Dominant group/Small group study

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Cast members of the play "White's Lies" pose for this photograph. Here used to represent a small group study. Credit: Cristina V.

Once the phrase dominant group is found within a field, a small group of publications is chosen for analysis from various subdivisions.

The publications chosen should have a downloadable form so that occurrences of dominant group can be found and context regarding its components are available.

Proof of concept/Metadefinition[edit]

For the small group study, the proof of concept focuses on a metadefinition for dominant group. If this metadefinition or a similar one meets all the demands placed by various authors in the spectrum of fields, then the proof of concept for this metadefinition has been achieved.

Small group theory[edit]

“A simplifying typology is always dangerous because one may not have the right variables in it, but if one distills from small group theory the dimensions that recur in group studies, one can identify a set of major external and internal tasks that all groups face and with which they must learn to cope”[1]

Metadefinition[edit]

Most of the subject areas and subfields are analyzed per the four components of the metadefinition:

  1. relation (of the group),
  2. population (from which the group comes),
  3. basis (criteria for dominance), and
  4. country (region of dominance).

Examination of the theory of definition of "dominant group" has shown that relative synonymy suggests many genera differentia. These may be used to define the term "dominant group" or stand on their own as relative synonyms without the term "dominant group" actually mentioned by the author.

This set of relative synonyms and the desire to produce subpages that serve as learning resources for Wikiversity suggests that providing each subpage with a larger number of examples of the use of "dominant group" or its relative synonyms should help to understand what the authors are doing and how they are using the term.

Genera differentia[edit]

The genera differentia for possible definitions of "dominant group" fall into the following set of orderable pairs:

Genera differentia for "dominant group"[2]
Synonym for "dominant" Category Number Category Title Synonym for "group" Category Number Catgeory Title
“superior” 36 SUPERIORITY "arrangement" 60 ARRANGEMENT
“influential” 171 INFLUENCE "class" 61 CLASSIFICATION
“musical note” 462 HARMONICS "assembly" 74 ASSEMBLAGE
“most important” 670 IMPORTANCE "size" 194 SIZE
“governing” 739 GOVERNMENT "painting", "grouping" 572 ART
"master" 747 MASTER "association", "set" 786 ASSOCIATION
----- --- ------- "sect" 1018 RELIGIONS, CULTS, SECTS

'Orderable' means that any synonym from within the first category can be ordered with any synonym from the second category to form an alternate term for "dominant group"; for example, "superior class", "influential sect", "master assembly", "most important group", and "dominant painting". "Dominant" falls into category 171. "Group" is in category 61. Further, any word which has its most or much more common usage within these categories may also form an alternate term, such as "ruling group", where "ruling" has its most common usage in category 739, or "dominant party", where "party" is in category 74. "Taxon" or "taxa" are like "species" in category 61. "Society" is in category 786 so there is a "dominant society".

"A related, but separate, definition relies on a linguistic identity that differs from that of the dominant society [5]."[3]

The relative synonyms for "dominant group" configured as genera (any two) differentia (any two) could be as many as 2400 depending on the number of words that may be reasonably exact to each genus and differentia. The total number of occurrences of genera (up to two) differentia (up to two) relative synonyms for "dominant group" whether the term occurs in a specific article or not may be on the order of 10 % of the scholarly articles searched by Google scholar, for example. Finding all such occurrences may be less important than understanding the intent of the authors in using the entity as part of any article.

Relationship: Metadefinition - Genera differentia[edit]

  • Metadefinition
  1. Each group has a relation between its members: something they have in common that puts them into the group.
  2. A population from which the group comes.
  3. A stated or context criteria for dominance is available or implied.
  4. A country or region of dominance has the limits within which the dominant group is possible.
  • Genera differentia
  1. Use one or two synonyms for "group", including "group" itself.
  2. Use one or two synonyms for "dominant", including "dominant" itself.
  3. Use at least three up to four synonyms: one to two from each. Less than three is a relative synonym.

Comparison:

  1. A relation between "dominant group" members is by definition of the word "group".
  2. Any synonym for "group" may be or describe the population.
  3. The criteria for dominance may be described by a synonym for "dominant".

Contrast:

  1. The relationship between the "dominant group" and the population may not be described directly by the combination of genera differentia.
  2. The limits within which the "dominant group" is possible may not be described by the genera differentia.

To overcome the contrasts, a precising definition containing the three or four synonyms, plus additional words or symbols may be needed:

  1. identification of the population may be required to clarify the relationship between any two "group" synonyms,
  2. any relationship between any two synonyms for "dominant" when used is needed,
  3. additional words or symbols may be needed whenever two synonyms for "dominant" are combined with one synonym for "group", and
  4. additional symbols may be needed whenever two synonyms for "group" are combined with one synonym for "dominant".

A definition of a "dominant group" may need more than any two genera and differentia.

The limits which separate the group from the population, or those that determine the region or country within which the dominant group is possible may be correlated with the criteria of dominance.

Dominant group/Anthropology[edit]

The field of anthropology is divided into subfields: archaeology, biological anthropology, cultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology, and social anthropology. The articles containing the several meanings of 'dominant group' are in the subpage Anthropology.

