scholarly journals What’s in a (Change of) Name? Much—but Not That Much—and Not What Wiebe Claims

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Satoko Fujiwara ◽  
Tim Jensen
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Executive Committee ◽  
International Association ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Academic Standards ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Points Of View ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Consultative Body

Abstract Donald Wiebe claims that the IAHR leadership (already before an Extended Executive Committee (EEC) meeting in Delphi) had decided to water down the academic standards of the IAHR with a proposal to change its name to “International Association for the Study of Religions.” His criticism, we argue, is based on a series of misunderstandings as regards: 1) the difference between the consultative body (EEC) and the decision-making body (EC), 2) the difference between the preliminary points of view of individuals and final proposals by the EC, 3) personal conversations, 4) the link between the proposal to change the name and the wish to tighten up the academic profile of the IAHR. Moreover, if the final decision-making bodies, the International Committee and the General Assembly, adopt the proposal, the new name as little as the old can make the IAHR more or less scientific. Tightening up the academic, scientific profile of the IAHR takes more than a change of name.

scholarly journals Developing an approach for decision making units integration using multi objective particle swarm optimization

2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdorrahman Haeri ◽  
Kamran Rezaie ◽  
Seyed Morteza Hatefi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Particle Swarm Optimization ◽  
Performance Measures ◽  
Particle Swarm ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Swarm Optimization ◽  
Multi Objective ◽  
Decision Making Unit ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Decision Making Units

In recent years, integration between companies, suppliers or organizational departments attracted much attention. Decision making about integration encounters with major concerns. One of these concerns is which units should be integrated and what is the effect of integration on performance measures. In this paper the problem of decision making unit (DMU) integration is considered. It is tried to integrate DMUs so that the considered criteria are satisfied. In this research two criteria are considered that are mean of efficiencies of DMUs and the difference between DMUs that have largest and smallest efficiencies. For this purpose multi objective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO) is applied. A case with 17 DMUs is considered. The results show that integration has increased both considered criteria effectively.  Additionally this approach can presents different alternatives for decision maker (DM) that enables DM to select the final decision for integration.

scholarly journals The first President of the IAU, Benjamin Baillaud

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (S349) ◽  
pp. 139-146
Author(s):  
Jean-Louis Bougeret
Keyword(s):  
Celestial Mechanics ◽  
Executive Committee ◽  
International Research ◽  
Research Council ◽  
International Committee ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Level ◽  
International Astronomical Union ◽  
International Astronomical ◽  
The University

AbstractBenjamin Baillaud was appointed president of the First Executive Committee of the International Astronomical Union which met in Brussels during the Constitutive Assembly of the International Research Council (IRC) on July 28th, 1919. He served in this position until 1922, at the time of the First General Assembly of the IAU which took place in Rome, May 2–10. At that time, Baillaud was director of the Paris Observatory. He had previously been director of the Toulouse Observatory for a period of 30 years and Dean of the School of Sciences of the University of Toulouse. He specialized in celestial mechanics and he was a strong supporter of the “Carte du Ciel” project; he was elected chairman of the permanent international committee of the Carte du Ciel in 1909. He also was the founding president of the Bureau International de l’Heure (BIH) and he was directly involved in the coordination of the ephemerides at an international level. In this paper, we present some of his activities, particularly those concerning international programmes, for which he received international recognition and which eventually led to his election in 1919 to the position of first president of the IAU. We also briefly recount the very first meetings and years of the IAU.

scholarly journals What is the role of antineoplastic drug safety in reimbursement decision making?

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 38-42
Author(s):  
A. S. Kolbin ◽  
A. A. Kurylev
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Drug Safety ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Type A ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Parametric Statistics ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Difference

