http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
( Seunghoon Han ),( Hosung Sohn ) 한국경제학회 2020 The Korean Economic Review Vol.36 No.2
This study analyzes the impact of one type of school-based accountability system―the simultaneous use of stigmatization and categorical school funding―on test scores and postsecondary outcomes. We conduct randomization inference in the context of regression discontinuity design by exploiting the discontinuous rule used in the accountability system in South Korea. The results show that the joint use of stigmatization and funding leads to a statistically and practically significant increase in test scores (7, 6, and 5 percentile points for reading, math, and English, respectively). Subgroup analyses by urban or rural areas show that the policy leads to a practically but not statistically significant increase in the share of students taking college entrance exams (4 percentage points) and a practically and statistically significant increase in the share of students matriculating into four-year colleges (9 percentage points) only for schools located in rural areas. We do not find any practically and statistically significant increase in the post-secondary outcomes for schools located in urban areas.
The Endeavour to Revise Unequal Treaties in East Asia in the Early 1880s
Seunghoon Han(한승훈) 고려대학교 한국사연구소 2018 International Journal of Korean History Vol.23 No.1
이 글은 1880년대 초반 동아시아 불평등조약체제의 변화 가능성을 밝히는데 목적이 있다. 1880년에 조선은 청국과 일본이 5%의 수입관세율과 관세자주권의 상실로 경제적 손실을 입게 된 사실과 일본이 서구 열강에 조약 개정을 준비한다는 점도 확인하였다. 이에 조선은 일본 측 초안을 근거로 수입품에 대한 관세율을 10%로 정하고, 조선의 관세자주권을 보장하는 조약 초안을 작성하였다. 청국은 조선과 서구 열강의 조약체결을 중재하면서 조약 내에 조선이 10~30%의 수입관세율과 관세자주권을 보장받도록 하였다. 그런데 청국은 조청상민수륙무역장정(1882)을 통해서 청국과 일본에서 시행중이었던 5%의 수입관세율을 조선에 적용시켰다. 일본 역시 조일통상장정(1883)에서 8%의 수입관세율을 조선에 적용시켰을 뿐만 아니라 조선의 관세자주권을 부정하였다. 그 연장선에서 조선과 영국은 제2차 조영조약(1883)에서 주요 수입품에 대한 관세율을 7.5%로 정하였다. 제2차 조영조약의 7.5% 관세율은 청국과 일본에서 시행중인 5%보다는 높았다. 하지만 7.5%는 5%의 관세율에 2.5%의 내지통행세가 별도로 부과되었던 청국의 실질관세율과 동일하였다. 비록 일본은 5%의 관세율만 부과하였지만, 개항장 이외 지역에서 서양인들의 상행위를 엄격히 금지하였다. 반면에 제2차 조영조약에서는 대다수 수입품에 대해서 5%와 7.5%의 관세율을 부과하였다. 즉 실질적으로 조선에 적용되었던 평균 관세율은 7% 정도에 불과하였다. 더군다나 조선에서 서양인들은 개항장 이외의 모든 지역에서 자유로운 상행위가 가능하였다. 결과적으로 1880년 부터 제기되었던 동아시아 불평등조약체제의 개정 가능성은 조선에 불리하게 귀결되었던 것이다. This article aims to identify possible changes in the East Asian unequal treaty system in the early 1880s. In 1880, Korea confirmed that China and Japan had suffered from economic damage due to the loss of 5 percent import duty rate and tariff autonomy, and that Japan was preparing the Western powers to revise treaties. Therefore, Korea drafted a treaty that guaranteed the tariff rate of 10% on major imports and Korea‟s tariff autonomy based on Japan‟s draft of a treaties revision toward Western powers. China, which mediated the settlement of the treaties between Korea and Western powers, secured Korea with an import tariff rate of 10-30 % and tariff autonomy. However, China applied a 5 percent import tariff to Korea, which was in effect in China and Japan, through Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade between Chinese and Korean Subjects (1882). Japan also applied an import tariff of 8 percent and denied Korea‟s tariff autonomy in regulations under which Japanese trade is to be conducted in Korea (1883). In the extension, Korea and Britain set a tariff rate of 7.5 % on major imports in the second Korea-Britain Treaty (1883). The 7.5% tariff was higher than the 5% tariff in China and Japan. However, the 7.5% tariff was the amount of the import duties and transit duties of China combined. Although Japan imposed only a 5% tariff, she strictly prohibited Westerners" trade in areas other than the open ports. On the other hand, according to the second Korea-Britain Treaty, Korea imposed a tariff of 5 % and 7.5 % on most imports. The average tariff applied in Korea was only about 7%. Furthermore, Westerners in Korea were free to trade in all areas as well as open ports. The possibility of revising the East Asian unequal treaty system, which was proposed since 1880, ended up being disadvantageous to Korea.
