Testing procedural models of EU legislative decision-making

2009 ◽  
pp. 54-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard Steunenberg ◽  
Torsten J. Selck
1982 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. 7-8
Author(s):  
Richard DeGraw ◽  
Bette F. DeGraw

The Legislative Decision Making Process is an educational role play for graduate or undergraduate students concerning the political and pressure relationships involved in the political decision-making process. The role play reviews the implications of the decision-making processes upon the provision of services by governmental agencies.The role play engages from twenty to sixty students in a simulated budget-making and lobbying experience and utilizes this experience to teach students:1.The values and pressures considered by bureaucracies and the Legislature in decision-making;2.The relationships which exist between clients, community groups, administrators and politicians;3.The various techniques of Community Organization for lobbying and Legislative influence.The role play consists of various groups of students in roles which include legislators, administrators of three major state departments, two minor state departments, parent groups, Concerned Citizen groups, American Indians disabled individuals and ex-clients.


Author(s):  
Mehdi Bouslama ◽  
Leonardo Pisani ◽  
Diogo Haussen ◽  
Raul Nogueira

Introduction : Prognostication is an integral part of clinical decision‐making in stroke care. Machine learning (ML) methods have gained increasing popularity in the medical field due to their flexibility and high performance. Using a large comprehensive stroke center registry, we sought to apply various ML techniques for 90‐day stroke outcome predictions after thrombectomy. Methods : We used individual patient data from our prospectively collected thrombectomy database between 09/2010 and 03/2020. Patients with anterior circulation strokes (Internal Carotid Artery, Middle Cerebral Artery M1, M2, or M3 segments and Anterior Cerebral Artery) and complete records were included. Our primary outcome was 90‐day functional independence (defined as modified Rankin Scale score 0–2). Pre‐ and post‐procedure models were developed. Four known ML algorithms (support vector machine, random forest, gradient boosting, and artificial neural network) were implemented using a 70/30 training‐test data split and 10‐fold cross‐validation on the training data for model calibration. Discriminative performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUC) metric. Results : Among 1248 patients with anterior circulation large vessel occlusion stroke undergoing thrombectomy during the study period, 1020 had complete records and were included in the analysis. In the training data (n = 714), 49.3% of the patients achieved independence at 90‐days. Fifteen baseline clinical, laboratory and neuroimaging features were used to develop the pre‐procedural models, with four additional parameters included in the post‐procedure models. For the preprocedural models, the highest AUC was 0.797 (95%CI [0.75‐ 0.85]) for the gradient boosting model. Similarly, the same ML technique performed best on post‐procedural data and had an improved discriminative performance compared to the pre‐procedure model with an AUC of 0.82 (95%CI [0.77‐ 0.87]). Conclusions : Our pre‐and post‐procedural models reliably estimated outcomes in stroke patients undergoing thrombectomy. They represent a step forward in creating simple and efficient prognostication tools to aid treatment decision‐making. A web‐based platform and related mobile app are underway.


This chapter describes the ideological forms and beliefs that are considered either evangelical or liberal. The differences between these two types of faith worldviews influence legislative decision making and inform culture. To the extent that gay issues represent a cultural divide between religious traditionalism and progressivism policy outcomes are impacted by these differences.


2021 ◽  
pp. 83-108
Author(s):  
Neilan S. Chaturvedi

Chapter 4 examines the logic used by moderates in determining how to vote on legislation. Using interview data from six retired senators, Chapter 4 examines the pressures they face, both within the chamber with party leadership and outside the chamber with constituents and interest groups. While conventional wisdom would dictate that moderates vote only for legislation that they find palatable, and vote against all else, using data collected by Project Vote Smart capturing the issue positions of many senators, we see that all too often this is not the case—centrists get “railroaded” by leaders and vote with the majority, even when the legislation goes against their stated position. Using voting decisions on key votes and publicly stated positions by senators, the chapter then creates a logic model that illustrates how moderates decide how to vote on legislation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document