To save 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 saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
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 saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.
Utilising Abbott’s work on professions and disciplines we trace the broad development of Social Policy in UK universities over the past 50 years. As with all subjects, Social Policy is enmeshed in continuous boundary protection, and at the same time may seek to extend jurisdiction by laying claim to areas and activities undertaken by others. We draw on a range of sources to inform our analysis including: overviews of contributions to Journal of Social Policy; reviews of selected available UK Social Policy Association documents such as newsletters; reviews of research quality (Research Assessment Exercise/Research Excellence Framework) submissions; and student numbers data. In conclusion we consider whether reassessment of some of the jurisdictional battles of the past 50 years might provide routes forward for the subject to flourish in the current environment.
The chapter concentrates on the intellectual and social identity of the author of the late twelfth-century English law book known as Glanvill, by examining his context, formation and outlook. The method is twofold: first, close engagement with the text, not just what it says, but also how it says it, not just content, but also form and language; secondly, comparison, especially with Richard fitzNigel’s Dialogue of the Exchequer, but also with works from the learned law tradition, in particular the procedural manuals known as Ordines. The chapter explores the processes of composition of the treatise; the significance of its form and style as a means of establishing authority; the ways in which the author identifies with particular courts and particular sources of law; the standing given by specialist knowledge and legal authority; and finally the possible audiences, imagined and real.
This volume is a selection of essays taken from the excellent range of papers presented at the British Legal History Conference hosted by the Institute for Legal and Constitutional Research at the University of St Andrews, 10–13 July 2019. The theme of the conference gives this book its title: ‘comparative legal history’. The topic came easily to the organisers because of their association with the St Andrews-based European Research Council Advanced grant project ‘Civil law, common law, customary law: consonance, divergence and transformation in Western Europe from the late eleventh to the thirteenth centuries’. But the chosen topic was also connected to the fact that this was, we think, the first British Legal History Conference held at a university without a Law faculty. Bearing in mind the question of how far institutional setting determines approach, our hope was that an element of fruitful comparison would stimulate people to think further about the range of approaches to legal history. With its explicit agenda of breaking down barriers, comparative legal history provided a particularly suitable focus for this investigation. After situating the subject matter of comparative legal history, and then discussing the levels of comparison that may be most fertile, this introduction moves on to considering the practical tasks of researching and writing such history, using the essays included in the volume to suggest ways ahead. The introduction groups the essays under certain headings: ‘Exploring legal transplants’; ‘Investigating broader geographical areas’; ‘Case law, precedent and relationships between legal systems’; and ‘Exploring past comparativists and the challenges of writing comparative legal history’. Yet the essays could be kaleidoscopically rearranged under many headings. We hope that the book, like a successful conference, includes many stimulating conversations.
Common Law, Civil Law, and Colonial Law builds upon the legal historian F.W. Maitland's famous observation that history involves comparison, and that those who ignore every system but their own 'hardly came in sight of the idea of legal history'. The extensive introduction addresses the intellectual challenges posed by comparative approaches to legal history. This is followed by twelve essays derived from papers delivered at the 24th British Legal History Conference. These essays explore patterns in legal norms, processes, and practice across an exceptionally broad chronological and geographical range. Carefully selected to provide a network of inter-connections, they contribute to our better understanding of legal history by combining depth of analysis with historical contextualization. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
UK trees require increased conservation efforts due to sparse and fragmented populations. Ex situ conservation, including seed banking, can be used to better manage these issues. We conducted accelerated ageing tests on seeds of 22 UK native woody species, in order to assess their likely longevity and optimize their conservation in a seed bank. Germination at four ageing time points was determined to construct survival curves, and it was concluded that multiple samples within a species showed comparable responses for most species tested, except for Fraxinus excelsior. Of all species studied, one could be classified as very short-lived, four as short-lived and 17 as medium, with none exceeding the medium category. The most important finding of this manuscript is that although some taxonomic trends were observed, the results indicate the need for caution when making broad conclusions on potential seed storage life at a species, genus or family level. Longevity predictions were compared to actual performance of older collections held in long-term storage at the Millennium Seed Bank, Kew. Although most collections remain high in viability in storage after more than 20 years, for short-lived species at least, there is some indication that accelerated ageing predicts longevity in seed bank conditions. For species with reduced potential longevity, such as Fagus sylvatica and Ulmus glabra, additional storage options are recommended for long-term gene banking.
The population history of Japan has been one of the most intensively studied anthropological questions anywhere in the world, with a huge literature dating back to the nineteenth century and before. A growing consensus over the 1980s that the modern Japanese comprise an admixture of a Neolithic population with Bronze Age migrants from the Korean peninsula was crystallised in Kazurō Hanihara's influential ‘dual structure hypothesis’ published in 1991. Here, we use recent research in biological anthropology, historical linguistics and archaeology to evaluate this hypothesis after three decades. Although the major assumptions of Hanihara's model have been supported by recent work, we discuss areas where new findings have led to a re-evaluation of aspects of the hypothesis and emphasise the need for further research in key areas including ancient DNA and archaeology.
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.
Different diagnostic interviews are used as reference standards for major depression classification in research. Semi-structured interviews involve clinical judgement, whereas fully structured interviews are completely scripted. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), a brief fully structured interview, is also sometimes used. It is not known whether interview method is associated with probability of major depression classification.
To evaluate the association between interview method and odds of major depression classification, controlling for depressive symptom scores and participant characteristics.
Data collected for an individual participant data meta-analysis of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) diagnostic accuracy were analysed and binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit.