Biological anthropology[edit]

Some thirty-two vervet monkey infants in Amboseli National Park, Kenya, are observed from August 1983 to June 1985.[4]

The components of dominant group are

  1. relation: high-ranking group member,[4]
  2. population: adult vervet monkeys,[4]
  3. basis or 'criteria for dominance': threats,[4] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): groups of vervet monkeys in Amboseli National Park, Kenya.[4]

Cultural anthropology[edit]

"[N]ativistic movements in North America" with respect to "groups of individuals" such as "Indians" and "whites" refer to "whites" as an "alien society which surrounds them."[5] Most nativistic movements "have as a common denominator a situation of inequality between the societies in contact. Such inequalities may derive either from the attitudes of the societies involved or from actual situations of dominance and submission."[5]

The apparent components of a ‘dominant group’ consist of the following objects:

  1. relation: dominant subgroup,[5]
  2. population: North Americans,[5]
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: surrounding, armed force, technological superiority initially, now distinctive powers and privileges,[5] and
  4. country (of the dominant group), region, territory, or the like: North America.[5]

Linguistic anthropology[edit]

"There certainly appear to be numbers of examples of the language of one group of egalitarian hunter-gatherers replacing the language of another group of egalitarian hunter-gatherers on other continents apart from Australia."[6] Language shift is probably a more common occurrence among prehistoric hunter-gatherers than among peoples with more elaborate socio-political systems, because the latter systems give rise to more fixed ties of groups to ethnic identities, including ethnic languages, than among small bands of hunter-gatherers who could afford to be more 'fickle'.[6]

The components of dominant group are

  1. relation: dominant partners,[6]
  2. population: aboriginal societies,[6]
  3. basis or 'criteria for dominance': surrounding, strong influence, and new technology,[6] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): Australia.[6]

Social anthropology[edit]

"For ethnic groups, Wolofs and Lebus, Tukulors and Fulas, Bambaras and Soninkes, Diolas and Manjaks were respectively grouped together since the social structure and historical background of each member of the pair were closely related."[7]

The components of dominant group are

  1. relation: large group of the total population,[7]
  2. population: people of Senegal,[7]
  3. basis or 'criteria for dominance': a large per cent (but not necessarily a majority) of the total population,[7] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): Senegal.[7]

Dominant group/Archaeology[edit]

Archeology is the study of human society, primarily through the recovery and analysis of the material culture and environmental data that they have left behind, which includes artifacts, architecture, biofacts and cultural landscapes (the archaeological record).

Evolutionary archaeology[edit]

One group is "placed in a position of economic and communicative superiority: Its products were more valuable than those of the other two groups, and all trade had to be conducted through it."[8]

"The results showed that although the dominant group earned more than the other two groups, all groups increased their earnings over the successive generations."[8]

The components of the dominant group are

  1. relation: groups producing products deemed more valuable and having trade limited to only that conducted through the group,[8]
  2. population: groups simulating the trading of goods,[8]
  3. basis or 'criteria for dominance': 'a position of economic and communicative superiority',[8] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): 'all trade had to be conducted only through the dominant group'.[8]

Diaspora[edit]

The East African diaspora has three causes:

  1. migration of ethnic groups like the Zulu,
  2. the slave trade, and
  3. climatic changes which caused wars and forced ethnic groups to abandon certain areas.[9]

The components of dominant group are

  1. relation: slave masters and slave owners,[9]
  2. population: East Africans,[9]
  3. basis or 'criteria for dominance': "most and the biggest slave owners",[9] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): East Africa.[9]

Dominant group/Astronomy[edit]

Articles containing the several meanings of 'dominant group' are in the subpage Astronomy.

Active regions[edit]

Active regions on the surface of a star's photosphere, including the Sun have dominant groups:

  1. relation: dominant active regions (ARs),[10]
  2. population: active regions (ARs),[10]
  3. basis or 'criteria for dominance': filling factor,[10]
  4. country (of the dominant group): a star's observable surface.[10]

Galaxy groups[edit]

Compact groups of galaxies are tight associations of galaxies.[11]

The ‘dominant group’ consists of the definitions of the following objects:

  1. relation: compact galaxy groups within a velocity range of the median velocity containing a dominant galaxy,[11]
  2. population: Hickson's catalog of compact groups,[12]
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: large numbers of galaxies per compact group,[11] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): observable universe containing compact galaxy groups,[11].

Interstellar medium[edit]

Interstellar dust can be studied by infrared spectrometry, in part because the dust is an astronomical infrared source and other infrared sources are behind the diffuse clouds of dust.

Per the metadefinition, a ‘dominant group’ consists of the definitions of the following objects:

  1. relation: 'dominant surface species',[13]
  2. population: 'different groups on carbon particles' in diffuse clouds,[13]
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: 'observation of a 3.3 µm feature only in emission while that at 3.4 µm occurs in both emission and absorption',[13] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): diffuse clouds in the 'interstellar medium'[13].

Mira variable[edit]

A Mira variable is a type of pulsating variable star in which some intense maser emission has been detected.

The dominant group from the author's context is

  1. relation: dominant maser emission objects,[14]
  2. population: maser emission objects,[14]
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: majority of maser emission objects,[14] and
  4. country region, territory, or the like (of the dominant group): Milky Way.[14]

Preflare spectrum[edit]

The microdensitometer tracings from a low-inductance vacuum spark are compared with those of the preflare and flare solar spectra taken with a crystal spectrometer on the OSO 3 satellite.[15]

This ‘dominant group’ consists of the definitions of the following objects:

  1. relation: dominant Fe ion spectrum,[15]
  2. population: "spectra of highly ionized Fe in the region 10-18 Å",[15]
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: strong relative visual intensities for all lines per iron ion,[15] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): "iron lines and their visual intensities"[15].

