document_title: Judiciary Act of 1789

question_text: which law and what part specifically passed by congress in 1789 was declared unconstitutional

text: Judiciary Act of 1789

text: Legislative history[edit]

text: Senator Richard Henry Lee (AA-Virginia) reported the judiciary bill out of committee on June 12, 1789;[1] Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut was its chief author.[7] The bill passed the Senate 14–6 on July 17, 1789, and the House of Representatives then debated the bill in July and August 1789. The House passed an amended bill 37–16 on September 17, 1789. The Senate struck four of the House amendments and approved the remaining provisions on September 19, 1789. The House passed the Senate's final version of the bill on September 21, 1789. President George Washington signed the Act into law on September 24, 1789.[2]

text: Provisions of the Act[edit]

text: The Act set the number of Supreme Court justices at six: one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices.[8] The Supreme Court was given exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions between states, or between a state and the United States, as well as over all suits and proceedings brought against ambassadors and other diplomatic personnel; and original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction over all other cases in which a state was a party and any cases brought by an ambassador. The Court was given appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the federal circuit courts as well as decisions by state courts holding invalid any statute or treaty of the United States;  or holding valid any state law or practice that was challenged as being inconsistent with the federal constitution, treaties, or laws; or rejecting any claim made by a party under a provision of the federal constitution, treaties, or laws.[1]

text: SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum, and shall hold annually at the seat of government two sessions, the one commencing the first Monday of February, and the other the first Monday of August. —Judiciary Act of 1789

text: The Act also created 13 judicial districts within the 11 states that had then ratified the Constitution (North Carolina and Rhode Island were added as judicial districts in 1790, and other states as they were admitted to the Union). Each state comprised one district, except for Virginia and Massachusetts, each of which comprised two. Massachusetts was divided into the District of Maine (which was then part of Massachusetts) and the District of Massachusetts (which covered modern-day Massachusetts). Virginia was divided into the District of Kentucky (which was then part of Virginia) and the District of Virginia (which covered modern-day West Virginia and Virginia).[1]

text: This Act established a circuit court and district court in each judicial district (except in Maine and Kentucky, where the district courts exercised much of the jurisdiction of the circuit courts). The circuit courts, which comprised a district judge and (initially) two Supreme Court justices "riding circuit," had original jurisdiction over serious crimes and civil cases of at least $500 involving diversity jurisdiction or the United States as plaintiff in common law and equity. The circuit courts also had appellate jurisdiction over the district courts. The single-judge district courts had jurisdiction primarily over admiralty cases, petty crimes, and suits by the United States for at least $100. Notably, the federal trial courts had not yet received original federal question jurisdiction.

text: Congress authorized all people to either represent themselves or to be represented by another person. The Act did not prohibit paying a representative to appear in court.

text: Congress authorized persons who were sued by citizens of another state, in the courts of the plaintiff's home state, to remove the lawsuit to the federal circuit court. The power of removal, and the Supreme Court's power to review state court decisions where federal law was at issue, established that the federal judicial power would be superior to that of the states.

text: The Act created the Office of Attorney General, whose primary responsibility was to represent the United States before the Supreme Court. The Act also created a United States Attorney and a United States Marshal for each judicial district.[5]

text: The Judiciary Act of 1789 included the Alien Tort Statute, now codified as 28 U.S.C. § 1350, which provides jurisdiction in the district courts over lawsuits by aliens for torts in violation of the law of nations or treaties of the United States.[9]

text: Implementation[edit]

text: Immediately after signing the Judiciary Act into law, President Washington submitted his nominations to fill the offices created by the Act. Among the nominees were John Jay for Chief Justice of the United States; John Rutledge, William Cushing, Robert H. Harrison, James Wilson, and John Blair Jr. as Associate Justices; Edmund Randolph for Attorney General; and myriad  district judges, United States Attorneys, and United States Marshals for Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia.[1][10] All six of Washington's Supreme Court nominees were confirmed by the Senate. Harrison, however, declined to serve. In his place, Washington later nominated James Iredell, who joined the Court in 1790, thereby bringing the Court to its "full strength" complement of six members.

text: First justices of the Supreme Court[edit]

text: The first six persons to serve on the United States Supreme Court (ordered by seniority) were:

text:
John JayChief Justice

John RutledgeAssociate Justice

William CushingAssociate Justice

text:
James WilsonAssociate Justice

John BlairAssociate Justice

James IredellAssociate Justice

text: Judicial review[edit]

text: A clause granting the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus under its original jurisdiction was declared unconstitutional by Marbury v. Madison,[11] one of the seminal cases in American law. The Supreme Court held that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional because it purported to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. In Marbury, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and that it is the role of the judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits. Thus, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was the first act of Congress to be partially invalidated by the Supreme Court.[12][13]


document_title: Attachment measures

question_text: who developed an effective method for measuring attachment

root

text: Attachment measures

text: Measures of attachment in infants[edit]

text: Some methods are based on observation of infants and toddlers either in natural or 'arranged' situations. Other methods, suitable for older children, are based on asking children to complete "attachment story stems," draw a picture of their family, or describe their relationships.

tag: p

text: Strange Situation Procedure (SSP)[edit]

text: The Strange Situation procedure was formulated to observe attachment relationships between a caregiver and children between the age of nine and 18 months. It was developed by Mary Ainsworth, a developmental psychologist[3] Originally it was devised to enable children to be classified into the attachment styles known as secure, anxious-avoidant and anxious-ambivalent. As research accumulated and atypical patterns of attachment became more apparent it was further developed by Main and Solomon in 1986 and 1990 to include the new category of disorganized/disoriented attachment.[4][5]

text: In this procedure the child is observed playing for 20 minutes while caregivers and strangers enter and leave the room, recreating the flow of the familiar and unfamiliar presence in most children's lives. The situation varies in stressfulness and the child's responses are observed. The child experiences the following situations:

text:
Mother (or other familiar caregiver) and baby enter room.
Mother sits quietly on a chair, responding if the infant seeks attention.
A stranger enters, talks to the mother then gradually approaches infant with a toy. The mother leaves the room.
The stranger leaves the infant playing unless he/she is inactive and then tries to interest the infant in toys. If the infant becomes distressed this episode is ended.
Mother enters and waits to see how the infant greets her. The stranger leaves quietly and the mother waits until the baby settles, and then she leaves again.
The infant is alone. This episode is curtailed if the infant appears to be distressed.
The stranger comes back and repeats episode 3.
The mother returns and the stranger goes. Reunion behaviour is noted and then the situation is ended.

tag: ol

text: Two aspects of the child's behaviour are observed:

text:
The amount of exploration (e.g. playing with new toys) the child engages in throughout, and
The child's reactions to the departure and return of its caregiver.

tag: ul

text: Measures of attachment in toddlerhood and early-middle childhood[edit]

text: As the SSP is not suitable beyond 18 months of age, other measures have been developed for older ages groups, which include observational measures (in a controlled or naturalistic environment), representational methods and interview methods. Some are developed for research purposes whereas others have been developed for clinical use. Effective training of evaluators is essential, as some items to be assessed require interpretation reliability (e.g., child is "suddenly aggressive toward mother for no reason").[6]

text: Controlled observational methods[edit]

text: Preschool strange situation[edit]

text: Although originally designed for 1-year-old children, Ainsworth’s strange situation has been adapted to measure the attachment and exploratory behavior of children between the ages of 2-4½ years-old.[7] A fundamental feature of the strange situation is that the situation the child is placed in must elicit stress. If the strange situation fails to stress the child, it cannot serve as an adequate environment for the measurement of attachment.[8] The preschool strange situation features several alterations to facilitate the creation of stress in older children. These modifications include a slightly longer separation, changes in the role and/or gender of the stranger, and changes in the instructions to the caregiver. Some versions of the preschool strange situations omit the stranger altogether, thus leaving the child alone in the room throughout both separations.[9] The coding system used to interpret the attachment style expressed by the child has also been modified. Rather than focusing entirely on the expression of specific behaviors and emotions, the revised coding system assesses ways in which a variety of behaviors, such as talking, are organized to maintain and negotiate proximity and contact. Cassidy, Marvin and the MacArthur Working group published a version of the Strange Situation procedure designed for children within the age group of 3- to 4-years-old. In addition to categorizing a child’s attachment as secure, insecure/avoidant, insecure/ambivalent, and insecure/disorganized, the measure includes a seven-point avoidance scale and nine-point security scale.[8]

text: Main & Cassidy attachment classification system[edit]

text: This system, devised in 1988, analyses the reunion of child and parent after a 1-hour separation. It is aimed at 6-year-olds and classifies their attachment status.[10]

text: Preschool Assessment of Attachment (PAA)[edit]

text: The PAA was devised by P.Crittenden for the purpose of assessing patterns of attachment in 18-month to 5-year-old children. Like the SSP it involves an observation which is then coded. The classifications include all the SSP categories plus patterns that develop during the second year of life. The three basic strategies for negotiating interpersonal relationships are modified to fit preschoolers and the patterns are renamed secure/balanced, or Type B, defended, or Type A and coercive or Type C. It is also intended to be able to distinguish the unendangered from the endangered compulsive and obsessive subpatterns that may have implications for emotional and behavioral development.[11]

text: Marschak Interaction Method (MIM)[edit]

text: The MIM is a structured observation of the interaction between parent and child. The MIM was created by Marianne Marschak in the 1960s at the Yale Child Study Center. Salo & Makela (2006) of Finland have standardized and published a rating scale for the MIM for research purposes. Anne Stewart has developed the MIM Behavior Rating Scale (MIMBRS).[12]

text: Naturalistic observational methods[edit]

text: Attachment Q-set[edit]

text: This method, devised by Waters and Deane in 1985, utilizes Q-Sort methodology. It is based on a set period of observation of children aged 1 – 5 in a number of environments. It consists of nearly 100 items intended to cover the spectrum of attachment related behaviors including secure base and exploratory behaviors, affective response and social cognition.[13] The observer sorts the cards corresponding to the degree to which the child exhibits the item, which is then scored.[14] The overall score for each child will result in a variable ranging from +1.0 (i.e., very secure) to -1.0 (i.e., very insecure).[15] Despite its ability to classify secure attachment, the score derived from the Q-set measure does not classify the type of insecure attachment.[13]

text: Representational (story stem, narrative and picture) methods[edit]

text: This approach uses dolls and narrative to enact a story. The dolls represent family members. The interviewer enacts the beginning of the story and then hands the dolls over for the child to complete it with varying degrees of prompting and encouragement. These techniques are designed to access the child's internal working models of their attachment relationships. Methods include the MacArthur Story Stem Battery (MSSB) and the Attachment Story Completion Test, developed in 1990 for children between the age of 3 to 8 years; the Story Stem Assessment Profile (SSAP) developed in 1990 for children aged 4 – 8; the Attachment Doll Play Assessment developed in 1995 for children age 4.5-11; the Manchester Child Attachment Story Task (MCAST) developed in 2000 for children aged 4.5 - 8.5.