A total of 17 158 participants (2287 with major depression) from 57 primary studies were analysed. Among fully structured interviews, odds of major depression were higher for the MINI compared with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) (odds ratio (OR) = 2.10; 95% CI = 1.15–3.87). Compared with semi-structured interviews, fully structured interviews (MINI excluded) were non-significantly more likely to classify participants with low-level depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≤6) as having major depression (OR = 3.13; 95% CI = 0.98–10.00), similarly likely for moderate-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores 7–15) (OR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.56–1.66) and significantly less likely for high-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≥16) (OR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.26–0.97).
The MINI may identify more people as depressed than the CIDI, and semi-structured and fully structured interviews may not be interchangeable methods, but these results should be replicated.
Declaration of interest
Drs Jetté and Patten declare that they received a grant, outside the submitted work, from the Hotchkiss Brain Institute, which was jointly funded by the Institute and Pfizer. Pfizer was the original sponsor of the development of the PHQ-9, which is now in the public domain. Dr Chan is a steering committee member or consultant of Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Lilly, MSD and Pfizer. She has received sponsorships and honorarium for giving lectures and providing consultancy and her affiliated institution has received research grants from these companies. Dr Hegerl declares that within the past 3 years, he was an advisory board member for Lundbeck, Servier and Otsuka Pharma; a consultant for Bayer Pharma; and a speaker for Medice Arzneimittel, Novartis, and Roche Pharma, all outside the submitted work. Dr Inagaki declares that he has received grants from Novartis Pharma, lecture fees from Pfizer, Mochida, Shionogi, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Daiichi-Sankyo, Meiji Seika and Takeda, and royalties from Nippon Hyoron Sha, Nanzando, Seiwa Shoten, Igaku-shoin and Technomics, all outside of the submitted work. Dr Yamada reports personal fees from Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd., MSD K.K., Asahi Kasei Pharma Corporation, Seishin Shobo, Seiwa Shoten Co., Ltd., Igaku-shoin Ltd., Chugai Igakusha and Sentan Igakusha, all outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests. No funder had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
If the subject of my paper derives from the desire to talk about the king whom Warren Hollister knew so well, its title derives from R.W. Southern's famous British Academy Raleigh Lecture, ‘The Place of Henry I in English History'. The lecture reappeared in his collection Medieval Humanism and Other Studies under the title ‘King Henry I’. The original title is the more appropriate, using the word ‘history’ to mean both the past and writings about the past; the lecture situates aspects of Henry's reign both within long-term historical developments and within a broad range of historiography. Here, I hope to share some of this dual aspect but concentrate on legal history, a subject upon which Southern touched but briefly. In particular, I reflect upon periodization and upon the ways in which different historians and different types of legal historiography attribute different degrees of significance to Henry's reign.
Writers in Henry I's reign and its aftermath state their opinions clearly. The author of the Leges Henrici Primi referred to the ‘formidable power [tremendum … imperium] of the royal majesty’ and to ‘the pleas of the king's court, which stand above everything'. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle stated that ‘no one dared injure another in his time. He made peace for man and beast.’ Geoffrey of Monmouth's Prophecies of Merlin referred to the ‘Lion of Justice’, who was identified with Henry. According to William of Malmesbury, By the rigour of inflexible justice he restrained his countrymen peacefully, his nobles with appropriate dignity. He showed the greatest diligence in seeking out thieves and forgers in their dens, and punishing them when found. Nor did he neglect details; having heard that broken coins, although made of good silver, were not being accepted by those making sales, he ordered that all coins should be broken or cut. He punished the false ell in use among merchants, introducing his own forearm as a standard measure for all throughout England. … At the beginning of his reign, so that by fearful example he might make a lasting impression on evildoers, he was more inclined to mutilation of limbs, later to require monetary payments.
The focus of writers was thus on Henry's power throughout his realm, his maintenance of peace, and his dealing with offences such as theft and false moneying.
Transcending the competition state/welfare state dichotomy
As we noted at the outset of the book, Cerny’s (1990) much-cited competition state thesis – and, specifically, his suggestion (with Evans: see Cerny and Evans, 1999; 2004) that the intensification of global economic competition would sound the death knell of the welfare state – provided the immediate impetus for our text. That was directly so for us as editors of the text, for we have worked for some time on exploring the veracity of their argument. Some of our colleagues included in this collection have been less concerned with directly examining the competition state thesis but have instead been engaged in detailed empirical examination of key processes or trends that Cerny and Evans placed at the core of their thesis.
In bringing together these theoretical and empirical research agendas our aim has been, firstly, to address major theoretical debates in the social sciences about how the intensification of global competition has influenced the direction of welfare state reform processes across the OECD in recent decades and, secondly, to offer empirically rooted alternatives to the ‘competition state thesis’ that can better account for how welfare states have responded to competition imperatives in reality. In this chapter we synthesise key arguments from across the book in order to set out an integrated agenda for future research and to underline the value added to these debates when they are approached from a perspective that fuses the applied empirical concerns of traditional social policy scholarship with the broader theoretical perspectives found in comparative political economy and macro-sociology.
As we noted in Chapter One, with the benefit of hindsight we can say that Cerny and Evans over-estimated the threat to the welfare state, but few dispute their central argument that welfare states across the OECD have been subjected to reform agendas that have stressed economic competitiveness. Our task here, therefore, is neither to praise nor to bury the competition state thesis, but instead to articulate a new research agenda addressing the implications of intensified global economic competition for social policy that transcends the welfare state and competition state dichotomy.