Star-disc encounters[edit]

A proposed mechanism for the formation of binary and multiple systems is that of 'prompt initial fragmentation' of the molecular cloud during the formation of protostars in which stars form in bound groups.[16]

The dominant group as defined by the author's context is

  1. relation: dominant particle groups,[16]
  2. population: particle groups,[16]
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: majority of all the particle groups,[16] and
  4. country region, territory, or the like (of the dominant group): circumstellar accretion disc.[16]

Subdwarfs[edit]

The dominant population in the Palomar-Green Catalog of Ultraviolet Excess Stellar Objects is that of the hot, hydrogen atmosphere subdwarfs, the sdB stars, which comprise nearly 40 percent of the sample.[17]

The dominant group components from context are

  1. relation: dominant spectral type objects,[18]
  2. population: ultraviolet excess stellar objects,[18]
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: majority,[18] and
  4. country region, territory, or the like (of the dominant group): one-fourth of the sky at high galactic latitude of the Milky Way.[18]

White dwarfs[edit]

"White dwarfs are end-products of stellar evolution.The fundamental properties of the dominant group of nonmagnetic white dwarfs have been invaluable in constraining the theory of single star evolution."[19]

Each of the articles from White dwarf states almost exactly the same usage of the term 'dominant group'. Their common definition is

  1. relation: majority of white dwarfs per spectral type,
  2. population: white dwarfs,
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: majority, and
  4. country (of the dominant group), region, territory, or the like: nearby white dwarfs of the Milky Way.

Economics[edit]

Articles containing the several meanings of 'dominant group' in the subpage Economics.

Discriminations[edit]

In an article about "[a] general equilibrium model of statistical discrimination" by economists Andrea Moro and Peter Norman, the term 'dominant group' occurs fourteen times.

Applying the metadefinition, produces the following:

  1. relation: dominant 'differences in human capital investments, average wages and job assignments',
  2. population: 'distinguishable groups have identical distributions of productive characteristics',
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: 'group inequalities as a result of statistical discrimination', and
  4. country (of the dominant group): 'competitive labor market' where there is 'statistical discrimination', 'a world where firms can observe output, but not individual productivities'.

Economists[edit]

“It might well repay the students of this subject to pass in review the voluminous evidence that could be brought to prove that these ideas were held almost unquestioningly by the dominant group of economists of that period.”[20]

From the above article, the specific definition of 'dominant group' becomes

  1. relation: dominant majority of economists,[20]
  2. population: political economists,[20]
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: 'in their thought on economic questions, simply imply an attitude and assume a philosophy respecting it without consciously defining either',[20] and
  4. country: American political economy,[20].

Oligopoly[edit]

The phrase 'dominant group' occurs three times in an article on 'Networks of collaboration in oligopoly'.[21]

The definition of a ‘dominant group’ consists of the definitions of the following objects:

  1. relation: dominant 'collaboration network',[21]
  2. population: 'stable and efficient networks' where 'each firm has an opportunity to form pair-wise collaborative links with other firms',[21]
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: 'a large number of completely connected firms',[21] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): 'different types of market competition' which 'allow for intransitive structures of collaboration.' with 'social welfare' implications.[21]

Relative synonyms for economics[edit]

Def. a superior class [of test statistics] that [influences] [decision or trading rules] in a specific section [of the article] is called a dominant group.

Def. a superior class of [policy or decision] rules described in a section of the article is called a dominant group.

Def. a superior class [of stock owned by the corporate insiders] rules [takeover gains and voting for the insiders] is called a dominant group of stock.

Each of the "dominant group" definitions requires additional words to clarify what's happening; i.e., to make the definition more precise to the specific situations.

Geology[edit]

Petrology is a branch of geology that studies rocks, and the conditions in which rocks form. Three branches of petrology focus on the three major rock types: igneous petrology, metamorphic petrology, and sedimentary petrology. Articles containing the several meanings of 'dominant group' are in the subpage Geology.

Igneous petrology[edit]

With respect to the igneous petrology of the southern Paraná of southern Brazil, "[i]t was well known from surface mapping that LPT rocks were the dominant group in the southern Parana, but the borehole data indicate that LPT rocks underlie HPT, and that they in turn are overlain by IPT rocks."[22]

From the text, specifically the context, the objects of the metadefinition for 'dominant group' have their respective meanings:

  1. relation: dominant basalt group,[22]
  2. population: Parana continental flood basalt (CFB) province,[22]
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: present day surface extent of these early Cretaceous lavas,[22]
  4. country: 'the southern Paraná'[22].

Metamorphic petrology[edit]

On the serpentinization processes in ultramafic rocks from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge south of the Kane Fracture Zone, latitude 23° N, at Site 670, "[o]range to pale-green serpentinized harzburgites with a well-defined spinel and orthopyroxene foliation are the volumetrically dominant group of samples (Shipboard Scientific Party, 1988)."[23]

The objects of the metadefinition for 'dominant group' have their respective meanings:

  1. relation: dominant serpentinized harzburgites,[23]
  2. population: serpentinized ultramafic rocks,[23]
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: majority volume of a core sample,[23]
  4. country: 'the Mid-Atlantic Ridge south of the Kane Fracture Zone, latitude 23° N, at Site 670'[23].

Sedimentary petrology[edit]

In the Lower Cretaceous sediments of south-eastern Alexander Island are a palaeogeographical distribution of conglomerate beds.[24]

From the text, specifically the context, the objects of the metadefinition for 'dominant group' have their respective meanings:

  1. relation: percentage of pebble analyses in the compositional groups,[24]
  2. population: conglomerate horizons,[24]
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: majority of the total number of pebbles analyzed (895 of 1656),[24]
  4. country: 'Lower Cretaceous sediments of south-eastern Alexander Island'[24].

Dominant group/Metagenome[edit]

The articles containing the several meanings of 'dominant group' are in the subpage Metagenome.