text: Attachment Story Completion Task (ASCT)[edit]

text: The Attachment Story Completion Task (ASCT) is a semi-projective attachment measure designed by Inge Bretherton and colleagues to assess the internal working model of children between the age of 3 to 9 years old (though it requires modification when used with older children). The measure evaluates a child's attachment style by analyzing how a child resolves a stress inducing story. In a 30-minute recorded interview, five story stems are presented through the use of props, such as small family figures. The stories are designed to access how that child interacts with their primary caregiver in five situations: separation, confrontation, fear, reunion, and pain.[16] The Interviewer prompts the child to complete each story by saying "show me, or tell me what happens next." The information derived from the interview is later coded according to the organization and content of the story completion. Avoidant attachment, for example, can be disclosed by a child refusing to acknowledge the attachment issue presented in the story stem (through claiming that the event did not take place). A child may also avoid addressing attachment by focusing solely on minor details, such as how the protagonist is dressed. Secure attachment, alternately, is indicated when a child provides coherent and constructive resolutions to the stories.[17]

text: Manchester Child Attachment Story Task (MCAST)[edit]

text: The MCAST is a semi-structured doll play 'story stem' methodology, developed by Jonathan Green, Charlie Stanley, Ruth Goldwyn and Vicky Smith,[18][19] to evaluate and understand the internal (mental) representations of their attachment relationship with a specific primary caregiver in children of 4 to 8.5 years. The concepts and procedures used have a basis in the Strange Situation Procedure and Adult Attachment Interview, and involves 4 story stem vignettes involving two dolls representing the caregiver-child dyad of interest and a dolls house, presented with affective arousal to mobilise attachment representations in a way that children of this age range find accessible and engaging. Responses are usually videotaped in order to reliably rate aspects of the child's represented narrative content and behaviour, and the child's own behaviour, to ascertain an attachment classification, with a particular focus on disorganised attachment, as well as providing other supporting ratings. Clinical development of the MCAST started in 1992, validation was published in 2000, and it has been since used in a range of cultural contexts[20] and clinical and at-risk groups.[21] Training is required for its use.

text: Picture response techniques[edit]

text: Like the stem stories, these techniques are designed to access the child's internal working models of attachment relationships. The child is shown attachment related pictures and asked to respond. Methods include the Separation Anxiety Test (SAT) developed in 1972 for children aged between 11 and 17. Revised versions have been produced for 4 - 7-year-olds. The SAT was doctored.

text: Interview methods[edit]

text: Child Attachment Interview (CAI)[edit]

text: This is a semi-structured interview designed by Target et al. (2003) for children aged 7 to 11. It is based on the Adult Attachment Interview, adapted for children by focussing on representations of relationships with parents and attachment related events. Scores are based on both verbal and non-verbal communications.[22]

text: Disturbances of Attachment Interview (DAI)[edit]

text: Disturbances of Attachment Interview developed, by Smyke and Zeanah, (1999), is a semi-structured interview designed to be administered by clinicians to caregivers. This method is designed to pick up not only reactive attachment disorder but also Zeannah et al.'s (1993) suggested new alternative categories of disorders of attachment.[23] It covers 12 items, namely having a discriminated, preferred adult, seeking comfort when distressed, responding to comfort when offered, social and emotional reciprocity, emotional regulation, checking back after venturing away from the care giver, reticence with unfamiliar adults, willingness to go off with relative strangers, self endangering behavior, excessive clinging, vigilance/hypercompliance and role reversal.

text: Measures of attachment in adolescents[edit]

text: Attachment Interview for Childhood and Adolescence (AICA)[edit]

text: This is a version of the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) rendered age appropriate for adolescents. The classifications of dismissing, secure, preoccupied and unresolved are the same as under the AAI described below.

text: Criticism[edit]

text: Existing measures have not necessarily been developed to a useful level. "Behavioral observation is a natural starting point for assessing attachment disorders because behavioral descriptions... have been central to the development of the concept... despite the fact that observations have figured prominently... no established observational protocol has been established" [24]

text: Also, questionable measures of attachment in school-age children have been presented. For example, a protocol for establishing attachment status was described by Sheperis and his colleagues.[25] Unfortunately, this protocol was validated against another technique, the Randolph Attachment Disorder Questionnaire, that was itself poorly validated and that is based on a nonconventional view of attachment.

text: Reception and development of SSP[edit]

text: Psychiatrist Michael Rutter describe the limitations of the procedure in the following terms;[26]

text: "It is by no means free of limitations (see Lamb, Thompson, Gardener, Charnov & Estes, 1984).[27] To begin with, it is very dependent on brief separations and reunions having the same meaning for all children. This maybe a major constraint when applying the procedure in cultures, such as that in Japan (see Miyake et al.,, 1985),[28] where infants are rarely separated from their mothers in ordinary circumstances. Also, because older children have a cognitive capacity to maintain relationships when the older person is not present, separation may not provide the same stress for them. Modified procedures based on the Strange Situation have been developed for older preschool children (see Belsky et al., 1994; Greenberg et al., 1990)[29][30] but it is much more dubious whether the same approach can be used in middle childhood. Also, despite its manifest strengths, the procedure is based on just 20 minutes of behaviour. It can be scarcely expected to tap all the relevant qualities of a child's attachment relationships. Q-sort procedures based on much longer naturalistic observations in the home, and interviews with the mothers have developed in order to extend the data base (see Vaughn & Waters, 1990).[31] A further constraint is that the coding procedure results in discrete categories rather than continuously distributed dimensions. Not only is this likely to provide boundary problems, but also it is not at all obvious that discrete categories best represent the concepts that are inherent in attachment security. It seems much more likely that infants vary in their degree of security and there is need for a measurement systems that can quantify individual variation".

text: Ecological validity and universality of Strange Situation attachment classification distributions[edit]

text: With respect to the ecological validity of the Strange Situation, a meta-analysis of 2,000 infant-parent dyads, including several from studies with non-Western language and/or cultural bases found the global distribution of attachment categorizations to be A (21%), B (65%), and C (14%) [32] This global distribution was generally consistent with Ainsworth et al.'s (1978) original attachment classification distributions.

text: However, controversy has been raised over a few cultural differences in these rates of 'global' attachment classification distributions. In particular, two studies diverged from the global distributions of attachment classifications noted above. One study was conducted in North Germany [33] in which more avoidant (A) infants were found than global norms would suggest, and the other in Sapporo, Japan [34] where more resistant (C) infants were found. Of these two studies, the Japanese findings have sparked the most controversy as to the meaning of individual differences in attachment behavior as originally identified by Ainsworth et al. (1978).

text: In a recent study conducted in Sapporo, Behrens, et al., 2007.[35] found attachment distributions consistent with global norms using the six-year Main & Cassidy scoring system for attachment classification.[36] In addition to these findings supporting the global distributions of attachment classifications in Sapporo, Behrens et al. also discuss the Japanese concept of amae and its relevance to questions concerning whether the insecure-resistant (C) style of interaction may be engendered in Japanese infants as a result of the cultural practice of amae.

text: Attachment measurement: discrete or continuous?[edit]

text: Regarding the issue of whether the breadth of infant attachment functioning can be captured by a categorical classification scheme, it should be noted that continuous measures of attachment security have been developed which have demonstrated adequate psychometric properties. These have been used either individually or in conjunction with discrete attachment classifications in many published reports [see Richters et al., 1998;[37] Van IJzendoorn et al., 1990).[38]] The original Richter’s et al. (1998) scale is strongly related to secure versus insecure classifications, correctly predicting about 90% of cases.[38] Readers further interested in the categorical versus continuous nature of attachment classifications (and the debate surrounding this issue) should consult the paper by Fraley and Spieker [39] and the rejoinders in the same issue by many prominent attachment researchers including J. Cassidy, A. Sroufe, E. Waters & T. Beauchaine, and M. Cummings.

text: Measures in adults[edit]

text: The three main ways of measuring attachment in adults include the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI), the Adult Attachment Projective Picture System (AAP), and self-report questionnaires. The AAI, AAP, and the self-report questionnaires were created with somewhat different aims in mind. Shaver and Fraley note:

text: "If you are a novice in this research area, what is most important for you to know is that self-report measures of romantic attachment and the AAI were initially developed completely independently and for quite different purposes. One asks about a person's feelings and behaviors in the context of romantic or other close relationships; the other is used to make inferences about the defenses associated with an adult's current state of mind regarding childhood relationships with parents. In principle, these might have been substantially associated, but in fact they seem to be only moderately related--at least as currently assessed. One kind of measure receives its construct validity mostly from studies of romantic relationships, the other from prediction of a person's child's behavior in Ainsworth's Strange Situation. Correlations of the two kinds of measures with other variables are likely to differ, although a few studies have found the AAI to be related to marital relationship quality and a few have found self-report romantic attachment measures to be related to parenting." (Shaver & Fraley, 2004) [40]

text: The AAI, the AAP, and the self-report questionnaires offer distinct, but equally valid, perspectives on adult attachment. It's therefore worthwhile to become familiar with each approach.

text: Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)[edit]

text: Developed by Carol George, Nancy Kaplan, and Mary Main in 1984, this is a quasi-clinical semi-structured interview that takes about one hour to administer. It involves about twenty questions and has extensive research validation to support it. A good description can be found in Chapter 25 of Attachment Theory, Research and Clinical Applications (2nd ed.), edited by J. Cassidy and P. R. Shaver, Guilford Press, NY, 2008. The chapter title is "The Adult Attachment Interview: Historical and Current Perspectives," and is written by E. Hesse. The interview taps into adult representation of attachment (i.e. internal working models) by assessing general and specific recollections from their childhood. The interview is coded based on quality of discourse (especially coherence) and content. Categories are designed to predict parental stances on Berkeley infant data.

text: Parental AAI Attachment status includes:

text:
Autonomous: They value attachment relationships, describe them in a balanced way and as influential. Their discourse is coherent, internally consistent, and non-defensive in nature.
Dismissing: They show memory lapses. Minimize negative aspects and deny personal impact on relationships. Their positive descriptions are often contradicted or unsupported. The discourse is defensive.
Preoccupied: Experience continuing preoccupation with their own parents. Incoherent discourse. Have angry or ambivalent representations of the past.
Unresolved/Disorganized: Show trauma resulting from unresolved loss or abuse.

text: Some of the strongest external validation of the measures involves its demonstrated ability to predict interviewees' children's classifications in the Strange Situation. The measure also has been shown to have some overlap with attachment constructs measured by the less time-intensive measures of the peer/romantic attachment tradition (Hazan & Shaver, Bartholomew), as reported by Shaver, P. R., Belsky, J., & Brennan, K. A. (2000).[41] However, there are important differences in what is measured by the AAI—rather than being a measure of romantic attachment, it taps primarily into a person's state of mind regarding their attachment in their family of origin (nuclear family).

text: Adult Attachment Projective Picture System (AAP)[edit]

text: Developed by Carol George and Malcolm West in 1999, this is a free response task that involved telling stories in response to eight picture stimuli (1 warm-up & 7 attachment scenes). A good description can be found in George and West's 1999 paper in the journal Attachment and Human Development. A book describing the measure is forthcoming from Guilford Press in spring 2011.[42]

text: The AAP identifies the same adult attachment groups as the AAI, as described above. In addition to providing adult group classifications, the AAP is also used to code attachment defensive processing patterns, attachment synchrony, and personal agency.

text: The strongest concurrent validation of the measure is the correspondence between AAP and AAI classification agreement. The AAP is demonstrated to be increasingly useful in clinical and neurobiological settings. The AAP is being used to assess attachment in adults and adolescents.

text: Self-report questionnaires[edit]

text: Hazan and Shaver created the first questionnaire to measure attachment in adults. [43] Their questionnaire was designed to classify adults into the three attachment styles identified by Ainsworth. The questionnaire consisted of three sets of statements, each set of statements describing an attachment style:

text:
Secure - I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don't often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me.
Avoidant - I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.
Anxious/Ambivalent - I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesn't really love me or won't want to stay with me. I want to merge completely with another person, and this desire sometimes scares people away.

text: People participating in their study were asked to choose which set of statements best described their feelings. The chosen set of statements indicated their attachment style. Later versions of this questionnaire presented scales so people could rate how well each set of statements described their feelings.

