We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
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 no-reply@cambridge.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.
This study uses a rational choice approach to argue that an under-theorized and rarely tested cause of governmental discrimination against religious minorities is its popularity. Specifically, we argue that self-interested politicians are more likely to enact discriminatory policies when they believe said discrimination will be popular. These policies, in turn, have payoffs via increased public perceptions of governmental legitimacy. Using the Religion and State project, round 3 and World Values Survey data for members of the majority religion between 1990 and 2014 in 58 Christian-majority countries, we demonstrate that prejudice against members of other religions predicts increased governmental religious discrimination, which is, in turn, associated with higher confidence in government, legislatures, and political parties. While our results are specific to discrimination against religious minorities, this suggests that when discrimination against minorities in general is popular, politicians are likely to oblige.
Clinical trials provide the “gold standard” evidence for advancing the practice of medicine, even as they evolve to integrate real-world data sources. Modern clinical trials are increasingly incorporating real-world data sources – data not intended for research and often collected in free-living contexts. We refer to trials that incorporate real-world data sources as real-world trials. Such trials may have the potential to enhance the generalizability of findings, facilitate pragmatic study designs, and evaluate real-world effectiveness. However, key differences in the design, conduct, and implementation of real-world vs traditional trials have ramifications in data management that can threaten their desired rigor.
Methods:
Three examples of real-world trials that leverage different types of data sources – wearables, medical devices, and electronic health records are described. Key insights applicable to all three trials in their relationship to Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) are derived.
Results:
Insight and recommendations are given on four topic areas: A. Charge of the DSMB; B. Composition of the DSMB; C. Pre-launch Activities; and D. Post-launch Activities. We recommend stronger and additional focus on data integrity.
Conclusions:
Clinical trials can benefit from incorporating real-world data sources, potentially increasing the generalizability of findings and overall trial scale and efficiency. The data, however, present a level of informatic complexity that relies heavily on a robust data science infrastructure. The nature of monitoring the data and safety must evolve to adapt to new trial scenarios to protect the rigor of clinical trials.
Site-specific weed management (on the scale of a few meters or less) has the potential to greatly reduce pesticide use and its associated environmental and economic costs. A prerequisite for site-specific weed management is the availability of accurate maps of the weed population that can be generated quickly and cheaply. Improvements and cost reductions in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and camera technology mean these tools are now readily available for agricultural use. We used UAVs to collect aerial images captured in both RGB and multispectral formats of 12 cereal fields (wheat [Triticum aestivum L.] and barley [Hordeum vulgare L.]) across eastern England. These data were used to train machine learning models to generate prediction maps of locations of black-grass (Alopecurus myosuroides Huds.), a prolific weed in UK cereal fields. We tested machine learning and data set resampling methods to obtain the most accurate system for predicting the presence and absence of weeds in new out-of-sample fields. The accuracy of the system in predicting the absence of A. myosuroides is 69% and its presence above 5 g in weight with 77% accuracy in new out-of-sample fields. This system generates prediction maps that can be used by either agricultural machinery or autonomous robotic platforms for precision weed management. Improvements to the accuracy can be made by increasing the number of fields and samples in the data set and the length of time over which data are collected to gather data across the entire growing season.
Most assume that when governments support a religion, they do so in the hope that they will increase their legitimacy. However, a growing literature implies that support for religion may decrease a government’s legitimacy for three reasons. First, political secularism, an ideology mandating the separation of religion and state or state restrictions on religion, is increasingly popular. Second, state support for religion can undermine religious vitality. Third, support for religion entails an element of government control over religion which can undermine the perceived authenticity of a religion. We test this support–legitimacy relationship in Christian-majority countries from 1990 to 2014 using the Religion and State and World Values Survey data, comprising 54 countries and 126 country years. We find that state support for religion is associated with lower levels of individual confidence in government. We posit this has important implications for our understanding of the underpinnings of legitimacy.
The US government invests substantial sums to control the HIV/AIDS epidemic. To monitor progress toward epidemic control, PEPFAR, or the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, oversees a data reporting system that includes standard indicators, reporting formats, information systems, and data warehouses. These data, reported quarterly, inform understanding of the global epidemic, resource allocation, and identification of trouble spots. PEPFAR has developed tools to assess the quality of data reported. These tools made important contributions but are limited in the methods used to identify anomalous data points. The most advanced consider univariate probability distributions, whereas correlations between indicators suggest a multivariate approach is better suited. For temporal analysis, the same tool compares values to the averages of preceding periods, though does not consider underlying trends and seasonal factors. To that end, we apply two methods to identify anomalous data points among routinely collected facility-level HIV/AIDS data. One approach is Recommender Systems, an unsupervised machine learning method that captures relationships between users and items. We apply the approach in a novel way by predicting reported values, comparing predicted to reported values, and identifying the greatest deviations. For a temporal perspective, we apply time series models that are flexible to include trend and seasonality. Results of these methods were validated against manual review (95% agreement on non-anomalies, 56% agreement on anomalies for recommender systems; 96% agreement on non-anomalies, 91% agreement on anomalies for time series). This tool will apply greater methodological sophistication to monitoring data quality in an accelerated and standardized manner.