Biodiversity[edit]

Species richness is "the number of species in a site, habitat or clade."[25]

The components of dominant group are

  1. relation: dominant taxa,[25]
  2. population: life,[25]
  3. basis or 'criteria for dominance': 'species richness',[25] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): 'place' and 'time', 'region', 'site', or 'habitat'.[25]

Dispersals[edit]

"Dispersal is a fundamental process affecting the genetic structure of populations, speciation, and extinction."[26]

The components of Griesser's dominant group are a

  1. relation: dominant social members,[26]
  2. population: chordates (birds, fish and mammals),[26]
  3. basis or 'criteria for dominance': breeding pair, hatching order for the Siberian jay (Perisoreus infaustus), can control group membership, residents, non-breeding older residents,[26] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): close to Arvidsjaur, Northern Sweden (65°40′N, 19°0′E).[26]

Natural selection[edit]

"We have seen that it is the common, the widely-diffused, and the widely-ranged species, belonging to the larger genera, which vary most; and these will tend to transmit to their modified offspring that superiority which now makes them dominant in their own countries."[27]

For evolution on the basis of natural selection, the definitional components are

  1. relation: dominant species,[27]
  2. population: 'forms of life',[27]
  3. basis or 'criteria for dominance': 'the common, the widely-diffused, and the widely-ranged species',[27] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): 'in their own countries'.[27]

Phylogenetics[edit]

"Caenogastropoda is the dominant group of marine gastropods in terms of species numbers, diversity of habit and habitat and ecological importance."[28]

The components of dominant group are

  1. relation: dominant clade,[28]
  2. population: Gastropoda,[28]
  3. basis or 'criteria for dominance': "species numbers, diversity of habit and habitat and ecological importance",[28] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): marine.[28]

Phylogeography[edit]

"[M]odern haplochromines gave rise to several major adaptive radiations; the most prominent ones are those of [Lake Malawi] LM and [Lake Victoria] LV."[29]

The components of dominant group are

  1. relation: dominant species,[29]
  2. population: 'cichlid fishes in East Africa',[29]
  3. basis or 'criteria for dominance': number of species,[29] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): 'rocky littoral zone of Lake Tanganyika'.[29]

Agriculture[edit]

The components of a dominant group among dairy heifers are

  1. relation: "dominant follicle",[30]
  2. population: superovulated dairy heifers,[30]
  3. basis or 'criteria for dominance': "presence of a dominant follicle"[30], and
  4. country (of the dominant group): cattle, Quebec, Canada.[30]

Bacteriology[edit]

  • Antigenic bacteria

A ‘dominant group’ of antigenic bacteria consists of the definitions of the following objects:

  1. relation: "dominant antigenic types"[31],
  2. population: "strains of Escheria coli"[31],
  3. basis or "criteria for dominance": "present in nearly all stool specimens"[31] and "a far greater proportion of total cultures"[31], and
  4. country (of the dominant group), region, territory, or the like: "intestinal tract of man"[31].
  • Probiotic bacteria

A ‘dominant group’ of human colonic microbiota consists of the definitions of the following objects:

  1. relation: "one of the most abundant species"[32],
  2. population: "human colonic microbiota"[32],
  3. basis or "criteria for dominance": "largest single cluster of cultured strains"[32], and
  4. country (of the dominant group), region, territory, or the like: "human gut"[32].

Entomology[edit]

  • Ants

With respect to a dominant group of leaf-cutter ants, the components are

  1. relation: ecologically dominant ants,[33]
  2. population: dominant herbivores,[33]
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: ecological dominance,[33] and
  4. a country region, territory, or the like (of the dominant group): New World tropics.[33]
  • Bees

Components of dominant group regarding stingless bees:

  1. relation: dominant "relative abundance"[34],
  2. population: all insects foraging on flowers,[34]
  3. basis or criteria for dominance: "numerically dominant"[34],
  4. country of the dominant group: "Tropical Atlantic Rainforest".[34]

Paleontology[edit]

"Most suggestive are the parallel-veined leaves that may be ruflorian-like cordaites, a dominant group in Angaraland (Meyen, 1982), and a gigantopterid without clear similarities to any described taxa."[35]

Mass extinction[edit]

"On the contrary, the usual sequence is for one dominant group to die out, leaving the zone empty, before the other group becomes abundant."[36]

The components of Simpson's dominant group are

  1. relation: abundant groups,[36]
  2. population: life,[36]
  3. basis or 'criteria for dominance': a great and far-flung population,[36] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): opportunities (space, ecological niches, etc.).[36]

Teleosts[edit]

"Similarly, with the dramatic decline of marine eurypterids (large arthropods) about 410 million years ago, the first large marine predators were lost. However, they were later surpassed in this role by certain fish, notably the placoderms, a highly diverse group that sported interlocking plates of armor. The placoderms underwent a spectacular radiation during the Devonian (between 410 and 360 million years ago), but at the end of this period all placoderms—large, small, marine and freshwater—went extinct. They were replaced by the actinopterygians (ray-finned fishes), which ultimately produced the teleosts, the dominant group of modern fish."[37]

The components of Levin's dominant group are a

  1. relation: dominant species,[37]
  2. population: large predators,[37]
  3. basis or 'criteria for dominance': size, diversity, 'spectacular radiation',[37] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): marine.[37]

Graptolites[edit]

"Since in all these levels graptolites are the dominant group of macrofossils, shallow marine conditions are excluded."[38]

The significance of graptolites being the dominant group of macrofossils is that they are an indicator of a benthic or deeper water environment.