text: One important advance in the development of attachment questionnaires was the addition of a fourth style of attachment. Bartholomew and Horowitz presented a model that identified four categories or styles of adult attachment. [44] Their model was based on the idea attachment styles reflected people's thoughts about their partners and thought about themselves. Specifically, attachment styles depended on whether or not people judge their partners to be generally accessible and responsive to requests for support, and whether or not people judge themselves to be the kind of individuals towards which others want to respond and lend help. They proposed four categories based on positive or negative thoughts about partners and on positive or negative thoughts about self.

text:
Attachment Theory Four Category Model

Thoughts of Self

Positive
Negative

Thoughts
of
Partner
Positive
Secure

Comfortable with intimacy and autonomy

Preoccupied

Preoccupied with relationships

Negative
Dismissive

Dismissing of intimacy
Strongly independent

Fearful

Fearful of intimacy
Socially avoidant

tag: table

text: Bartholomew and Horowitz used this model to create the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ-CV). The RQ-CV consisted of four sets of statements, each describing a category or style of attachment:

text:
Secure - It is relatively easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable depending on others and having others depend on me. I don't worry about being alone or having others not accept me.
Dismissive - I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me.
Preoccupied - I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don't value me as much as I value them.
Fearful - I am somewhat uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely, or to depend on them. I sometimes worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others.

text: Tests demonstrated the four attachment styles were distinct in how they related to other kinds of psychological variables. Adults indeed appeared to have four styles of attachment instead of three attachment styles.

text: David Schmitt, together with a large number of colleagues, validated the attachment questionnaire created by Bartholomew and Horowitz in 62 cultures. [45] The distinction of thoughts about self and thoughts about partners proved valid in nearly all cultures. However, the way these two kinds of thoughts interacted to form attachment styles varied somewhat across cultures. The four attachment styles had somewhat different meanings across cultures.

text: A second important advance in attachment questionnaires was the use of independent items to assess attachment. Instead of asking people to choose between three or four sets of statements, people rated how strongly they agreed with dozens of individual statements. The ratings for the individual statements were combined to provide an attachment score. Investigators have created several questionnaires using this strategy to measure adult attachment.

text: Two popular questionnaires of this type are the Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) questionnaire and the Experiences in Close Relationships - Revised (ECR-R) questionnaire. The ECR was created by Brennan, Clark, and Shaver in 1998. [46] The ECR-R was created by Fraley, Waller, and Brennan in 2000. [47] Readers who wish to take the ECR-R and learn their attachment style can find an online version of the questionnaire at http://www.web-research-design.net/cgi-bin/crq/crq.pl.

text: Analysis of the ECR and ECR-R reveal that the questionnaire items can be grouped into two dimensions of attachment. One group of questionnaire items deal with how anxious a person is about their relationship. These items serve as a scale for anxiety. The remaining items deal with how avoidant a person is in their relationship. These items serve as a scale for avoidance. Many researchers now use scores from the anxiety and avoidance scales to perform statistical analyses and test hypotheses.

text: Scores on the anxiety and avoidance scales can still be used to classify people into the four adult attachment styles. [46] [48] [49] The four styles of attachment defined in Bartholomew and Horowitz's model were based on thoughts about self and thoughts about partners. The anxiety scale in the ECR and ECR-R reflect thoughts about self. Attachment anxiety relates to beliefs about self-worth and whether or not one will be accepted or rejected by others. The avoidance scale in the ECR and ECR-R relates to thoughts about partners. Attachment avoidance relates to beliefs about taking risks in approaching or avoiding other people. Combinations of anxiety and avoidance can thus be used to define the four attachment styles. The secure style of attachment is characterized by low anxiety and low avoidance; the preoccupied style of attachment is characterized by high anxiety and low avoidance; the dismissive avoidant style of attachment is characterized by low anxiety and high avoidance; and the fearful avoidant style of attachment is characterized by high anxiety and high avoidance.


document_title: List of United States university campuses by enrollment

question_text: what is the biggest university campus in the us

text: 2016–17 enrollment[edit]

text:
Ten largest public university campuses by enrollment during the 2016–17 academic year

Ranking
University
Location
Enrollment
Reference(s)

1
University of Central Florida
Orlando, Florida
64,335
[1]

2
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas
60,435
[2]

3
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
59,482
[3]

4
Florida International University
Miami, Florida
55,111
[4]

5
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
52,367
[5]

6
Arizona State University [note 1]
Tempe, Arizona
51,869
[6]

7
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis/Saint Paul, Minnesota
51,580
[7]

8
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas
51,331
[8]

9
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
50,344
[9]

10
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
49,695
[10]

text: 2015–16 enrollment[edit]

text:
Ten largest public university campuses by enrollment during the 2015–16 academic year

Ranking
University
Location
Enrollment
Reference(s)

1
University of Central Florida
Orlando, Florida
63,016
[11]

2
Ohio State University [note 2]
Columbus, Ohio
58,663
[12]

3
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas
58,515
[13]

4
Florida International University
Miami, Florida
54,058
[14]

5
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
52,518
[15]

6
Arizona State University [note 1]
Tempe, Arizona
51,984
[16]

7
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas
50,950
[17]

8
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis/Saint Paul, Minnesota
50,678
[18]

9
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
50,543
[19]

10
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
48,514
[20]

text: 2013–14 enrollment[edit]

text:
Ten largest public university campuses by enrollment during the 2013–14 academic year

Ranking
University
Location
Enrollment
Reference(s)

1
Arizona State University [note 1]
Tempe, Arizona
62,599
[21]

2
University of Central Florida
Orlando, Florida
59,770
[22]

3
Ohio State University [note 3]
Columbus, Ohio
58,322
[23]

4
Florida International University [note 4]
Miami, Florida
52,986
[24]

5
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas
52,449
[25]

6
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis/Saint Paul, Minnesota
51,147
[26]

7
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas
51,145
[27]

8
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
50,085
[28]

9
University of Florida [note 4]
Gainesville, Florida
49,042
[29]

10
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
46,817
[30]

text: 2012–13 enrollment[edit]

text:
Ten largest public university campuses by enrollment during the 2012–13 academic year

Ranking
University
Location
Enrollment
Reference(s)

1
Arizona State University [note 1]
Tempe, Arizona
60,169
[31]

2
University of Central Florida [note 4]
Orlando, Florida
60,048
[32]

3
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
57,466
[33]

4
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas
52,186
[34]

5
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis/Saint Paul, Minnesota
51,853
[35]

6
Florida International University [note 4]
Miami, Florida
50,396
[36]

7
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas
50,227
[37]

8
University of Florida [note 4]
Gainesville, Florida
49,913
[38]

9
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
48,906
[39]

10
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
45,351
[40]

text: 2011–12 enrollment[edit]

text:
Ten largest public university campuses by enrollment during the 2011–12 academic year

Ranking
University
Location
Enrollment
Reference(s)

1
Arizona State University [note 1]
Tempe, Arizona
59,794
[41]

2
University of Central Florida [note 4]
Orlando, Florida
58,587
[42]

3
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
56,867
[43]

4
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis/Saint Paul, Minnesota
52,557
[44]

5
University of Texas at Austin [note 4]
Austin, Texas
51,112
[45]

6
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
49,861
[46]

7
University of Florida [note 4]
Gainesville, Florida
49,589
[47]

8
Florida International University [note 4]
Miami, Florida
47,966
[48]

9
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
47,800
[39]

10
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
44,485
[49]

text: 2010–11 enrollment[edit]

text:
Ten largest public university campuses by enrollment during the 2010–11 academic year

Ranking
University
Location
Enrollment
Reference(s)

1
Arizona State University [note 1]
Tempe, Arizona
58,000
[50]

2
University of Central Florida [note 4]
Orlando, Florida
56,235
[51]

3
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
56,064
[52]

4
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis/Saint Paul, Minnesota
51,721
[53]

5
University of Texas at Austin [note 4]
Austin, Texas
51,195
[54]

6
University of Florida [note 4]
Gainesville, Florida
49,827
[55]

7
Texas A&M University [note 4]
College Station, Texas
49,129
[56]

8
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
47,131
[57]

9
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
44,034
[58]

10
Florida International University [note 4]
Miami, Florida
44,010
[59]

text: 2009–10 enrollment[edit]

text:
Ten largest public university campuses by enrollment during the 2009–10 academic year

Ranking
University
Location
Enrollment
Reference(s)

1
Arizona State University [note 1]
Tempe, Arizona
55,552
[60]

2
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
55,014
[61]

3
University of Central Florida [note 4]
Orlando, Florida
53,537
[62]

4
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis/Saint Paul, Minnesota
51,659
[63]

5
University of Texas at Austin [note 4]
Austin, Texas
51,032
[64]

6
University of Florida [note 4]
Gainesville, Florida
50,691
[65]

7
Texas A&M University [note 4]
College Station, Texas
48,885
[66]

8
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
47,100
[67]

9
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
44,832
[58]

10
Indiana University Bloomington
Bloomington, Indiana
42,347
[68]


document_title: Last Chance U

question_text: where does ollie from last chance u play

text: Last Chance U

text: Synopsis[edit]

text: The series focuses on all aspects of the football program at East Mississippi Community College, one of the most successful JUCO programs in the country. Major themes include the academic struggles of the players, some of whom have come from severely disadvantaged backgrounds. Team academic advisor Brittany Wagner is featured prominently as she is tasked with getting all team members to graduate on time. Head coach Buddy Stephens' struggles with controlling his temper is also a major theme, which is often juxtaposed with his devout Christian faith that he attempts to impart on the team.

text: Season 1[edit]

text: The crew followed the EMCC Lions during their 2015 season as they attempted to capture their fourth JUCO national title. While the team appeared dominant for much of the year, their season was derailed after a brawl broke out during their game with Mississippi Delta. EMCC was disqualified from the state playoffs and a potential berth to the national championship game.[4]

text:
Date
Opponent#
Rank#
Site
Result

August 27
Southwest Mississippi
No. 1
Sullivan–Windham Field • Scooba, MS
W 69–20

September 3
at No. 4 Copiah–Lincoln
No. 1
Stone Stadium • Wesson, MS
L 24–31 OT

September 10
Coahoma
No. 7
Sullivan–Windham Field • Scooba, MS
W 69–0

September 17
at Northeast Mississippi
No. 7
Tiger Stadium • Booneville, MS
W 56–7

September 26
Itawamba
No. 6
Sullivan–Windham Field • Scooba, MS
W 48–24

October 1
at Jones County
No. 7
Bobcat Stadium/Sim Cooley Field • Ellisville, MS
W 49–7

October 8
at Holmes
No. 6
Ras Branch Field • Goodman, MS
W 44–28

October 15
No. 4 Northwest Mississippi
No. 8
Sullivan–Windham Field • Scooba, MS
W 49–16

October 22
at Mississippi Delta
No. 3
Jim Randall Field • Moorhead, MS
W 48–0

*Non-conference game. Homecoming. #Rankings from NJCAA released prior to game. Source: [5].

text: Season 2[edit]

text: Netflix returned to Scooba to follow their 2016 season. Once again holding national championship aspirations, the team faced a major hurdle in that only 32 of their players were eligible for their opening game with Jones County Junior College due to suspensions related to the previous season's brawl. EMCC lost that game, 27–25, their first season-opening loss since 2010.[6] The Lions would go on to win the rest of their games, but were left out of the national championship game when they finished the season ranked No. 3 in the polls.[7]

text:
Date
Opponent#
Rank#
Site
Result

September 1
at Jones County
No. 1
Bobcat Stadium/Sim Cooley Field • Ellisville, MS
L 25–27

