和的定义是净 通量转移到暴露对象，而对象是在其 初始条件。图14 ，图17和图20显示 适用于热负荷VessFire对不同的情况。负载 同时发现的平均测量温度加热铝箔和适用斯蒂芬一玻耳兹曼定律。仿真承担库存气层最初充满空气， 78 ％ N2和22 ％氧气。该发射率的标本被设置为0.7 。 图15 ，图18和图21显示的结果 测量和计算存货温度。何时 热电偶用来衡量气体温度有一个 具有影响力的风险从周围的温度。印第安纳州 这种情况下，包围钢发光，显然 影响热电偶辐射。这是一般来说 问题和应注意的时候公布结果。那个 影响可能相当强劲，估计在这里使用 计算气体温度来计算相应的 热电偶温度。的数字，这是所谓的“钙。 气温。热电偶“ 。计算是逐步使用 包括： （此处一个公式）凡ΔT场是在温度升高的时间ΔT场，山是大众每平方米和CP的比热的热电偶（镍） 。对流换热的计算公式为（此处一个公式）凡在是面积每平方米的热电偶和Tl和TT的温度天然气和热电偶分别。 λ是导热系数为实际气体和DT是外径热电偶。 Nu和再保险公司各自的努塞尔和雷诺数。问题补充净辐射传热计算公式为（此处一个公式）凡在该地区的内附标本每平方米， εt = 0.3是发射热电偶（镍） ， εs = 0.7是发射标本内和σ是斯蒂芬一波尔兹曼常数黑色辐射。指标是试样温度在里面。 这次调整的估计数，但它给出了一个设想的规模影响热电偶从标本表面。 图16 ，图19和图22显示的比较测量和计算钢温度。它们还显示时间，所有的水被蒸发。钢铁温度底部的标本保持不变，只要有水存在。当钢干燥温度的升高迅速。可以看出，从数字沸腾的时间是相当不错，因此预计钢铁温度

图4显示了仪器的测试样本(测试 对象)。墙上的标本是12.5毫米厚的. 温度测量的Ktype thermo-elements 1.5毫米。如图所示的位置。在一些实验水注入到标本和水煮干。 几个试验与不同的热负荷及 不同的水流填充的标本。这些发表在[5]和[6]。在这次讲座中三个案例中,将会呈现。 模拟已经用VessFire。这是一种 仿真系统的响应的工艺设备。火它 模拟计算传热学、表演的压力 3-dimesional壳。同时系统模拟 存货,它把气相、液相另行规定。 这两个阶段与蒸发、冷凝, 传热和疏散(排污模拟)。这个 整个系统是联系在一起的一个方案仿真。 看到[1]和[2]。 VessFire承担暴露在火焰中千瓦/平方米。在 一般的流量可以改变在时间和空间,但在这种情况下的 热负荷是恒定的空间。这个热流包括 辐射热和对流换热及被定义为网络 流量转移到接触物体的对象是在它的 初始条件。如图14、图17图20显示 VessFire热负荷应用于不同的情况。负载 发现平均温度的测量的应用Stefan-Boltzmann加热箔片和律法。仿真假设库存天然气区域起初是充满空气、氮气、氧气22%的78%。标本的发射率将0.7。 图15日18和图21展示人物的结果 测量和计算的存货的温度。当 热偶是用来测量气体的温度都有一个 有影响力的风险与周围的温度。在 这种情况下,围绕在发光和有明显的效果 反辐射的影响。这是在大会 应该注意的问题,结果发表。这个 可以很强烈的影响,在这里,利用了 燃气温度的计算来计算一个相应的 热电偶温度。在数字这被叫做“钙质。 temp.热电偶”。这个计算是逐步由使用 (此处一个公式)的ΔT是温度升高时,太是人民大众ΔT每米,cp比热为热电偶(Inconel)。对流传热计算为(此处一个公式)在的面积是每米、热电偶温度组合成的Tl和航天气、热电偶respectively.λ被导热系数为实际的气体及dt的外径热电偶。怒和稀土是各自的Nusselt与雷诺数。 问题补充:净辐射传热计算为(此处一个公式)的面积是为每米,εt寄样品的热= 0.3率(Inconel),εs = 0.7的发射率为样本里面的Stefan-Boltzmann和σ恒温黑色的辐射。Ts是样品温度在里面。 在校正估计问题,提出一种想法,但是它的大小的影响,从样品的热表面。 图16、图19图22间的比较表明钢温度测量计算。他们还表示时间的水蒸发。钢温度保持不变的标本,只要有水的礼物。当钢干燥温度迅速增加。从数字沸腾的时间是相当不错的,所以是预测钢温度。

公式用截图处理啊。

1。 BackgroundInequitable资源的分配是一个普遍probleminmany健康systems.Globally，健康需求是多种多样的，需要大量的财政，人力和其他资源。然而，这些资源是许多国家有限的[33]，从而为政策制定者一个分配的困境。虽然资源不足造成的问题不能underesti，交配，特别是在发展中国家，有一种普遍的观点认为，在类似的社会和经济地位的国家，这不是多大的一个国家花费，而是如何支出，其资源，防止地雷，其人口的健康状况[1]。证据fromboth发达国家和发展中国家的建议，适当的资源分配不平等做出了巨大贡献的健康。在澳大利亚，例如，尽管土著人有一个近20年比非土著澳大利亚人平均寿命短[2,3]，迪布尔和其他人发现，总expen - ditures卫生服务f每人

那你截图出来可以吗？