  1. relation: dominant macrofossils,[38]
  2. population: macrofossils,[38]
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: "nearly the only macrofossils present" and "often encountered",[38] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): Silurian of the Brabant Massif.[38]

Phanerozoic[edit]

"The usual interpretation attributes our pattern of early bottom heaviness to "adaptive radiation" following either an evolutionary innovation or an ecological vacuum caused by extinction of a previously dominant group."[39]

The components of Gould's dominant group are

  1. relation: dominant fossil clades,[39]
  2. population: fossil animals,[39]
  3. basis or 'criteria for dominance': number of species, radiation,[39] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): Phanerozoic rocks.[39]

Planetary sciences[edit]

Within planetary science are astronomical objects such as comets, the Moon, and meteoroids (a suggested term for a sand- to boulder-sized particle of debris in the Solar System). Articles containing the several meanings of 'dominant group' for these objects are in the subpage Planetary science.

Lunar boulders[edit]

The Apollo 17 highland samples are classified into groups according to proportions of meteoritic iridium (Ir), gold (Au), and germanium (Ge).[40]

The 'dominant Group 2' is the dominant group that has the following definition from context

  1. relation: predominant meteoritic groups,[40]
  2. population: groups of meteoritic material with the Ir/Au ratio as the principle criterion, with a second major criterion being distribution over landing sites,[40]
  3. a basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: largest number of samples,[40] and
  4. a country, region, territory, or the like (of the dominant group): 'Apollo 14, 15, 16, and 17 sampling sites'[40].

Lunar soils[edit]

KREEP, an acronym built from the letters K (the atomic symbol for potassium), REE (Rare Earth Elements) and P (for phosphorus), is a geochemical component of some lunar impact melt breccia and basalt rocks.

The dominant group mentioned above has the following definition from context

  1. relation: "major types of glasses",[41]
  2. population: groups of glasses on the basis of chemistry,[41]
  3. a basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: abundance of certain groups of glasses,[41] and
  4. a country, region, territory, or the like (of the dominant group): 'glasses of the Fra Mauro sampling site'[41].

Lunar terrains[edit]

The lunar impact glasses from the Apollo 14 landing site show significant variation and hint at the existence of multiple terrains of differing compositions near the landing site.[42]

This dominant group has the following definition from context

  1. relation: 'most populous clusters of glass compositions',[42]
  2. population: 'compositional groups of glasses',[42]
  3. a basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: most populous cluster,[42] and
  4. a country, region, territory, or the like (of the dominant group): 'glasses of the Fra Mauro sampling site'[42].

Martian meteorites[edit]

Roughly three-quarters of all Martian meteorites can be classified as Shergottites.

For the dominant group of Martian meteorites, the definitional components of the 'dominant group' are

  1. relation: majority of Martian meteorites currently identified,[43]
  2. population: meteorites[43] impacting Earth,
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: majority,[43] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): Earth's land surface, e.g., Antarctica[43].

Meteors[edit]

"The distribution of photographic meteors in iron, stony, and porous meteors is given in this paper".[44]

The definition of the term 'dominant group' from the context of photographic meteors is

  1. relation: largest number N of meteors within a given interval,[44]
  2. population: photographic meteors through the Earth's atmosphere,[44]
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: majority p. c.,[44] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): Earth's upper atmosphere as sampled for air density by V-2 rocket flights in 1952.[44]

Micrometeorites[edit]

Micrometeorite is often abbreviated as MM.[45]

The 'dominant group' in the subject area of micrometeorites has the definitional objects defined as

  1. relation: dominant fractional percent of asteroidal precursor,[45]
  2. population: fractional percent of asteroidal precursor,[45]
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: majority,[45] and
  4. country, region, territory, or the like (of the dominant group): asteroidal precursor.[45]

Comet chemistry[edit]

As comets are also a subject of planetary science, this example could be included there.

A magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) and chemical comet-coma model is applied to describe and analyze the plasma flow, magnetic field, and ion abundances in Comet Halley.[46]

The ‘dominant group’ consists of the definitions of the following objects:

  1. relation: "[d]ominant ions in mass/charge bins" or dominant ion per channel,[46]
  2. population: "the ion abundances as measured with the HIS ion mass spectrometer"[46],
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: log n [ions cm-3] (n is ion density) in the approximate range of 2.5 to 4,[46] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): "ionized coma of a comet"[46].

Sociology[edit]

Articles containing the several meanings of 'dominant group' are in the subpage Sociology.

Aesthetics[edit]

"Body adornment and body modification are universal phenomena."[47]

From the point of view of body piercings on group identification, the dominant group as indicated from context by the authors is defined as

  1. relation: mainstream groups,[47]
  2. population: general public,[47]
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: mainstream beauty standards,[47] and
  4. a country (of the dominant group): The Netherlands.[47]

Artists[edit]

"Each man, finally, outside his professional activity, carries on some form of intellectual activity, that is, he is a “philosopher,” an artist, a man of taste, he participates in a particular conception of the world, has a conscious line of moral conduct, and therefore contributes to sustain a conception of the world or to modify it, that is, to bring into being new modes of thought."[48]

The term 'dominant group' occurs three times in the article. The definition per context use by the author is

  1. relation: "dominant fundamental group",[48]
  2. population: "great masses",[48]
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: "prestige",[48] and
  4. country, region, territory, or the like (of the dominant group): "world of production".[48]

High art[edit]

The critical social relationship is between rival groups of producers who struggle for ascendancy.[49]

"But once this dominant group has been deposed, other producers take their place and can assert their hegemony, drawing authority away from consumers by a process of de-commodification."[49]

The components of the dominant group are

  1. relation: dominant producers,[49]
  2. population: producers,[49]
  3. basis or 'criteria for dominance': authority,[49] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): 'western society'.[49]

Imagined community[edit]