September 8
at No. 17 Mississippi Gulf Coast
No. 12
A. L. May Memorial Stadium • Perkinston, MS
W 45–7

September 15
Northeast Mississippi
No. 14
Sullivan–Windham Field • Scooba, MS
W 54–10

September 22
at No. 15 Itawamba
No. 11
Eaton Field • Fulton, MS
W 44–42

September 29
Mississippi Delta
No. 9
Sullivan–Windham Field • Scooba, MS
W 73–7

October 6
at No. 16 Holmes
No. 5
Ras Branch Field • Goodman, MS
W 63–49

October 15
No. 1 Northwest Mississippi
No. 4
Sullivan–Windham Field • Scooba, MS
W 51–32

October 20
at Coahoma
No. 3
James E. Miller Stadium • Clarksdale, MS
W 42–0

October 27
Hinds
No. 3
Sullivan–Windham Field • Scooba, MS
W 42–0

November 5
Mississippi Gulf Coast
No. 3
Sullivan–Windham Field • Scooba, MS (MACJC Semifinal)
W 27–24

November 12
No. 4 Northwest Mississippi
No. 3
Sullivan–Windham Field • Scooba, MS (MACJC Championship)
W 38–30

December 4
vs. No. 13 Kilgore
No. 3
A. L. May Memorial Stadium • Perkinston, MS (Mississippi Bowl)
W 27–17

*Non-conference game. Homecoming. #Rankings from NJCAA released prior to game. Source: [8].

text: Season 3[edit]

text: Despite being invited back to EMCC for a third season,[9] producers decided to move the show to Independence Community College of Kansas.[10] The new location is different in that ICC has historically had much lower expectations than EMCC; in 2016, it ended the season 5–4, its first winning season in ten years.[11] The ICC Pirates had a very successful recruiting campaign for the 2017 season, landing many acclaimed players who began at NCAA Division I schools.[12]

text: Reception[edit]

text: The series was given a positive review by SB Nation's Jason Kirk who summed it up as a "carefully crafted drama with personalities to care about."[13]

text: EMCC featured staff[edit]

text:
Buddy Stephens (head coach)
Brittany Wagner (academic advisor)
Marcus Wood (offensive coordinator)
Davern Williams (defensive line coach)
Ed Holly (defensive coordinator, season 2)
Clint Trickett (quarterbacks coach)
Cade Wilkerson (running backs coach)

text: Players[edit]

text: Season 1[edit]

text:
Player
Position
Transfer In
Transfer Out
Notes

John Franklin III
QB
Florida State
Auburn
Franklin was officially added to the Auburn football roster in 2016 and played sparingly in his first season on The Plains, recording one passing touchdown and two rushing touchdowns while backing up starter Sean White.[14] In August 2017 he transfered to Florida Atlantic University.[15]

Wyatt Roberts
QB
—
Mississippi State
On the show, Roberts mentions that if big offers don't come in, he's going to be content to move on to Mississippi State, where he would attend as a student and not walk-on to the football team.
True to his word, Roberts did not walk-on to Mississippi State.[16] However, after a quarterback transferred out of the team, Head Coach Dan Mullen approached Wyatt, who then walked-on to the team.[17]

Dacorius (D. J.) Law
RB
—
UAB
Law was officially admitted to UAB after final clearance was provided on August 30, 2016. Struggling with academics and an injured knee, he did not play for UAB and left the team in May 2017.[18]

Allenzae Staggers
WR
—
Southern Miss
Staggers joined the Southern Miss football team after the culmination of his Junior year at EMCC. In his first season with the Golden Eagles, he lead the team in receiving yards with 1165, and added 7 touchdowns, [19][20] and was placed on the Biletnikoff Watch List[21] He also had a team record 292 receiving yards in a single game.[22]

Ronald Ollie
DT
—
Nicholls State
He played one year at Nicholls State and had 41 tackles, two sacks, and a touchdown. He then left, saying he wants to play at a higher level.[23]

Marcel Andry
DT
—
Nicholls State
Andry played 10 games in his first season with the Colonels and had 17 tackles.[24]

Gary McCrae
OL
—
Louisville

James Davis
OL
—
Mississippi State[25]

Isaiah Wright
RB
—
West Georgia

Signed by Auburn in 2016, but never attended. [26] Committed to West Georgia in 2017 and attended spring training but never played for them, and in August 2017 it was announced that he was leaving the team.[27][28] On 13 September 2017, Wright was charged with criminal homicide connected to a fatal stabbing in Tennessee in July. [29]

text: Season 2[edit]

text:
Player
Position
Transfer In
Transfer Out
Notes

DeAndre Johnson
QB
Florida State
Florida Atlantic

Isaiah Wright
RB
—
West Georgia
Wright participated in spring football at WGU but left the school before the season began.[30] He was arrested for criminal homicide in September 2017. [31]

Chauncey Rivers
DL
Georgia
Mississippi State

Dakota Allen
LB
Texas Tech
Texas Tech

Kamonte "Kam" Carter
DL
Penn State
Pittsburgh

Tim Bonner
DL
Louisville
Florida Atlantic

text: Crew[edit]

text:
Benjamin Cotner – executive producer
Edgar Doumerc – sound department
Joe Labracio – executive producer
Adam Leibowitz – producer
Lisa Nishimura – executive producer
Dawn Ostroff – executive producer
Adam Ridley – producer, director, editor
Jihan Robinson – executive producer
James D. Stern – executive producer
Lucas Smith – executive producer
Greg Whiteley – director, executive producer
Sam Young – sound department
Yuri Tománek – original music
Joseph Minadeo – original music


document_title: List of One Day International cricket records

question_text: who played most number of matches in odi cricket

text: Listing criteria

text: In general the top five are listed in each category (except when there is a tie for the last place among the five, when all the tied record holders are noted).

text: Listing notation

text: Team notation

text:
(300–3) indicates that a team scored 300 runs for three wickets and the innings was closed, either due to a successful run chase or if no overs remained (or are able) to be bowled.
(300) indicates that a team scored 300 runs and was all out, either by losing all ten wickets or by having one or more batsmen unable to bat and losing the remaining wickets.

text: Batting notation

text:
(100*) indicates that a batsman scored 100 runs and was not out.
(175) indicates that a batsman scored 175 runs and was out after that.

text: Bowling notation

text:
(5–40) indicates that a bowler has captured 5 wickets while giving away 40 runs.
(49.5 overs) indicates that a team bowled 49 complete overs (each of six legal deliveries), and one incomplete over of just five deliveries.

text: Currently playing

text: Record holders who are currently playing ODIs (i.e. their record details listed could change) are shown by ‡.

text: Seasons

text: Cricket is played during the summer months in most countries. Domestic cricket seasons in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and the West Indies may therefore span two calendar years, and are by convention said to be played in (e.g.) "2008–09". A cricket season in England is described as a single year. e.g. "2009". An international ODI series or tournament may be for a much shorter duration, and Cricinfo treats this issue by stating "any series or matches which began between May and September of any given year will appear in the relevant single year season and any that began between October and April will appear in the relevant cross-year season".[8] In the record tables, a two-year span generally indicates that the record was set within a domestic season in one of the above named countries.

text: Team records

text: Team wins, losses, ties, and no results

text:
Team
First ODI
Matches
Won
Lost
Tied
No result
Win

 Afghanistan
000000002009-04-19-000019 April 2009
83
42
39
0
2
51.85

Africa XI
000000002005-08-17-000017 August 2005
6
1
4
0
1
20.00

Asia XI
000000002005-01-10-000010 January 2005
7
4
2
0
1
66.66

 Australia
000000001971-01-05-00005 January 1971
906
555
308
9
34
64.16

 Bangladesh
000000001986-03-31-000031 March 1986
332
105
220
0
7
32.30

 Bermuda
000000002006-05-17-000017 May 2006
35
7
28
0
0
20.00

 Canada
000000001979-06-09-00009 June 1979
77
17
58
0
2
22.66

East Africa
000000001975-06-07-00007 June 1975
3
0
3
0
0
0.00

 England
000000001971-01-05-00005 January 1971
697
343
322
8
24
51.56

 Hong Kong
000000002004-07-16-000016 July 2004
18
6
11
0
1
35.29

ICC World XI
000000002005-01-10-000010 January 2005
4
1
3
0
0
25.00

 India
000000001974-07-13-000013 July 1974
927
474
406
7
40
53.83

 Ireland
000000002006-06-13-000013 June 2006
123
51
62
3
7
45.25

 Kenya
000000001996-02-18-000018 February 1996
154
42
107
0
5
28.18

 Namibia
000000002003-02-10-000010 February 2003
6
0
6
0
0
0.00

 Netherlands
000000001996-02-17-000017 February 1996
76
28
44
1
3
39.04

 New Zealand
000000001973-02-11-000011 February 1973
728
323
360
6
39
47.31

 Pakistan
000000001973-02-11-000011 February 1973
879
464
389
8
18
54.35

 Papua New Guinea
000000002014-11-08-00008 November 2014
10
5
5
0
0
50.00

 Scotland
000000001999-05-16-000016 May 1999
93
31
56
0
6
35.63

 South Africa
000000001991-11-10-000010 November 1991
580
358
200
6
16
64.00

 Sri Lanka
000000001975-06-07-00007 June 1975
803
372
390
5
36
48.82

 United Arab Emirates
000000001994-04-13-000013 April 1994
35
9
26
0
0
25.71

 United States
000000002004-09-10-000010 September 2004
2
0
2
0
0
0.00

 West Indies
000000001973-09-05-00005 September 1973
767
380
351
9
27
51.95

 Zimbabwe
000000001983-06-09-00009 June 1983
491
129
345
6
11
27.50

Last updated: 6 October 2017[9]
The win percentage excludes no results; a tie counts as half a win

text: Result records

text: Greatest win margin (by runs)

text:
Margin
Teams
Venue
Date
Scorecard

290 runs
 New Zealand (402–2) beat  Ireland (112)
Mannofield Park, Aberdeen
1 July 2008
Scorecard

275 runs
 Australia (417–6) beat  Afghanistan (142)
WACA, Perth
4 March 2015
Scorecard

272 runs
 South Africa (399–6) beat  Zimbabwe (127)
Willowmoore Park, Benoni
22 October 2010
Scorecard

258 runs
 South Africa (301–8) beat  Sri Lanka (43)
Boland Park, Paarl
11 January 2012
Scorecard

257 runs
 India (413–5) beat  Bermuda (156)
Queen's Park Oval, Port of Spain, Trinidad
19 March 2007
Scorecard

 South Africa (408–5) beat  West Indies (151)
SCG, Sydney
27 February 2015
Scorecard

Last updated: 2 September 2016[10]

text: Greatest win margin (by balls remaining)

text:
Margin
Teams
Venue
Date
Scorecard

277 balls†
 England (46–2) beat  Canada (45)
Old Trafford, Manchester
13 June 1979
Scorecard

274 balls
 Sri Lanka (40–1) beat  Zimbabwe (38)
SSC, Colombo
8 December 2001
Scorecard

272 balls
 Sri Lanka (37–1) beat  Canada (36)
Boland Park, Paarl
19 February 2003
Scorecard

264 balls
 New Zealand (95–0) beat  Bangladesh (93)
Queenstown, New Zealand
31 December 2007
Scorecard

253 balls
 Australia (66–1) beat  United States (65)
The Rose Bowl, Southampton
13 September 2004
Scorecard

