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.
The Ratio-Bias phenomenon, observed by psychologist Seymour Epstein and colleagues, is a systematic manifestation of irrationality. When offered a choice between two lotteries, individuals consistently choose the lottery with the greater number of potential successes, even when it offers a smaller probability of success. In the current study, we conduct experiments to confirm this phenomenon and test for the existence of Bias as distinct from general irrationality. Moreover, we examine the effect of introducing a monetary incentive of varying size (depending on the treatment) on the extent of irrational choices within this framework. We confirm the existence of the Bias. Moreover, the existence of an incentive significantly reduces the extent of irrationality exhibited, and that this effect is roughly linear in response to changes in the size of the incentive within the magnitudes investigated.
Considerable heterogeneity exists in treatment response to first-line posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatments, such as Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT). Relatively little is known about the timing of when during a course of care the treatment response becomes apparent. Novel machine learning methods, especially continuously updating prediction models, have the potential to address these gaps in our understanding of response and optimize PTSD treatment.
Using data from a 3-week (n = 362) CPT-based intensive PTSD treatment program (ITP), we explored three methods for generating continuously updating prediction models to predict endpoint PTSD severity. These included Mixed Effects Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (MixedBART), Mixed Effects Random Forest (MERF) machine learning models, and Linear Mixed Effects models (LMM). Models used baseline and self-reported PTSD symptom severity data collected every other day during treatment. We then validated our findings by examining model performances in a separate, equally established, 2-week CPT-based ITP (n = 108).
Results across approaches were very similar and indicated modest prediction accuracy at baseline (R2 ~ 0.18), with increasing accuracy of predictions of final PTSD severity across program timepoints (e.g. mid-program R2 ~ 0.62). Similar findings were obtained when the models were applied to the 2-week ITP. Neither the MERF nor the MixedBART machine learning approach outperformed LMM prediction, though benefits of each may differ based on the application.
Utilizing continuously updating models in PTSD treatments may be beneficial for clinicians in determining whether an individual is responding, and when this determination can be made.
A suspected glyphosate-resistant Italian ryegrass biotype was collected from a filbert orchard near Portland, OR, where glyphosate was applied multiple times per year for about 15 yr. Greenhouse studies were conducted to determine if this biotype was glyphosate resistant. The plants were sprayed with glyphosate (0.01 to 3.37 kg ae ha−1) 14 d after planting and shoot biomass was determined 3 wk after herbicide treatment. Based on the dose–response experiments conducted in the greenhouse, the suspected Italian ryegrass biotype was approximately fivefold more resistant to glyphosate than the susceptible biotype. Plants from both susceptible and resistant biotypes were treated with glyphosate (0.42 and 0.84 kg ha−1) and shikimic acid was extracted 12, 24, 48, and 96 h after treatment. The susceptible biotype accumulated between three and five times more shikimic acid than did the resistant biotype. Leaf segments from both susceptible and resistant biotypes were incubated with different glyphosate concentrations (0.5 to 3000 μM) for 14 h under continuous light. Shikimic acid was extracted from each leaf segment and quantified. At a concentration up to 100 μM, leaf segments from the susceptible biotype accumulated more shikimic acid than leaf segments from the resistant biotype. The epsps gene was amplified and sequenced in both susceptible and resistant biotypes; however, no amino acid change was found in the resistant biotype. The level of resistance in this biotype is similar to that reported for a glyphosate-resistant Italian ryegrass biotype from Chile.
In recent years, there has been renewed interest in the question of whether Ronald Dworkin was correct to allege that legal positivists are unable to account for theoretical disagreement about law. However, relatively little attention has been paid to the related question of who can best account for agreement about law. An important exception is Brian Leiter’s argument that there is massive and pervasive agreement in legal judgments and that positivism can account for this agreement but Dworkin cannot. In this article, I argue that Dworkin can account for such agreement, and that his explanation is no less straightforward than the positivist’s. I further contend that Leiter’s strategy for explaining theoretical disagreement is weakened once we recognise that Dworkin has a plausible explanation of agreement in legal judgments. I conclude by exploring how we might choose between the positivist’s and Dworkin’s competing explanations of agreement in legal judgments.