Art allows individuals to think about themselves and others in new and abstract ways, and plays a central role in the creation of an imagined community.[50]

Several uses of the term 'dominant group' occur in the article. The apparent definition per context use by the author is

  1. relation: dominant ethnic group art,[50]
  2. population: Indian art,[50]
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: swadeshi,[50] and
  4. country, region, territory, or the like (of the dominant group): national identity in India.[50]

Will[edit]

"For one thing, we have not been long enough concerned with it, and for another, we know too little about democracy itself. How then can we analyze the quality of its genius or prefigure the expression it will take when the informing spirit still lies weltering in the mists of Chaos and Old Night?"[51]

  1. relation: dominant classes,[51]
  2. population: aristocracy,[51]
  3. basis or ‘criteria for dominance’: privilege,[51] and
  4. country (of the dominant group): empires, hierarchies, or national destinies.[51]

Hypotheses[edit]

  1. Dominant group often appears in highly specialized original research to describe multivariable dominance.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. Edgar H. Schein (February 1990). "Organizational culture". American Psychologist 45 (2): 109-19. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.109. http://www.blueconsultoria.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Organisational-culture_E.-Schein.pdf. Retrieved 2012-02-06. 
  2. Peter Mark Roget (1969). Lester V. Berrey and Gorton Carruth (ed.). Roget's International Thesaurus, third edition. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company. p. 1258. |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  3. Mariam Naqshbandi, Stewart B. Harris, James G. Esler, Fred Antwi-Nsiah (October 2008). "Global complication rates of type 2 diabetes in Indigenous peoples: A comprehensive review". Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 82 (1): 1-17. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2008.07.017. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168822708003355. Retrieved 2011-12-23. 
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Marc D. Hauser (September 1993). "Ontogeny of foraging behavior in wild vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops): Social interactions and survival". Journal of Comparative Psychology 107 (3): 276-82. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.107.3.276. Archived from the original on 2003-10-30. http://web.archive.org/web/20031030062946/http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/publications/animalcommunication/ontogforag.pdf. Retrieved 2011-08-29. 
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Ralph Linton (April-June 1943). "Nativistic movements". American Anthropologist 45 (2): 230-40. doi:10.1525/aa.1943.45.2.02a00070. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1943.45.2.02a00070/full. Retrieved 2011-07-26. 
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Patrick McConvell (1990). "The linguistic prehistory of Australia: Opportunity for dialogue with archaeology". Australian Archaeology (31): 3-27. http://www.library.uq.edu.au/ojs/index.php/aa/article/viewFile/1330/1324. Retrieved 2011-08-27. 
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Didier Fassin and Emile Jeannee (April 1989). "Immunization Coverage and Social Differentiation in Urban Senegal". American Journal of Public Health 79 (4): 509-11. PMID 2929817. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/79/4/509.pdf. Retrieved 2011-08-29. 
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 Alex Mesoudi (October 2008). Chapter 7: The experimental study of cultural transmission and its potential for explaining archaeological data, In: Cultural Transmission and Archaeology: Issues and Case Studies (PDF). pp. 91–101. Retrieved 2011-08-29.
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Nik Petek (January 2011). "The East African Diaspora: The Problem with Slaves". Issues (15): 105. http://www.theposthole.org/read/article/105. Retrieved 2011-08-29. 
  10. 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 Robert A. Donahue, Steven H. Saar, and Sallie L. Baliunas (July 1996). "A Relationship between Mean Rotation Period in Lower Main-Sequence Stars and Its Observed Range". The Astrophysical Journal 466 (7): 384-91. doi:10.1086/177517. 
  11. 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Gary A. Mamon (August 1986). "Are compact groups of galaxies physically dense?". The Astrophysical Journal 307 (8): 426-30. doi:10.1086/164431. 
  12. Paul Hickson (April 1982). "Systematic properties of compact groups of galaxies". The Astrophysical Journal 255 (4): 382-91. doi:10.1086/159838. 
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 Duley, W. W. & Williams, D. A. (July 1981). "The infrared spectrum of interstellar dust - Surface functional groups on carbon". Royal Astronomical Society, Monthly Notices 196 (7): 269-74. 
  14. 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 J. R. Pardo, J. Alcolea, V. Bujarrabal, F. Colomer, A. del Romero, and P. de Vicente (September 2004). "28SiO v = 1 and v = 2, J= 1–0 maser variability in evolved stars. Eleven years of short spaced monitoring". Astronomy & Astrphysics 424 (9): 145-56. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040309. http://cab.inta-csic.es/users/jrpardo/paper35.pdf. Retrieved 2011-08-16. 