Last updated: 2 September 2016[11]
†This match was played with 60 overs per innings

text: Most consecutive wins

text:
Wins
Team
First win
Last win

21
 Australia
 England at Hobart, 11 January 2003
 West Indies at Port of Spain, 24 May 2003

12
 South Africa[a]
 England at Centurion, 13 February 2005
 New Zealand at Port Elizabeth, 30 October 2005

 Pakistan
 India at Jaipur, 18 November 2007
 Bangladesh at Dhaka, 8 June 2008

 South Africa
 Ireland at Benoni, 25 September 2016
 New Zealand at Hamilton, 19 February 2017

11
 West Indies
 England at Lord's, 4 June 1984
 Sri Lanka at Perth, 2 February 1985

 Australia[b]
 Scotland at Basseterre, 14 March 2007
 Sri Lanka at Bridgetown, 28 April 2007

No Results are treated the same as losses and ties in the above table.
Last updated: 22 February 2017[12]

Notes:

^[a] This sequence began after a no-result, and was ended by a no-result. The first win was over England in the 7th and final ODI (ODI 2226) of a seven-game series. The 6th ODI (ODI 2225) was a no result, before which South Africa had won the 3rd (ODI 2221), 4th (ODI 2223), and 5th (ODI 2224) ODIs. Ignoring this no result, the sequence lasted 15 matches.[13] The last win came against New Zealand in the 3rd ODI (ODI 2289) of a five-game series. The 4th ODI (ODI 2292) was a no result and South Africa won the 5th ODI (ODI 2293) as well as the 1st ODI (ODI 2297) against India in their next series before losing to India in the 2nd ODI (ODI 2298). Ignoring this no result as well, South Africa's winning streak is further extended to 17 matches.[14]
^[b] This sequence was ended by a no-result. The last win was the 2007 Cricket World Cup Final (ODI 2581). Australia's next ODI (ODI 2621) was the first game of a seven-game series against India; there was no result. Australia won the next two ODIs of the series (ODI 2623 and 2625) before losing the 4th ODI (ODI 2627). If this no result is ignored, the second and third ODIs would be included in Australia's winning streak, extending it to 13 matches.[15]

text: Most consecutive defeats

text:
Defeats
Team
First defeat
Last defeat

23
 Bangladesh[a]
 West Indies at Dhaka, 8 October 1999
 South Africa at Kimberley, 9 October 2002

22
 Bangladesh
 Pakistan at Moratuwa, 31 March 1986
 India at Mohali, 14 May 1998

18
 Zimbabwe
 India at Leicester, 11 June 1983
 Australia at Hobart, 14 March 1992

 Bangladesh[a]
 South Africa at Bloemfontein, 22 September 2003
 England at Dhaka, 12 November 2003

17
 Zimbabwe
 Sri Lanka at Bulawayo, 20 April 2004
 England at Bulawayo, 5 December 2004

No results are treated the same as wins and ties in the above table.
Last updated: 15 February 2016[16]

Notes:

^[a] The 23-game sequence was ended by a no result (ODI 1904). Another four defeats followed, then another no result (ODI 1956), and then Bangladesh's 18 game losing sequence. Ignoring these no results, Bangladesh's 23 game losing sequence and 18 game losing sequence combine with the intervening four defeats into a single losing streak of 45 matches.[17]

text: Team scoring records

text: Highest innings totals

text:
Score
Team
Opponent
Venue
Date
Scorecard

444–3 (50 overs)
 England
 Pakistan
Nottingham
30 August 2016
Scorecard

443–9 (50 overs)
 Sri Lanka
 Netherlands
Amstelveen
4 July 2006
Scorecard

439–2 (50 overs)
 South Africa
 West Indies
Johannesburg
18 January 2015
Scorecard

438–9 (49.5 overs)†
 South Africa
 Australia
Johannesburg
12 March 2006
Scorecard

438–4 (50 overs)
 South Africa
 India
Mumbai
25 October 2015
Scorecard

Last updated: 31 August 2016[18]
†See the match report for more details about this match, in which several records were set.

text: Highest match aggregate

text:
Score
Teams
Venue
Date
Scorecard

872–13 (99.5 overs)†
 Australia (434–4) v  South Africa (438–9)
Johannesburg
12 March 2006
Scorecard

825–15 (100 overs)
 India (414–7) v  Sri Lanka (411–8)
Rajkot
15 December 2009
Scorecard

763–14 (96.0 overs)
 New Zealand (398–5) v  England (365–9)
London
12 June 2015
Scorecard

747–14 (100 overs)
 India (381–6) v  England (366-8)
Cuttack
19 January 2017
Scorecard

743–12 (99.2 overs)
 Australia (371–6) v  South Africa (372–6)
Durban
5 October 2016
Scorecard

Last updated: 13 September 2017[19]
†See the match report for more details about this match, in which several records were set.

text: Highest runs in successful chasing

text:
Score
Team
Opposition
Venue
Date
Scorecard

438–9 (49.5 overs)†
 South Africa
 Australia
Johannesburg
12 March 2006
Scorecard

372–6 (49.2 overs)
 South Africa
 Australia
Durban
5 October 2016
Scorecard

362–1 (43.3 overs)
 India
 Australia
Jaipur
16 October 2013
Scorecard

356–7 (48.1 overs)
 India
 England
Pune
15 January 2017
Scorecard

351–4 (49.3 overs)
 India
 Australia
Nagpur
30 October 2013
Scorecard

Last updated: 15 January 2017[20]
†See the match report for more details.

text: Lowest innings totals

text:
Score
Team
Opponent
Venue
Date
Scorecard

35 (18 overs)
 Zimbabwe
 Sri Lanka
Harare
25 April 2004
Scorecard

36 (18.4 overs)
 Canada
 Sri Lanka
Paarl
19 Feb 2003
Scorecard

38 (15.5 overs)
 Zimbabwe
 Sri Lanka
Colombo
8 Dec 2001
Scorecard

43 (19.5 overs)
 Pakistan
 West Indies
Cape Town
25 Feb 1993
Scorecard

43 (20.1 overs)
 Sri Lanka
 South Africa
Paarl
11 Jan 2012
Scorecard

Last updated: 15 February 2016[21]

text: Individual records

text: Individual records (batting)

text: Most career runs

text:
Runs
Innings
Player
Period

18,426
452
 Sachin Tendulkar
1989–2012

14,234
404
 Kumar Sangakkara
2000–2015

13,704
365
 Ricky Ponting
1995–2012

13,430
433
 Sanath Jayasuriya
1989–2011

12,650
418
 Mahela Jayawardene
1998–2015

Last updated: 15 February 2016[22]

text:
Most career runs – progression of record

Runs
Player
Record held until
Duration of record

82
 John Edrich
24 August 1972
1 year, 232 days

113
 Greg Chappell
26 August 1972
2 days

144
 Ian Chappell
28 August 1972
2 days

302
 Dennis Amiss
31 March 1974
1 year, 215 days

316
 Ian Chappell
13 July 1974
104 days

322
 Dennis Amiss
15 July 1974
2 days

400
 Keith Fletcher
5 June 1975
325 days

509
 Dennis Amiss
11 June 1975
6 days

599
 Keith Fletcher
14 June 1975
3 days

859
 Dennis Amiss[a]
21 December 1979
4 years, 190 days

867
 Greg Chappell
23 December 1979
2 days

883
 Viv Richards
26 December 1979
3 days

953
 Greg Chappell
16 January 1980
21 days

1,059
 Viv Richards
28 May 1980
133 days

1,133
 Gordon Greenidge
25 November 1980
181 days

1,154
 Greg Chappell
5 December 1980
11 days

1,211
 Viv Richards
7 December 1980
2 days

2,331
 Greg Chappell[b]
7 December 1983
3 years

6,501
 Viv Richards
9 November 1990
6 years, 337 days

8,648
 Desmond Haynes[c]
8 November 1996
5 years, 365 days

9,378
 Mohammad Azharuddin[d]
15 October 2000
3 years, 342 days

18,426
 Sachin Tendulkar[e]
Current
7003620200000000000♠16 years, 358 days

Last updated: 21 January 2016

Notes:

^[a] Dennis Amiss finished his career with 859 runs
^[b] Greg Chappell finished his career with 2,331 runs
^[c] Desmond Haynes finished his career with 8,648 runs
^[d] Mohammad Azharuddin finished his career with 9,378 runs
^[e] Sachin Tendulkar finished his career with 18,426 runs

text: Most runs in each batting position

text:
Batting position
Player
Runs
Average

Opener
 Sachin Tendulkar
15310
48.30

Number 3
 Ricky Ponting
12662
42.49

Number 4
 Mahela Jayawardene
6946
35.26

Number 5
 Arjuna Ranatunga
4675
38.64

Number 6
 MS Dhoni
3823
46.62

Number 7
 Chris Harris
2130
31.32

Number 8
 Wasim Akram
1208
17.01

Number 9
 Mashrafe Mortaza
643
12.61

Number 10
 Waqar Younis
478
11.12

Number 11
 Muttiah Muralitharan
170
5.48

Last updated: 21 September 2017[23]

text: Highest individual scores

text:
Runs
Player
Match
Venue
Date
Scorecard

264
 Rohit Sharma
 India v  Sri Lanka
Kolkata
13 November 2014
Scorecard

237*
 Martin Guptill
 New Zealand v  West Indies
Wellington
21 March 2015
Scorecard

219
 Virender Sehwag
 India v  West Indies
Indore
8 December 2011
Scorecard

215
 Chris Gayle
 West Indies v  Zimbabwe
Canberra
24 February 2015
Scorecard

209
 Rohit Sharma
 India v  Australia
Bangalore
2 November 2013
Scorecard

Last updated: 3 September 2016[24]

text: Highest individual score in chronological order (Progressive Record)

text:
Date
Runs
Player
Match Scorecard
Opponent
Notes

5 January 1971
82
 John Edrich
Scorecard
 Australia

First ever ODI fifty
Ended up in losing side

24 August 1972
103
 Dennis Amiss
Scorecard
 Australia

First ever ODI Century
Achieved while chasing target

7 September 1973
105
 Roy Fredericks
Scorecard
 England

Achieved while chasing target

31 August 1974
116*
 David Lloyd
Scorecard
 Pakistan

Lost the match

7 June 1975
137
 Dennis Amiss
Scorecard
 India

World Cup
Only player to reclaim the record

7 June 1975
171*
 Glenn Turner
Scorecard
East Africa

World Cup
First ever ODI 150
Faced maximum number of balls (209)

18 June 1983
175*
 Kapil Dev
Scorecard
 Zimbabwe

World Cup
Fastest century as on date (18 June 1983)

31 May 1984
189*
 Viv Richards
Scorecard
 England

Century stand for the last wicket

21 May 1997
194
 Saeed Anwar
Scorecard
 India

16 August 2009
194*
 Charles Coventry
Scorecard
 Bangladesh

Equaled the record but was not out.
Lost the match

24 February 2010
200*
 Sachin Tendulkar
Scorecard
 South Africa

First ever ODI double century in men's cricket

8 December 2011
219
 Virendar Sehwag
Scorecard
 West Indies

13 November 2014
264
 Rohit Sharma
Scorecard
 Sri Lanka

Current Record Holder
First ever ODI 250
First man to achieve two double hundreds in ODI Cricket history

Last updated: 31 August 2016[25]

text: Highest individual score at the position

text:
Batting position
Player
Score
Opponent
Venue
Date

Number 1
 Martin Guptill
237*
 West Indies
Eden Gardens
21 March 2015

Number 2
 Rohit Sharma
264
 Sri Lanka
Westpac Stadium
13 November 2014

Number 3
 Charles Coventry
194*
 Bangladesh
Queens Sports Club
16 August 2009

Number 4
 Vivian Richards
189*
 England
Old Trafford
31 May 1984

Number 5
 AB de Villiers
162*
 West Indies
Sydney Cricket Ground
27 February 2015

