@article{PohlenzNiedermeier2019,
  author    = {Pohlenz, Philipp and Niedermeier, Frank},
  title     = {The Bologna Process and the harmonisation of higher education systems in other world regions},
  series = {Innovation : the European journal of social sciences},
  volume    = {32},
  journal   = {Innovation : the European journal of social sciences},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {1351-1610},
  doi       = {10.1080/13511610.2019.1637248},
  pages     = {481 -- 494},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {The Bologna Process has inspired harmonisation strategies for higher education systems in other parts of the world. However, developments in other contexts are not much under review in the European debate. The present article describes the case of Southeast Asia and the attempt to promote harmonisation of its higher education systems. It further compares the processes in ASEAN and the European Higher Education Area to then discuss open questions for future comparative research. To do so the authors re-contextualise data from a study in ASEAN against the background of future research needs in the field of higher education harmonisation.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WeatherillCotton2020,
  author    = {Weatherill, Graeme and Cotton, Fabrice},
  title     = {A ground motion logic tree for seismic hazard analysis in the stable cratonic region of Europe},
  series = {Bulletin of earthquake engineering : official publication of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering},
  volume    = {18},
  journal   = {Bulletin of earthquake engineering : official publication of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering},
  number    = {14},
  publisher = {Springer Science + Business Media B.V.},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {1570-761X},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10518-020-00940-x},
  pages     = {6119 -- 6148},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Regions of low seismicity present a particular challenge for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis when identifying suitable ground motion models (GMMs) and quantifying their epistemic uncertainty. The 2020 European Seismic Hazard Model adopts a scaled backbone approach to characterise this uncertainty for shallow seismicity in Europe, incorporating region-to-region source and attenuation variability based on European strong motion data. This approach, however, may not be suited to stable cratonic region of northeastern Europe (encompassing Finland, Sweden and the Baltic countries), where exploration of various global geophysical datasets reveals that its crustal properties are distinctly different from the rest of Europe, and are instead more closely represented by those of the Central and Eastern United States. Building upon the suite of models developed by the recent NGA East project, we construct a new scaled backbone ground motion model and calibrate its corresponding epistemic uncertainties. The resulting logic tree is shown to provide comparable hazard outcomes to the epistemic uncertainty modelling strategy adopted for the Eastern United States, despite the different approaches taken. Comparison with previous GMM selections for northeastern Europe, however, highlights key differences in short period accelerations resulting from new assumptions regarding the characteristics of the reference rock and its influence on site amplification.},
  language  = {en}
}