  15. 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 U. Feldman and L. Cohen (January 1968). "An Iron Spark Line List in the 10-18 Å Range and its Comparison with Flare Spectra". The Astrophysical Journal 151 (1): L55-8. doi:10.1086/180140. 
  16. 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 S.M. Hall, C.J. Clarke and J.E. Pringle (January 1996). "Energetics of star-disc encounters in the non-linear regime". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 278 (1): 303-20. 
  17. Richard F. Green, Maarten Schmidt, and James Liebert (June 1986). "The Palomar-Green catalog of ultraviolet-excess stellar objects". The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 61 (6): 305-52. doi:10.1086/191115. 
  18. 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 Donald H. Ferguson, Richard F. Green, and James Liebert (December 1984). "Hot subdwarfs in detached binary systems and thick-disk cataclysmic variables from the Palomar-Green survey". The Astrophysical Journal 287 (12): 320-33. doi:10.1086/162691. 
  19. S. V. Berdyugina, A. V. Berdyugin, and V. Piirola (August 2007). "Molecular Magnetic Dichroism in Spectra of White Dwarfs". Physical Review Letters 99 (9): 091101-1 to -5. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.091101. http://www3.kis.uni-freiburg.de/~sveta/papers/berdyugina_PRL.pdf. Retrieved 2011-08-10. 
  20. 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 Frank A. Fetter (September 1920). "Price Economics Versus Welfare Economics". The American Economic Review 10 (3): 467-87. http://www.jstor.org/pss/1809045. Retrieved 2011-07-26. 
  21. 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 Sanjeev Goyal and Sumit Joshi (April 2003). "Networks of Collaboration in Oligopoly". Games and Economic Behavior 43 (1): 57-85. doi:10.1016/S0899-8256(02)00562-6. 
  22. 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 Chris Hawkesworth, Marta Mantovani and David Peate (1988). "Lithosphere remobilization during Paraná CFB magmatism". Journal of Petrology Special_Volume (1): 205-223. doi:10.1093/petrology/Special_Volume.1.205. http://myweb.uiowa.edu/dpeate/downloads/Hawkesworth1988.pdf. Retrieved 2011-08-03. 
  23. 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 Pierre Agrinier and Mathilde Cannat (1997). Karson, J.A., Cannat, M., Miller, D.J., and Elthon, D.. ed. [http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/153_SR/VOLUME/CHAPTERS/sr153_20.pdf 20. OXYGEN-ISOTOPE CONSTRAINTS ON SERPENTINIZATION PROCESSES IN ULTRAMAFIC ROCKS FROM THE MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE (23°N), In: Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results]. 153. pp. 381-8. http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/153_SR/VOLUME/CHAPTERS/sr153_20.pdf. Retrieved 2011-08-03. 
  24. 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 RR Horne (1969). "Morphology, Petrology and Provenance of Pebbles from Lower Cretaceous Conglomerates of South-eastern Alexander Island". British Antarctic Survey Bulletin (21): 51-60. 
  25. 25.0 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 Andy Purvis & Andy Hector (May 2000). "Getting the measure of biodiversity". Nature 405 (6783): 212-9. doi:10.1038/35012221. http://www.ask-force.org/web/BiodivVorles-2005WS/Nature-Insight-Biodiversity-2000.pdf. Retrieved 2011-08-01. 
  26. 26.0 26.1 26.2 26.3 26.4 Michael Griesser, Magdalena Nystrand, Sönke Eggers and Jan Ekman (March 2008). "Social constraints limit dispersal and settlement decisions in a group-living bird species". Behavioral Ecology 19 (2): 317-24. doi:10.1093/beheco/arm131. 
  27. 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 Charles Robert Darwin (1859). On the origin of the species by means of natural selection: or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray. p. 516.
  28. 28.0 28.1 28.2 28.3 28.4 D.J. Colgana, W.F. Ponder, E. Beacham, J. Macaranas (2007). "Molecular phylogenetics of Caenogastropoda (Gastropoda: Mollusca)". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 42: 717-37. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2006.10.009. http://www.bio-nica.info/biblioteca/Colgan2006Caenogastropoda.pdf. Retrieved 2011-08-02. 
  29. 29.0 29.1 29.2 29.3 29.4 Walter Salzburger, Tanja Mack, Erik Verheyen and Axel Meyer (February 2005). "Out of Tanganyika: Genesis, explosive speciation, key-innovations and phylogeography of the haplochromine cichlid fishes". BMC Evolutionary Biology 5 (17). doi:10.1186/1471-2148-5-17. PMID 15723698. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/5/17. Retrieved 2011-08-02. 
  30. 30.0 30.1 30.2 30.3 L. A. Guilbault, F. Grasso, J. G. Lussier, P. Rouillier and P. Matton (January 1991). "Decreased superovulatory responses in heifers superovulated in the presence of a dominant follicle". The Journal of the Society for Reproduction and Fertility 91 (1): 81-9. doi:10.1530/jrf.0.0910081. PMID 1995865. http://www.reproduction-online.org/content/91/1/81.full.pdf. Retrieved 2011-08-17. 
  31. 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 31.4 H. J. Sears, Inez Brownlee, and John K. Uchiyama (February 1950). "Persistence of individual strains of Escherichia coli in the intestinal tract of man". Journal of Bacteriology 59 (2): 293-301. PMID 15421958. http://jb.asm.org/cgi/reprint/59/2/293.pdf. Retrieved 2011-07-26. 
  32. 32.0 32.1 32.2 32.3 Rustam I. Aminov, Alan W. Walker, Sylvia H. Duncan, Hermie J. M. Harmsen, Gjalt W. Welling, and Harry J. Flint (September 2006). "Molecular Diversity, Cultivation, and Improved Detection by Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization of a Dominant Group of Human Gut Bacteria Related to Roseburia spp. or Eubacterium rectale". Applied and Environmental Microbiology 72 (9): 6371-6. doi:10.1128/AEM.00701-06. PMID 16957265. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1563657/. Retrieved 2011-09-11. 