Han, Seunghoon,Jeon, Sangil,Hong, Taegon,Lee, Jongtae,Bae, Soo Hyeon,Park, Wan-su,Park, Gab-jin,Youn, Sunil,Jang, Doo Yeon,Kim, Kyung-Soo,Yim, Dong-Seok Dove Medical Press 2015 Drug design, development and therapy Vol.9 No.-
<P>No wholly successful weight-control drugs have been developed to date, despite the tremendous demand. We present an exposure–response model of sibutramine mesylate that can be applied during clinical development of other weight-control drugs. Additionally, we provide a model-based evaluation of sibutramine efficacy. Data from a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter study were used (N=120). Subjects in the treatment arm were initially given 8.37 mg sibutramine base daily, and those who lost <2 kg after 4 weeks’ treatment were escalated to 12.55 mg. The duration of treatment was 24 weeks. Drug concentration and body weight were measured predose and at 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 24 weeks after treatment initiation. Exposure and response to sibutramine, including the placebo effect, were modeled using NONMEM 7.2. An asymptotic model approaching the final body weight was chosen to describe the time course of weight loss. Extent of weight loss was described successfully using a sigmoidal exposure–response relationship of the drug with a constant placebo effect in each individual. The placebo effect was influenced by subjects’ sex and baseline body mass index. Maximal weight loss was predicted to occur around 1 year after treatment initiation. The difference in mean weight loss between the sibutramine (daily 12.55 mg) and placebo groups was predicted to be 4.5% in a simulation of 1 year of treatment, with considerable overlap of prediction intervals. Our exposure–response model, which included the placebo effect, is the first example of a quantitative model that can be used to predict the efficacy of weight-control drugs. Similar approaches can help decision-making during clinical development of novel weight-loss drugs.</P>
A simplified prognostic model to predict mortality in patients with acute variceal bleeding
Lee, Han Hee,Park, Jae Myung,Han, Seunghoon,Park, Sung Min,Kim, Hee Yeon,Oh, Jung Hwan,Kim, Chang Wook,Yoon, Seung Kew,Choi, Myung-Gyu Elsevier 2018 Digestive and liver disease Vol.50 No.3
<P><B>Abstract</B></P> <P><B>Background</B></P> <P>Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is a major cause of death in patients with liver cirrhosis. The aim of this study was to investigate mortality predictors and develop a new simple prognostic model using easily verified factors at admission in AVB patients.</P> <P><B>Methods</B></P> <P>Between January 2009 and May 2015, 333 consecutive patients with AVB were included. A simplified prognostic model was developed using multiple logistic regression after identifying significant predictors of 6-week mortality. Mortality prediction accuracy was assessed with area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. We compared the new model to existing models of model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and Child–Pugh scores.</P> <P><B>Results</B></P> <P>The 6-week overall mortality rate was 12.9%. Multivariate analysis showed that C-reactive protein (CRP), total bilirubin, and the international normalized ratio were independent predictors of mortality. A new logistic model using these variables was developed. This model’s AUROC was 0.834, which was significantly higher than that of MELD (0.764) or Child–Pugh scores (0.699). Two external validation studies showed that the AUROC of our model was consistently higher than 0.8.</P> <P><B>Conclusions</B></P> <P>Our new simplified model accurately and consistently predicted 6-week mortality in patients with AVB using objective variables measured at admission. Our system can be used to identify high risk AVB patients.</P>