To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The fusion of law and equity in common law systems was a crucial moment in the development of the modern law. Common law and equity were historically the two principal sources of rules and remedies in the judge-made law of England, and this bifurcated system travelled to other countries whose legal systems were derived from the English legal system. The division of law and equity - their fission - was a pivotal legal development and is a feature of most common law systems. The fusion of the common law and equity has brought about major structural, institutional and juridical changes within the common law tradition. In this volume, leading scholars undertake historical, comparative, doctrinal and theoretical analysis that aims to shed light on the ways in which law and equity have fused, and the ways in which they have remained distinct even in a 'post-fusion' world.
Item 9 of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) queries about thoughts of death and self-harm, but not suicidality. Although it is sometimes used to assess suicide risk, most positive responses are not associated with suicidality. The PHQ-8, which omits Item 9, is thus increasingly used in research. We assessed equivalency of total score correlations and the diagnostic accuracy to detect major depression of the PHQ-8 and PHQ-9.
We conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis. We fit bivariate random-effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy.
16 742 participants (2097 major depression cases) from 54 studies were included. The correlation between PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 scores was 0.996 (95% confidence interval 0.996 to 0.996). The standard cutoff score of 10 for the PHQ-9 maximized sensitivity + specificity for the PHQ-8 among studies that used a semi-structured diagnostic interview reference standard (N = 27). At cutoff 10, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive by 0.02 (−0.06 to 0.00) and more specific by 0.01 (0.00 to 0.01) among those studies (N = 27), with similar results for studies that used other types of interviews (N = 27). For all 54 primary studies combined, across all cutoffs, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive than the PHQ-9 by 0.00 to 0.05 (0.03 at cutoff 10), and specificity was within 0.01 for all cutoffs (0.00 to 0.01).
PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 total scores were similar. Sensitivity may be minimally reduced with the PHQ-8, but specificity is similar.
Academics teach engineering design based on design theory and best practices, practitioners teach design based on their experience. Is there a difference between them? There appears to be little prior work in comparing the design processes of design academics and practitioners. This paper presents a case study in which the design activity of a team of academics was compared to that of a team of practitioners. The participants’ verbalizations during team discussions were coded using the Function- Behaviour-Structure (FBS) ontology. A qualitative comparison reveals that the team of practitioners constructs the design space earlier and generally spends more time in the solution space than the team of academics. Further, the team of practitioners has a significant number of direct transitions from function (F) to structure (S), while no such transitions are observed for the team of academics. Given that this is a single case study, the results cannot be used as the basis for any generalizations on how academics and practitioners compare. This is a successful proof of methodologies that lay the foundation for a series of hypotheses to be tested in a future study.
Continued progress in artificial intelligence (AI) and associated demonstrations of superhuman performance have raised the expectation that AI can revolutionize scientific discovery in general and materials science specifically. We illustrate the success of machine learning (ML) algorithms in tasks ranging from machine vision to game playing and describe how existing algorithms can also be impactful in materials science, while noting key limitations for accelerating materials discovery. Issues of data scarcity and the combinatorial nature of materials spaces, which limit application of ML techniques in materials science, can be overcome by exploiting the rich scientific knowledge from physics and chemistry using additional AI techniques such as reasoning, planning, and knowledge representation. The integration of these techniques in materials-intelligent systems will enable AI governance of the scientific method and autonomous scientific discovery.
Nearly all societies are bilingual (Appel & Muysken, 2006), a fact which places monolingualism in the minority. Multilingual individuals who live within the same national borders use the official language of the country in addition to their own to survive socially and economically. Globally, the position of English as a lingua franca has compelled people to learn it (Ur, 2010), which might suggest that in most cases, bilingualism is really understood as proficiency in English plus another language. In immigration contexts, families have to learn the dominant language—normally the most prestigious language—to be integrated to the new community, usually suppressing their minority language. According to Ferreira et al. (2016), the learners’ attitude towards the more prestigious linguistic group might have a positive impact on learning the new language, but maintaining the heritage language and culture seems to be an arduous task, even though the maintenance of heritage culture has benefits for first language (L1) literacy skills in addition to cognitive-linguistic variables, favouring a bi-dimensional model of acculturation (Berry, 1990).