In 2008, avian bornaviruses (ABV) were identified as the cause of proventricular dilatation disease (PDD). PDD is a significant condition of captive parrots first identified in the late 1970s. ABV infection has subsequently been shown to be widespread in wild waterfowl across the United States and Canada where the virus infects 10–20% of some populations of ducks, geese and swans. In most cases birds appear to be healthy and unaffected by the presence of the virus; however, infection can also result in severe non-suppurative encephalitis and lesions similar to those seen in parrots with PDD. ABVs are genetically diverse with seven identified genotypes in parrots and one in canaries. A unique goose genotype (ABV-CG) predominates in waterfowl in Canada and the northern United States. ABV appears to be endemic in North American waterfowl, in comparison to what appears to be an emerging disease in parrots. It is not known whether ABV can spread between waterfowl and parrots. The discovery of ABV infection in North American waterfowl suggests that European waterfowl should be evaluated for the presence of ABV, and also as a possible reservoir species for Borna disease virus (BDV), a related neurotropic virus affecting horses and sheep in central Europe. Although investigations have suggested that BDV is likely derived from a wildlife reservoir, for which the shrew and water vole are currently prime candidates, we suggest that the existence of other mammalian and avian reservoirs should not be discounted.
Joseph Raz famously argues that given that the law necessarily claims authority and given the account of authority he provides, exclusive legal positivism is the only tenable theory of law. In this article, I contend that even if one accepts that the law necessarily claims authority and that Raz's account of authority is correct, it does not follow that exclusive legal positivism is the only tenable theory of law. This is because even if the law necessarily claims authority, it need not be capable of satisfying the requirements for possessing authority laid down by the correct account of authority. Thus, even if exclusive legal positivism is the only theory of law according to which the law can satisfy those requirements, this does not show that exclusive legal positivism is correct.
We present photometry and spectroscopy of the peculiar Type II supernova SN 2010jp, also named PTF10aaxi. The light curve exhibits a linear decline with a relatively low peak absolute magnitude of only −15.9 (unfiltered), and a low radioactive decay luminosity at late times that suggests a low synthesized nickel mass of about 0.003 M⊙ or less. Spectra of SN 2010jp display an unprecedented triple-peaked Hα line profile, showing: (1) a narrow central component that suggests shock interaction with a dense circumstellar medium (CSM); (2) high-velocity blue and red emission features centered at −12,600 and +15,400 km s−1; and (3) very broad wings extending from −22,000 to +25,000 km s−1. We propose that this line profile indicates a bipolar jet-driven explosion, with the central component produced by normal SN ejecta and CSM interaction at mid and low latitudes, while the high-velocity bumps and broad line wings arise in a nonrelativistic bipolar jet. Jet-driven SNe II are predicted for collapsars resulting from a wide range of initial masses above 25 M⊙, especially at the sub-solar metallicity consistent with the SN host environment. It also seems consistent with the apparently low 56Ni mass that may accompany black hole formation. We speculate that the jet survives to produce observable signatures because the star's H envelope was very low mass, having been mostly stripped away by the previous eruptive mass loss.
Twenty-three years after its publication, Maurice Merleau-Ponty's The Visible and the Invisible remains a philosophical enigma. Consider, for example, the curious niche the work occupies within the body of phenomenological literature. The Visible and the Invisible is frequently cited for its study of the residual problem areas of phenomenology—the relationship of consciousness to the perceptual milieu and, more recently, the relationship of language to the world—while its proposed solutions to such problems remain largely ignored.
This article examines the properties and relative strengths of two approaches to reducing barriers to trade among nations: multilateral negotiating rounds versus regional economic blocs. Instead of focusing on the net welfare gains—the macro-level effects—that result either from each member of the system reducing trade barriers to all its partners (rounds) or from reductions among a subset of states (blocs), the analysis focuses on the institutional features (group size and the voting and enforcement mechanisms) that may affect individual nations' micro-level motivations to participate in and abide by certain trade arrangements. Existing models in formal theory are used to analyze these approaches in terms of voting games and collective action models.