Number 6
 Kapil Dev
175*
 Zimbabwe
Nevill Ground
18 June 1983

Number 7
 Luke Ronchi
170*
 Sri Lanka
University Oval
23 January 2015

Number 8
 Chris Woakes
95*
 Sri Lanka
Trent Bridge
21 June 2016

Number 9
 Andre Russell
92*
 India
Sir Vivian Richards Stadium
11 June 2011

Number 10
 Ravi Rampaul
86*
 India
ACA-VDCA Stadium
2 December 2011

Number 11
 Mohammad Amir
58
 England
Trent Bridge
30 August 2016

Last updated: 29 January 2017[26]

text: Highest career average

text:
Average
Innings
Runs
Player
Period

67.00
32
1,541
 Ryan ten Doeschate
2006–2011

55.13
191
8,767
 Virat Kohli ‡
2008–present

53.88
31
1,455
 Babar Azam ‡
2015–present

53.58
196
6,912
 Michael Bevan
1994–2004

53.55
213
9,319
 AB de Villiers ‡
2005–present

Qualification: 20 innings
Last updated: 7 October 2017[27]

text: Highest strike rates

text:
Strike rate
Runs
Balls faced
Player
Period

130.81
985
753
 Andre Russell ‡
2011–present

123.93
2,035
1,642
 Glenn Maxwell ‡
2012–present

117.93
2,505
2,124
 Jos Buttler ‡
2012–present

117.06
590
504
 Lionel Cann
2006–2009

117.00
8,064
6,892
 Shahid Afridi
1996–2015

Qualification: 500 balls faced
Last updated: 7 October 2017[28]

text: Most centuries

text:
Centuries
Innings
Player
Period

49
452
 Sachin Tendulkar
1989–2012

30
191
 Virat Kohli ‡
2008–present

365
 Ricky Ponting
1995–2012

28
433
 Sanath Jayasuriya
1989–2011

25
153
 Hashim Amla ‡
2008–present

380
 Kumar Sangakkara
2000–2015

Last updated: 7 October 2017[29]

text: Most fifties

text:
Fifties
Innings
Player
Period

96
452
 Sachin Tendulkar
1989–2012

93
380
 Kumar Sangakkara
2000–2015

86
314
 Jacques Kallis
1996–2014

83
318
 Rahul Dravid
1996–2011

350
 Inzamam-ul-Haq
1991–2007

Last updated: 15 February 2016[30]

text: Fastest fifties

text:
Balls faced
Player
Match
Venue
Date
Scorecard

16
 AB de Villiers ‡
 South Africa v  West Indies
Johannesburg
2014–15
Scorecard

17
 Sanath Jayasuriya
 Sri Lanka v  Pakistan
Singapore
1996
Scorecard

 Kusal Perera ‡
 Sri Lanka v  Pakistan
Kandy
2015
Scorecard

 Martin Guptill ‡
 New Zealand v  Sri Lanka
Christchurch
2015–16
Scorecard

18
 Brendon McCullum
 New Zealand v  England
Wellington
2014–15
Scorecard

 Simon O'Donnell
 Australia v  Sri Lanka
Sharjah
1990
Scorecard

 Shahid Afridi
 Pakistan v  Sri Lanka
Nairobi
1996
Scorecard

 Shahid Afridi
 Pakistan v  Netherlands
Colombo
2002
Scorecard

 Glenn Maxwell ‡
 Australia v  India
Bangalore
2013
Scorecard

 Shahid Afridi
 Pakistan v  Bangladesh
Dhaka
2014
Scorecard

 Aaron Finch ‡
 Australia v  Sri Lanka
Dumbulla
2016
Scorecard

Last updated: 31 August 2016[31]

text: Fastest centuries

text:
Balls faced
Player
Match
Venue
Date
Scorecard

31
 AB de Villiers ‡
 South Africa v  West Indies
Johannesburg
2014–15
Scorecard

36
 Corey Anderson ‡
 New Zealand v  West Indies
Queenstown Events Centre
2013–14
Scorecard

37
 Shahid Afridi
 Pakistan v  Sri Lanka
Nairobi Gymkhana Club
1996
Scorecard

44
 Mark Boucher
 South Africa v  Zimbabwe
Senwes Park
2006
Scorecard

45
 Brian Lara
 West Indies v  Bangladesh
Dhaka
2006
Scorecard

 Shahid Afridi
 Pakistan v  India
Kanpur
2005
Scorecard

Last updated: 31 August 2016[32]

text: Fastest 150s

text:
Balls faced
Player
Match
Venue
Date
Scorecard

64
 AB de Villiers ‡
 South Africa v  West Indies
Sydney
2015
Scorecard

83
 Shane Watson ‡
 Australia v  Bangladesh
Dhaka
2011
Scorecard

85
 Sharjeel Khan ‡
 Pakistan v  Ireland
Malahide
2016
Scorecard

92
 Luke Ronchi ‡
 New Zealand v  Sri Lanka
Dunedin
2014–15
Scorecard

95
 Sanath Jayasuriya
 Sri Lanka v  England
Leeds
2006
Scorecard

Last updated: 31 August 2016[32]

text: Fastest double centuries

text:
Balls faced
Player
Match
Venue
Season
Scorecard

138
 Chris Gayle ‡
 West Indies v  Zimbabwe
Canberra
2014–15
Scorecard

140
 Virender Sehwag
 India v  West Indies
Indore
2011–12
Scorecard

147
 Sachin Tendulkar
 India v  South Africa
Gwalior
2009–10
Scorecard

151
 Rohit Sharma ‡
 India v  Sri Lanka
Kolkata
2014–15
Scorecard

152
 Martin Guptill ‡
 New Zealand v  West Indies
Wellington
2014–15
Scorecard

Last updated: 15 February 2016

text: Most sixes in career

text:
Sixes
Player
Innings

351
 Shahid Afridi
369

270
 Sanath Jayasuriya
433

252
 Chris Gayle ‡
268

213
 MS Dhoni ‡
263

200
 Brendon McCullum
228

Last updated: 7 October 2017[33]

text: Most fours in career

text:
Fours
Player
Innings

2016
 Sachin Tendulkar
452

1500
 Sanath Jayasuriya
433

1385
 Kumar Sangakkara
380

1231
 Ricky Ponting
365

1162
 Adam Gilchrist
279

Last updated: 15 February 2016[34]

text: Most sixes in an innings

text:
Sixes
Runs
Player
Opposition
Venue
Match date
Scorecard

16
209
 Rohit Sharma ‡
 Australia
Bangalore
02 Nov 2013
Scorecard

149
 AB de Villiers ‡
 West Indies
Johannesburg
18 Jan 2015
Scorecard

215
 Chris Gayle ‡
 Zimbabwe
Canberra
24 Feb 2015
Scorecard

15
185*
 Shane Watson
 Bangladesh
Dhaka
11 Apr 2011
Scorecard

14
131*
 Corey Anderson ‡
 West Indies
Queenstown
1 Jan 2014
Scorecard

Last updated: 31 August 2016[35]

text: Most fours in an innings

text:
Fours
Runs
Player
Opposition
Venue
Date
Scorecard

33
264
 Rohit Sharma ‡
 Sri Lanka
Kolkata
13 November 2014
Scorecard

25
200*
 Sachin Tendulkar
 South Africa
Gwalior
24 February 2010
Scorecard

219
 Virendar Sehwag
 West Indies
Indore
8 December 2011
Scorecard

24
157
 Sanath Jayasuriya
 Netherlands
Amstelveen
4 July 2006
Scorecard

237*
 Martin Guptill ‡
 West Indies
Wellington
21 March 2015
Scorecard

173
 David Warner
 South Africa
Cape Town
12 October 2016
Scorecard

Last updated: 2 December 2016[36]

text: Most runs in a calendar year

text:
Runs
Innings
Player
Year

1894
33
 Sachin Tendulkar
1998

1767
41
 Sourav Ganguly
1999

1761
43
 Rahul Dravid
1999

1611
32
 Sachin Tendulkar
1996

1601
30
 Matthew Hayden
2007

Last updated: 15 February 2016[37]

text: Most runs in an over

text:
Runs
Sequence
Batsman
Bowler
Venue
Date
Scorecard

36
6–6–6–6–6–6
 Herschelle Gibbs
 Daan van Bunge
St. Kitts
2006–07
Scorecard

35
6–W–6–6–6–4–6
 Thisara Perera ‡
 Robin Peterson
Pallekele
2013
Scorecard

34
4–(N+6)–2–(N+4)–4–4–2–6
 AB de Villiers ‡
 Jason Holder
Sydney
2014–15
Scorecard

32
4–4–6–6–6–6
 Shahid Afridi
 Malinga Bandara ‡
Abu Dhabi
2007
Scorecard

31
1–6–6–4–6–(N+4)–W–2[a]
 Kane Williamson ‡
 James Franklin ‡
 Rizwan Cheema ‡
 Harvir Baidwan ‡
Mumbai
2010–11
Scorecard

Last updated: 2 December 2016[38]

Key:

N – No ball
W – Wide

Notes:

^[a] Kane Williamson faced the first ball of the over before turning over the strike to James Franklin. Rizwan Cheema was taken out of the bowling attack after bowling the no-ball, which was his second above-the-waist full toss bowled in the innings. He was replaced by Harvir Baidwan, who bowled the last two deliveries of the over.[39]

text: Most runs in a match on the losing side

text:
Innings
Player
Runs
Opposition
Year

1st
 Charles Coventry
194*
 Bangladesh
2009

1st
 Matthew Hayden
181*
 New Zealand
2007

2nd
 Sachin Tendulkar
175
 Australia
2009

2nd
 David Warner
173
 South Africa
2016

1st
 Rohit Sharma
171*
 Australia
2016

Last updated: 1 March 2017[40]

text: Most Number of innings before first duck

text:
Innings
Player
Year

72
 Kumar Dharmasena
2001

70
 Gordon Greenidge
1986

68
 Craig McMillan
2001

67
 Chris Cairns
1997

67
 Graeme Smith
2005

Last updated: 1 March 2017[41]

text: Most Runs in an innings as captain

text:
Runs
Player
Opponents
Year

219
 Virender Sehwag
West Indies
2011

189
 Sanath Jayasuriya
India
2000

186*
 Sachin Tendulkar
New Zealand
1999

181
 Sir Vivian Richards
Sri Lanka
1987

175*
 Kapil Dev
Zimbabwe
1983

Last updated: 1 March 2017[42]

text: Most Runs in an innings as wicketkeeper batsman

text:
Runs
Player
Opponents
Year

183*
 MS Dhoni
Sri Lanka
2005

178
 Quinton de Kock
Australia
2016

172
 Adam Gilchrist
New Zealand
2004

170*
 Luke Ronchi
Sri Lanka
2015

169
 Kumar Sangakkara
South Africa
2013

Last updated: 1 March 2017[43]

text: Most Runs in a career without hundred

text:
Runs
Player
Best
Span

5122
 Misbah-ul-Haq
96*
2002–2015

3717
 Wasim Akram
86
1984–2003

3266
 Moin Khan
72*
1990–2004

2943
 Heath Streak
79*
1993–2005

2784
 Andrew Jones
93
1987–1995

Last updated: 1 March 2017[44]

text: Individual records (bowling)

text: Most wickets

text:
Wickets
Matches
Player
Period

534
350
 Muttiah Muralitharan
1993–2011

502
356
 Wasim Akram
1984–2003

416
262
 Waqar Younis
1989–2003

400
322
 Chaminda Vaas
1994–2008

395
398
 Shahid Afridi
1996–2015

Last updated: 15 February 2016[45]

text: Best innings figures

text:
Bowling figures
Player
Match
Venue
Date

8/19
 Chaminda Vaas
 Sri Lanka v  Zimbabwe
Colombo
8 December 2001

7/12
 Shahid Afridi
 Pakistan v  West Indies
Guyana
14 July 2013

7/15
 Glenn McGrath
 Australia v  Namibia
Potchefstroom
27 February 2003

7/18
 Rashid Khan
 Afghanistan v  West Indies
Gros Islet
9 June 2017

7/20
 Andy Bichel
 Australia v  England
Port Elizabeth
2 March 2003

Last updated: 10 June 2017[46]

text: Most runs conceded in an innings

text:
Runs
Bowling figures
Player
Match
Venue
Year
Scorecard

113
10–0–113–0
 Mick Lewis
 Australia v  South Africa
Johannesburg
2006
Scorecard