Perturbations to the gut microbiome are implicated in altered neurodevelopmental trajectories that may shape life span risk for emotion dysregulation and affective disorders. However, the sensitive periods during which the microbiome may influence neurodevelopment remain understudied. We investigated relationships between gut microbiome composition across infancy and temperament at 12 months of age. In 67 infants, we examined if gut microbiome composition assessed at 1–3 weeks, 2, 6, and 12 months of age was associated with temperament at age 12 months. Stool samples were sequenced using the 16S Illumina MiSeq platform. Temperament was assessed using the Infant Behavior Questionnaire-Revised (IBQ-R). Beta diversity at age 1–3 weeks was associated with surgency/extraversion at age 12 months. Bifidobacterium and Lachnospiraceae abundance at 1–3 weeks of age was positively associated with surgency/extraversion at age 12 months. Klebsiella abundance at 1–3 weeks was negatively associated with surgency/extraversion at 12 months. Concurrent composition was associated with negative affectivity at 12 months, including a positive association with Ruminococcus-1 and a negative association with Lactobacillus. Our findings support a relationship between gut microbiome composition and infant temperament. While exploratory due to the small sample size, these results point to early and late infancy as sensitive periods during which the gut microbiome may exert effects on neurodevelopment.
Despite the obvious complexity of the world we live in, there is a desire for simple easy-to-understand principles to help us comprehend it. This is one of the roles of theories and models, to take a complex reality and simplify it sufficiently so we can better understand it. Of course, we acknowledge that reality is more complex, but some of this complexity is sacrificed to achieve better understanding. Because of this, it is popular in academic literature when addressing a topic to form a basic parsimonious theory that “explains” the topic at hand.
This chapter focuses on Western democracies and those former-Soviet Christian-majority democracies that do not have Orthodox Christian majorities. As this is a somewhat awkward label for a group of states, I refer to them in this chapter as European and Western non-Orthodox Christian-majority democracies (EWNOCMD). For operational purposes I define democracy here as any state that scores 8 or higher on the Polity index which measures countries on a scale of –10 (most autocratic) to 10 (most democratic) (The Polity Project, 2018). I include countries with no polity score if the Freedom House democracy index determined them to be “free” (Abramowitz, 2018).
Much of the literature on human rights in general and religious freedom in particular focuses on how governments restrict religious freedom and human rights. Yet nonstate actors are often responsible for frequent and severe discrimination. Rodney Stark and Katie Corcoran (Chapter 2, government-based religious discrimination (GRD) is also very common. So it is perhaps more accurate to say that these “civilian warriors” are working in parallel to or in some cases in conjunction with their governments. This complex relationship between SRD and GRD is a recurring theme throughout this book.
This chapter examines discrimination in nondemocracies that are not Western or European democracies, communist, Muslim-majority, Buddhist-majority, or Orthodox-majority. I designate these thirty-eight countries “The Rest Nondemocracies” (TRND). Other than Bosnia,1 they are found in Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America and contain 148 religious minorities that are included in the RASM dataset.
Religious discrimination is one of a series of contested terms including religious freedom, religious tolerance or intolerance, religious repression, and religious human rights. There is no agreement in the literature on what these terms, and other related terms, mean. Accordingly, it is critical to define one’s terms when addressing any of these issues in order to achieve transparency on what is being discussed.
The causes of discrimination are complex, diverse, and crosscutting. This is further complicated by the fact that the multiple causes of government religious discrimination (GRD) manifest differently in different settings. This chapter examines levels of GRD in an eclectic group of states: Christian-Orthodox-majority states, Buddhist-majority states, and Communist states. While this may seem to be an odd grouping of states, there are at least four commonalities between them. First, each of these groupings contains relatively few states. Second, GRD is distinctly common in these states and high in many of them, though the reasons for this differs across groupings. Third, some form of ideology and government religion policy both play a strong role in causing GRD in these states, but the many other causes of GRD also play an important role. Fourth, as I discuss later, GRD against Christians is particularly high in these countries. Orthodox-majority states focus this GRD on Christian denominations they consider nonindigenous, mostly North American protestant denominations. The Buddhist-majority and Communist states seems more generally hostile to Christians, most of whom they also consider nonindigenous and in some cases a threat to the state.
The previous chapters covered the West, the former-Soviet Bloc (except Bosnia),1 as well as all Muslim-majority, Orthodox-majority, Buddhist-majority, and Communist states around the world. This and the following chapter focus on “the rest,” that is, all states that do not fit into these categories. This chapter focuses on the democratic states in this category and refers to them as “the rest-democracies” (TRD). These 32 countries and 166 minorities are found primarily in Latin America, Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa, and the majority of them, but by no means all of them, are Christian-majority. As I did in Chapter 5, for operational purposes I define democracy here as any state that scores 8 or higher on the Polity index, which measures countries on a scale of –10 (most autocratic) to 10 (most democratic) (The Polity Project, 2018). Countries with no polity score were included if they were determined to be “free” by the Freedom House democracy index (Abramowitz, 2018).
The nature of a government’s relationship with the majority religion, in this case Islam, is a significant factor in understanding government-based religious discrimination (GRD). As I show in subsequent chapters, this is also true of other groupings of states, but this relationship is arguably most pronounced in Muslim-majority states. My focus on this factor is not intended to deny the influence of other factors such as societal religious discrimination (SRD), which I also address in this chapter. Rather, I intend to emphasize the importance of this factor in this segment of the world’s countries due to its significant explanatory value.