  33. 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.3 Ted R. Schultz and Seán G. Brady (April 2008). "Major evolutionary transitions in ant agriculture". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105 (14): 5435-40. doi:10.1073/pnas.0711024105. http://www.pnas.org/content/105/14/5435.long. Retrieved 2011-08-17. 
  34. 34.0 34.1 34.2 34.3 Mauro Ramalho (January/March 2004). "Stingless bees and mass flowering trees in the canopy of Atlantic Forest: a tight relationship". Acta Botanica Brasilica 18 (1). doi:10.1590/S0102-33062004000100005. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0102-33062004000100005&script=sci_arttext. Retrieved 2011-09-14. 
  35. William A. DiMichele, Robert W. Hook, W. John Nelson, and Dan S. Chaney (July 2004). "An unusual Middle Permian flora from the Blaine Formation (Pease River Group: Leonardian-Guadalupian Series) of King County, West Texas". Journal of Paleontology 78 (4): 765-82. http://www.researchgate.net/profile/William_Dimichele/publication/251776545_AN_UNUSUAL_MIDDLE_PERMIAN_FLORA_FROM_THE_BLAINE_FORMATION_(PEASE_RIVER_GROUP_LEONARDIAN-GUADALUPIAN_SERIES)_OF_KING_COUNTY_WEST_TEXAS/links/00b4951f1733ad2533000000.pdf. Retrieved 2015-03-15. 
  36. 36.0 36.1 36.2 36.3 36.4 George Gaylord Simpson (1944). Tempo and Mode in Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 237.
  37. 37.0 37.1 37.2 37.3 37.4 Phillip Levin, Donald Levin (January 2002). "The Real Biodiversity Crisis". American Scientist 3270 (1): 3. http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/num2/2002/1/the-real-biodiversity-crisis/3. Retrieved 2011-08-02. 
  38. 38.0 38.1 38.2 38.3 38.4 Jacques Verniers & Geert Van Grootel (December 1991). "Review of the Silurian in the Brabant Massif, Belgium". Annales de la Société Géologique de Belgique 114 (1): 163-93. http://popups.ulg.ac.be/ASGB/docannexe.php?id=1487. Retrieved 2011-08-20. 
  39. 39.0 39.1 39.2 39.3 39.4 Stephen Jay Gould, Norman L. Gilinsky and Rebecca Z. German (June 1987). "Asymmetry of lineages and the direction of evolutionary time". Science 236 (4807): 1437-41. doi:10.1126/science.236.4807.1437. http://www.laputan.org/pub/papers/Gould-87.PDF. Retrieved 2011-08-02. 
  40. 40.0 40.1 40.2 40.3 40.4 John W. Morgan, H. Higuchi, and Edward Anders (November-December 1975). "Meteoritic material in a boulder from the Apollo 17 site - Implications for its origin". The Moon 14 (12): 373-83. doi:10.1007/BF00569671. 
  41. 41.0 41.1 41.2 41.3 Joseph Nelen, Albert Noonan, and Kurt Fredriksson (1972). "Lunar glasses, breccias, and chondrules". Proceedings of the Lunar Science Conference 2: 723-37. 
  42. 42.0 42.1 42.2 42.3 42.4 N. E. B. Zellner, P. D. Spudis, J. W. Delano, D. C. B. Whittet (2002). "Impact glasses from the Apollo 14 landing site and implications for regional geology". JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH 107 (E11): 5102-14. doi:10.1029/2001JE001800. http://spudislunarresources.com/Bibliography/p/73.pdf. Retrieved 2011-08-09. 
  43. 43.0 43.1 43.2 43.3 Takashi Mikouchi and Masamichi Miyamoto (March 2000). "Lherzolitic Martian meteorites Allan Hills 77005, Lewis Cliff 88516 and Yamato-793605: Major and minor element zoning in pyroxene and plagioclase glass". Antarctic Meteorite Research 13 (3): 256-69. 
  44. 44.0 44.1 44.2 44.3 44.4 Zd. Ceplecha (1958). "On the composition of meteors". Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia 9: 154-9. 
  45. 45.0 45.1 45.2 45.3 45.4 Susan Taylor, Gregory F. Herzog, Gregory, Jeremy S. Delaney, (2007). "Crumbs from the crust of Vesta: Achondritic cosmic spherules from the South Pole water well". Meteoritics & Planetary Science 42 (2): 223-33. doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.2007.tb00229.x. 
  46. 46.0 46.1 46.2 46.3 46.4 R. Wegmann, H.U. Schmidt, W.F. Huebner, and D.C. Boice (November 1987). "Cometary MHD and chemistry". Astronomy and Astrophysics 187 (1-2): 339-50. 
  47. 47.0 47.1 47.2 47.3 47.4 Jolanda Jetten, Nyla R. Branscombe, Michael T. Schmitt, Russell Spears (September 2001). "Rebels With a Cause: Group Identification as a Response to Perceived Discrimination From the Mainstream". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27 (9): 1204-13. doi:10.1177/0146167201279012. http://www.psych.uw.edu.pl/jasia/jetten.pdf. Retrieved 2011-08-14. 
  48. 48.0 48.1 48.2 48.3 48.4 Antonio Gramsci (2005). Sean P. Hier (ed.). The Intellectuals, In: Contemporary Sociological Thought Themes and Theories (PDF). Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Scholars' Press Inc. pp. 49–57. ISBN 1-55130-288-8. Retrieved 2011-08-15.
  49. 49.0 49.1 49.2 49.3 49.4 49.5 Russell Keat, Nigel Whiteley, Nicholas Abercrombie (1994). Russell Keat, Nicholas Abercrombie and Nigel Whiteley (ed.). Preface, In: The Authority of the consumer. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-08918-2. Retrieved 2011-09-01.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
  50. 50.0 50.1 50.2 50.3 50.4 Maria Kingsley (2007). "Art and Identity: the Creation of an 'Imagined Community' in India" (PDF). pp. 1–10. Retrieved 2011-08-11.
  51. 51.0 51.1 51.2 51.3 51.4 Edward G. Cox (April 1923). "Art in a Democracy". The Sewanee Review 31 (2): 187-97. http://www.jstor.org/pss/27533645. Retrieved 2011-07-26. 

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

{{Linguistics resources}}{{Semantics resources}}{{Terminology resources}}