110
10–0–110–0
 Wahab Riaz
 Pakistan v  England
Nottingham
2016
Scorecard

106
10–0–106–1
 Bhuvneshwar Kumar ‡
 India v  South Africa
Mumbai
2015–16
Scorecard

105
12–1–105–2
 Martin Snedden
 New Zealand v  England
The Oval
1983
Scorecard

10–0–105–0
 Tim Southee ‡
 New Zealand v  India
Christchurch
2009
Scorecard

9–0–105–1
 Brian Vitori ‡
 Zimbabwe v  New Zealand
Napier
2012
Scorecard

Last updated: 30 August 2016[47]

text: Best career bowling average

text:
Bowling average
Player
Runs
Wickets

14.74
 Rashid Khan ‡
929
63

18.84
 Joel Garner
2,752
146

18.90
 Ryan Harris
832
44

18.97
 Tony Gray
835
44

19.45
 Mike Hendrick
681
35

Qualification: 1000 balls bowled
Last updated: 15 June 2017[48]

text: Best career economy rate

text:
Economy rate
Player
Balls
Runs

3.09
 Joel Garner
5,330
2,752

3.25
 Max Walker
1,006
546

3.27
 Mike Hendrick
1,248
681

3.28
 Bob Willis
3,595
1,968

3.30
 Richard Hadlee
6,182
3,407

Qualification: 1000 balls bowled
Last updated: 15 February 2016[49]

text: Best career bowling strike rate

text:
Bowling strike rate
Player
Balls
Wickets

22.2
 Rashid Khan ‡
1,401
63

23.4
 Ryan Harris
1,031
44

24.2
 Mustafizur Rahman ‡
1,067
44

24.7
 Corey Anderson ‡
1,485
60

24.8
 Hasan Ali ‡
1,044
42

Qualification: 1000 balls bowled
Last updated: 18 June 2017.[50]

text: Most 5 wickets in an innings

text:
5 wickets in an innings
Player
Matches

13
 Waqar Younis
262

10
 Muttiah Muralitharan
350

9
 Brett Lee
221

 Shahid Afridi
398

7
 Lasith Malinga ‡
194

 Glenn McGrath
250

Last updated: 12 June 2017[51]

text: Individual records (fielding)

text: Most catches in ODI career

text:
Catches
Player
Matches

218
 Mahela Jayawardene
448

160
 Ricky Ponting
375

156
 Mohammed Azharuddin
334

140
 Sachin Tendulkar
463

133
 Stephen Fleming
280

Note:The list excludes catches made as wicket-keeper.[52]
Last updated: 15 February 2016

text: Individual records (wicket-keeping)

text: Most dismissals

text:
Dismissals
Player
Innings

482 (383 catches + 99 stumpings)
 Kumar Sangakkara
353

472 (417 catches + 55 stumpings)
 Adam Gilchrist
281

424 (402 catches + 22 stumpings)
 Mark Boucher
290

389 (286 catches + 103 stumpings)
 MS Dhoni ‡
299

287 (214 catches + 73 stumpings)
 Moin Khan
209

Last updated: 24 September 2017[53]
Note. Sangakkara also took 19 catches in 44 matches when he was not the designated wicket keeper.[54]

text: Most catches

text:
Catches
Player
Innings

417
 Adam Gilchrist
281

402
 Mark Boucher
290

383
 Kumar Sangakkara
353

286
 MS Dhoni ‡
301

227
 Brendon McCullum
183

Last updated: 7 October 2017[55]
Note. Sangakkara also took 19 catches in 44 matches when he was not the designated wicket keeper.[54]

text: Most stumpings

text:
Stumpings
Player
Innings
ODI Career Span

103
 MS Dhoni‡
301
2004–present

99
 Kumar Sangakkara
353
2000–2015

75
 Romesh Kaluwitharana
185
1990–2004

73
 Moin Khan
209
1990–2004

55
 Adam Gilchrist
281
1996–2008

Last updated: 7 October 2017[56]

text: Individual records (other)

text: Most matches played

text:
Matches
Player
Period

463
 Sachin Tendulkar
1989–2012

448
 Mahela Jayawardene
1998–2015

445
 Sanath Jayasuriya
1989–2011

404
 Kumar Sangakkara
2000–2015

398
 Shahid Afridi
1996–2015

Last updated: 9 January 2016[57]

text: Partnership records

text: Highest partnerships

text:
Runs
Players
Opposition
Venue
Season

372 (2nd wicket) †
 Chris Gayle ‡ (215) &  Marlon Samuels ‡ (133*)
v  Zimbabwe
Canberra
2014–15

331 (2nd wicket)
 Sachin Tendulkar (186*) &  Rahul Dravid (153)
v  New Zealand
Hyderabad
1999–00

318 (2nd wicket)(first 300+) †
 Sourav Ganguly (183) &  Rahul Dravid (145)
v  Sri Lanka
Taunton
1999

286 (1st wicket)
 Sanath Jayasuriya (152) &  Upul Tharanga ‡ (109)
v  England
Headingley
2006

284 (1st wicket)
 David Warner ‡ (179) &  Travis Head ‡ (100)
v  Pakistan
Adelaide
2016–17

Note: † indicate partnerships, made in the Cricket World Cup.
Last updated: 26 January 2017[58]

text: Highest partnership for each wicket

text:
Wicket
Runs
Players
Opposition
Venue
Season

1st
286
 Upul Tharanga ‡ &  Sanath Jayasuriya
v  England
Headingley
2006

2nd
372
 Chris Gayle ‡ &  Marlon Samuels ‡
v  Zimbabwe
Canberra
2014–15

3rd
258
 Darren Bravo ‡ &  Denesh Ramdin ‡
v  Bangladesh
Basseterre
2014

4th
275*
 Mohammad Azharuddin &  Ajay Jadeja
v  Zimbabwe
Cuttack
1998

5th
256*
 David Miller ‡ &  JP Duminy ‡
v  Zimbabwe
Hamilton
2014–15

6th
267*
 Grant Elliott ‡ &  Luke Ronchi ‡
v  Sri Lanka
Dunedin
2015

7th
177
 Jos Buttler &  Adil Rashid
v  New Zealand
Edgbaston
2015

8th
138*
 Justin Kemp &  Andrew Hall
v  India
Cape Town
2006

9th
132
 Angelo Mathews ‡ &  Lasith Malinga ‡
v  Australia
Melbourne
2010

10th
106*
 Viv Richards &  Michael Holding
v  England
Manchester
1984

Last updated: 15 February 2016[59]


document_title: List of most-subscribed YouTube channels

question_text: who has the record for most subscribers on youtube

text: Top channels

text: All-time

text: The following table lists the fifty most subscribed channels on YouTube, with each total rounded down to the nearest million subscribers, as well as the network and language of each channel. Channels marked as "Auto-generated by YouTube" (such as Music, Gaming, Sports and Movies) and channels whose content has been transferred (such as JustinBieberVEVO and RihannaVEVO)[note 1] are excluded. As of August 2018, 33 of these channels primarily produce content in English.

text:
Rank

Chg

Channel name

Network

Primarylanguage(s)

Subscribers[2](millions)

Contentcategory[2]

1.

PewDiePie[5]

N/A

English

65

Comedy

2.

T-Series[6]

T-Series

Hindi

57

Music

3.

Justin Bieber[7]

N/A

English

40

Entertainment

4.

Canal KondZilla[8]

ONErpm

Portuguese

37

Music

5.

HolaSoyGerman.[9]

Machinima

Spanish

34

Entertainment

6.

Dude Perfect[10]

Whistle Sports

English

33

Sports

7.

Ed Sheeran[11]

WMG

Music

8.

WWE[12]

WWE

30

Sports

9.

whinderssonnunes[13]

N/A

Portuguese

Comedy

10.

Katy Perry[14]

English

Music

11.

Taylor Swift[15]

12.

elrubiusOMG[16]

TalentWeb

Spanish

Comedy

13.

Rihanna[17]

N/A

English

Entertainment

14.

5-Minute Crafts[18]

Channel Frederator

How-to

15.

EminemMusic[19]

UniversalMC

29

Music

16.

SET India[20]

Sony Pictures

Hindi

Shows

17.

Fernanfloo[21]

BroadbandTV

Spanish

Games

18.

JuegaGerman[22]

Machinima

28

19.

One Direction[23]

N/A

English

27

Music

20.

TheEllenShow[24]

Time Warner

Entertainment

21.

YouTube Spotlight[25]

Google

News

22.

Ariana Grande`[26]

N/A

25

Music

23.

Felipe Neto[27]

Disney Digital Network

Portuguese

24

Entertainment

24.

VanossGaming[28]

JETPAK

English

23

Games

25.

VEGETTA777[29]

TalentWeb

Spanish

26.

Smosh[30]

Defy Media

English

Comedy

27.

Shakira[31]

N/A

Spanish and English

22

People

28.

Spinnin' Records[32]

Spinnin' Records

English

Entertainment

29.

Bruno Mars[33]

WMG

Music

30.

Zee Music Company[34]

Zee Music Company

Hindi

21

31.

Yuya[35]

N/A

Spanish

How-to

32.

Badabun[36]

Entertainment

33.

Trap Nation[37]

The District

English

Music

34.

Markiplier[38]

Disney Digital Network

Games

35.

Luis Fonsi Oficial[39]

N/A

Spanish

Entertainment

36.

nigahiga[40]

English

37.

jacksepticeye[41]

Disney Digital Network

19

Games

38.

DanTDM[42]

StyleHaul

39.

Get Movies[43]

N/A

Russian

Shows

40.

Selena Gomez[44]

English

Films

41.

KSI[45]

StyleHaul

Entertainment

42.

ChuChu TV Nursery Rhymes & Kids Songs[46]

ChuChu TV Studios

Education

43.

Maroon 5[47]

N/A

Music

44.

rezendeevil[48]

Disney Digital Network

Portuguese

18

Games

45.

JennaMarbles[49]

N/A

English

Comedy

46.

WatchMojo.com[50]

WatchMojo

Entertainment

47.

David Guetta[51]

WMG

Music

48.

Logan Paul Vlogs[52]

Studio71

Entertainment

49.

Marshmello[53]

Spinnin' Records

17

Music

50.

Luccas Neto[54]

BroadbandTV

Portuguese

People

As of August 13, 2018

text: By country and territory

text: The following table lists the most subscribed YouTube channel in each country and territory from which at least one channel with at least five million subscribers originates, according to social media statistics compiler DBase.

text:
Country or territory

Channel

Subscribers(millions)

 Argentina

DrossRotzank[55]

14

 Australia

Wengie[56]

12

 Austria

Red Bull[57]

7

 Brazil

Canal KondZilla[58]

37

 Canada

VanossGaming[59]

23

 Chile

HolaSoyGerman.[60]

34

 Colombia

toycantando[61]

7

 El Salvador

Fernanfloo[62]

28

 France

David Guetta[63]

18

 Germany

freekickerz[64]

6

 India

T-Series[65]

57

 Indonesia

Ricis Official[66]

5

 Iraq

الرماس ميوزك[67]

7

 Ireland

jacksepticeye[68]

19

 Japan

キッズライン♡Kids Line[69]

5

 Jordan

toyorbabytv[70]

 Latvia

TrapMusicHDTV[71]

 Mexico

Yuya[72]

21

 Morocco

Saad Lamjarred | سعد لمجرد[73]

5

 Netherlands

Trap City[74]

10

 Norway

Alan Walker[75]

16

 Philippines

ABS-CBN Entertainment[76]

11

 Puerto Rico

Ozuna[77]

17

 Russia

Get Movies[78]

19

 Saudi Arabia

Rotana[79]

8

 South Korea

SMTOWN[80]

15

 Spain

elrubiusOMG[81]

30

 Sweden

PewDiePie[82]

65

 Thailand

Workpoint Official[83]

16

 Turkey

netd müzik[84]

10

 Ukraine

SlivkiShow[85]

11

 United Arab Emirates

Noor Stars[86]

8

 United Kingdom

Ed Sheeran[87]

33

 United States

Dude Perfect[88]

 Uruguay

dosogas[89]

5

 Venezuela

LA DIVAZA[90]

7

 Vietnam

FAP TV[91]

6

As of August 9, 2018

text: Historical progression of most-subscribed channels

text: The following table lists the last 16 channels to become YouTube's most subscribed channel, from May 2006 to present.

text:
Channel name

Network / owner

Country

Date achieved

Days held

Reference

PewDiePie[5]

Felix Kjellberg

 SWE

Dec 22, 2013

1695

[92]

YouTube Spotlight[25]

Google

 USA

Dec 12, 2013

10

[93][94]

PewDiePie[5]

Felix Kjellberg

 SWE

Dec 8, 2013

4

[92]

YouTube Spotlight[25]

Google

 USA

Nov 2, 2013

36

[95]

PewDiePie[5]

Felix Kjellberg

 SWE

Aug 15, 2013

80

[96]

Smosh[30]

Defy Media

 USA

Jan 12, 2013

215

[97][98]

Ray William Johnson[99]

Ray Johnson

Jun 28, 2011

564

[100][101]

nigahiga[40]

Ryan Higa

Aug 20, 2009

677

[102][103]

Fяᴇᴅ[104]

Lucas Cruikshank

Oct 6, 2008

318

[105]

nigahiga[40]

Ryan Higa

Sep 24, 2008

12

[105]

Smosh[30]

Defy Media

Apr 26, 2007

517

[106]

lonelygirl15[107]

Mesh Flinders

Sep 17, 2006

221

[108][109][110]

geriatric1927[111]

Peter Oakley

 GBR

Aug 17, 2006

31

[112]

Brookers[113]

Brooke Brodack

 USA

Jul 3, 2006

45

[114][115]

Judson Laipply[116]

Judson Laipply

Jun 12, 2006

21

[92][117]

Smosh[30]

Defy Media

May 17, 2006

26

[4]

As of December 22, 2013

text: Timeline

text: Timeline of Most Subscribed Channels (May 2006 – August 2018)

text: Reactions

text: In late 2006, when Peter Oakley, also known as Geriatric1927, became most subscribed, a number of TV channels wanted to interview him on his rise to fame.[citation needed] The Daily Mail and TechBlog published an article about him and his success.[citation needed] In 2009, the FRED channel was the first to have over one million subscribers.[118]

text: Following the third time that Smosh became most subscribed, Ray William Johnson collaborated with the duo.[119] A flurry of top YouTubers including Ryan Higa, Shane Dawson, Felix Kjellberg, Michael Buckley, Kassem Gharaibeh, The Fine Brothers, and Johnson himself, congratulated the duo shortly after they surpassed Johnson as the most subscribed channel.[120]


document_title: Organic compound

question_text: how does vitalism theory explain the organic substances in nature

text: Organic compound

text: Definitions of organic vs inorganic[edit]

text: For historical reasons discussed below, a few types of carbon-containing compounds, such as carbides, carbonates, simple oxides of carbon (for example, CO and CO2), and cyanides are considered inorganic.[3] The distinction between organic and inorganic carbon compounds, while "useful in organizing the vast subject of chemistry is somewhat arbitrary".[1]

text: Organic chemistry is the science concerned with all aspects of organic compounds. Organic synthesis is the methodology of their preparation.

text: History[edit]

text: Vitalism[edit]

text: For many centuries, Western physicians and chemists believed in vitalism. This was the widespread conception that substances found in organic nature are created from the chemical elements by the action of a "vital force" or "life-force" (vis vitalis) that only living organisms possess. Vitalism taught that these "organic" compounds were fundamentally different from the "inorganic" compounds that could be obtained from the elements by chemical manipulations.

text: Vitalism survived for a while even after the rise of modern ideas about the atomic theory and chemical elements. It first came under question in 1824, when Friedrich Wöhler synthesized oxalic acid, a compound known to occur only in living organisms, from cyanogen. A more decisive experiment was Wöhler's 1828 synthesis of urea from the inorganic salts potassium cyanate and ammonium sulfate. Urea had long been considered an "organic" compound, as it was known to occur only in the urine of living organisms. Wöhler's experiments were followed by many others, in which increasingly complex "organic" substances were produced from "inorganic" ones without the involvement of any living organism.[4]

text: Modern classification and ambiguities[edit]

text: Even though vitalism has been discredited, scientific nomenclature retains the distinction between organic and inorganic compounds. The modern meaning of organic compound is any compound that contains a significant amount of carbon—even though many of the organic compounds known today have no connection to any substance found in living organisms. The term carbogenic has been proposed by E. J. Corey as a modern alternative to organic, but this neologism remains relatively obscure.

text: The organic compound L-isoleucine molecule presents some features typical of organic compounds: carbon–carbon bonds, carbon–hydrogen bonds, as well as covalent bonds from carbon to oxygen and to nitrogen.

text: As described in detail below, any definition of organic compound that uses simple, broadly applicable criteria turns out to be unsatisfactory, to varying degrees. The modern, commonly accepted definition of organic compound essentially amounts to any carbon containing compound, excluding several classes of substances traditionally considered as 'inorganic'. However, the list of substances so excluded varies from author to author. Still, it is generally agreed upon that there are (at least) a few carbon containing compounds that should not be considered organic. For instance, almost all authorities would require the exclusion of alloys that contain carbon, including steel (which contains cementite, Fe3C), as well as other metal and semimetal carbides (including "ionic" carbides, e.g, Al4C3 and CaC2 and "covalent" carbides, e.g. B4C and SiC, and graphite intercalation compounds, e.g. KC8). Other compounds and materials that are considered 'inorganic' by most authorities include: metal carbonates, simple oxides (CO, CO2, and arguably, C3O2), the allotropes of carbon, cyanides excluding those containing an organic residue (e.g., KCN, (CN)2, BrCN, CNO−, etc.), and heavier analogs thereof (e.g., CP− 'cyaphide anion', CSe, COS; although CS2 'carbon disulfide' is often classed as an organic solvent). Halides of carbon without hydrogen (e.g., CF4 and CClF3), carboranes, metal carbonyls (e.g., nickel carbonyl), mellitic anhydride (C12O9), and other exotic oxocarbons are also considered inorganic by some authorities.

text: Nickel carbonyl (Ni(CO)4) and other metal carbonyls present an interesting case. They are often volatile liquids, like other organic compounds, yet they contain only carbon bonded to a transition metal and to oxygen and are often prepared directly from metal and carbon monoxide. Nickel carbonyl is frequently considered to be organometallic. Although many organometallic chemists employ a broad definition, in which any compound containing a carbon-metal covalent bond is considered organometallic, it is debatable whether organometallic compounds form a subset of organic compounds.[5] Metal complexes with organic ligands but no carbon-metal bonds (e.g., Cu(OAc)2) are not considered organometallic; instead they are classed as metalorganic. Likewise, it is also unclear whether metalorganic compounds should automatically be considered organic.

text: The relatively narrow definition of organic compounds as those containing C-H bonds excludes compounds that are (historically and practically) considered organic. Neither urea nor oxalic acid is organic by this definition, yet they were two key compounds in the vitalism debate. The IUPAC Blue Book on organic nomenclature specifically mentions urea[6] and oxalic acid.[7] Other compounds lacking C-H bonds but traditionally considered organic include benzenehexol, mesoxalic acid, and carbon tetrachloride. Mellitic acid, which contains no C-H bonds, is considered a possible organic substance in Martian soil.[8] Terrestrially, it, and its anhydride, mellitic anhydride, are associated with the mineral mellite.

text: A slightly broader definition of organic compound includes all compounds bearing C-H or C-C bonds. This would still exclude urea. Moreover, this definition still leads to somewhat arbitrary divisions in sets of carbon-halogen compounds. For example, CF4 and CCl4 would be considered by this rule to be "inorganic", whereas CF3H and CHCl3 would be organic, though these compounds share many physical and chemical properties.

text: Classification[edit]

text: Organic compounds may be classified in a variety of ways. One major distinction is between natural and synthetic compounds. Organic compounds can also be classified or subdivided by the presence of heteroatoms, e.g., organometallic compounds, which feature bonds between carbon and a metal, and organophosphorus compounds, which feature bonds between carbon and a phosphorus.

text: Another distinction, based on the size of organic compounds, distinguishes between small molecules and polymers.

text: Natural compounds[edit]

text: Natural compounds refer to those that are produced by plants or animals. Many of these are still extracted from natural sources because they would be more expensive to produce artificially. Examples include most sugars, some alkaloids and terpenoids, certain nutrients such as vitamin B12, and, in general, those natural products with large or stereoisometrically complicated molecules present in reasonable concentrations in living organisms.

text: Further compounds of prime importance in biochemistry are antigens, carbohydrates, enzymes, hormones, lipids and fatty acids, neurotransmitters, nucleic acids, proteins, peptides and amino acids, lectins, vitamins, and fats and oils.

text: Synthetic compounds[edit]

text: Compounds that are prepared by reaction of other compounds are known as "synthetic". They may be either compounds that already are found in plants or animals or those that do not occur naturally.

text: Most polymers (a category that includes all plastics and rubbers), are organic synthetic or semi-synthetic compounds.

text: Biotechnology[edit]

text: Many organic compounds—two examples are ethanol and insulin—are manufactured industrially using organisms such as bacteria and yeast. Typically, the DNA of an organism is altered to express compounds not ordinarily produced by the organism. Many such biotechnology-engineered compounds did not previously exist in nature.

text: Databases[edit]

text:
The CAS database is the most comprehensive repository for data on organic compounds. The search tool SciFinder is offered.
The Beilstein database contains information on 9.8 million substances, covers the scientific literature from 1771 to the present, and is today accessible via Reaxys. Structures and a large diversity of physical and chemical properties is available for each substance, with reference to original literature.
PubChem contains 18.4 million entries on compounds and especially covers the field of medicinal chemistry.

text: A great number of more specialized databases exist for diverse branches of organic chemistry.

text: Structure determination[edit]

text: The main tools are proton and carbon-13 NMR spectroscopy, IR Spectroscopy, Mass spectrometry, UV/Vis Spectroscopy and X-ray crystallography.[9]