Rationale. From 2014 to 2017, the portion of antineoplastic drugs dossiers submitted to reimbursement in Russia has grown from 15% to 28%. This group of drugs is characterized by severe adverse events (Aes). The question whether drug safety is taken into consideration by decision makers is still open.Aim: To evaluate the role of drug safety in making the decision on reimbursement.Materials and methods. The data were taken from the reports of expert committees concerning the dossiers submitted between 2014 and 2016. The year of submission, the international drug name, the total safety score and the final decision of the committee were entered into our database. Parametric and non-parametric statistics were used to calculate the difference between the mean safety scores plotted by years and by inclusion/noninclusion into VeD lists.Results. The mean safety score for all drugs of this group was -4,67 (95% CI from -5,04 to -4,29); for the drugs included into VeD lists it was -4,05 (95% CI from -4,68 to -3,42), that was significantly higher (p = 0,01) compared to the non-included medications (-5,03; 95% CI from -5,49 to -4,58). The mean safety scores year-by-year for the non-included drugs were lower than those for the VeD-included drugs, but the difference reached significance only in 2015 (p = 0,01). The safety scores were mainly based on Aes of type A.Conclusion. our analysis shows that the drug safety data play a role in the decision making on reimbursement and inclusion/noninclusion into VeD lists. Yet the total safety score contributes much less than other criteria in the decision making process. The safety analysis is usually based on Aes of type A, whereas the data on Aes of types C and D are insufficient. 

Couple dynamics in family holidays decision-making process

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 601-617 ◽  
Author(s):  
María-Mercedes Rojas-de-Gracia ◽  
Pilar Alarcón-Urbistondo ◽  
Eva María González Robles
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Binary Logistic Regression ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Joint Decision ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Initiation Phase ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Couple Dynamics ◽  
Search For Information

Purpose Family holiday decision-making (FHDM) is a process composed of several stages. This paper aims to describe two objectives: to identify at each stage the roles in couples, the main decision-maker in the case of family holidays; and to determine the most influential variables. Design/methodology/approach To identify the roles played by the partners, a frequency analysis has been conducted, which provides a graphic representation of the so-called feasibility triangles. The technique selected to identify the variables that explained the decision structure was binary logistic regression. In total, 375 useful dyads of questionnaires were received. Findings Holidays follow a joint decision-making process in the initiation phase and in the final decision, while the search for information is carried out equally by either partner. The woman’s work situation, the type of destination travelled to and the difference in education levels between them are the variables that best explain how couples decide on their family holidays. Practical implications A better understanding of the FHDM process will help tourism companies to improve their marketing campaigns. Originality/value The characteristics of the sample composed of 375 couples whose members completed a questionnaire separately have allowed not have to rely on one response per household, which adds reliability to the results. This sample is higher than the one of many reference publications on the subject. Furthermore, this paper revealed differences between male and female perception.

How multidisciplinary are multidisciplinary case reviews in cancer care? Feasibility analysis of a theory-driven team decision-making fidelity framework

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tayana Soukup ◽  
Ged Murtagh ◽  
Ben W Lamb ◽  
James Green ◽  
Nick Sevdalis
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Recent Decade ◽  
Individual Case ◽  
Multidisciplinary Teams ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Political Climate ◽  
Implementation Framework ◽  
Feasibility Evaluation ◽  
The Uk

Background Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are a standard cancer care policy in many countries worldwide. Despite an increase in research in a recent decade on MDTs and their care planning meetings, the implementation of MDT-driven decision-making (fidelity) remains unstudied. We report a feasibility evaluation of a novel method for assessing cancer MDT decision-making fidelity. We used an observational protocol to assess (1) the degree to which MDTs adhere to the stages of group decision-making as per the ‘Orientation-Discussion-Decision-Implementation’ framework, and (2) the degree of multidisciplinarity underpinning individual case reviews in the meetings. MethodsThis is a prospective observational study. Breast, colorectal and gynaecological cancer MDTs in the Greater London and Derbyshire (United Kingdom) areas were video recorded over 12-weekly meetings encompassing 822 case reviews. Data were coded and analysed using frequency counts.Results Eight interaction formats during case reviews were identified. case reviews were not always multi-disciplinary: only 8% of overall reviews involved all five clinical disciplines present, and 38% included four of five. The majority of case reviews (i.e. 54%) took place between two (25%) or three (29%) disciplines only. Surgeons (83%) and oncologists (8%) most consistently engaged in all stages of decision-making. While all patients put forward for MDT review were actually reviewed, a small percentage of them (4%) either bypassed the orientation (case presentation) and went straight into discussing the patient, or they did not articulate the final decision to the entire team (8%). Conclusions Assessing fidelity of MDT decision-making at the point of their weekly meetings is feasible. We found that despite being a set policy, case reviews are not entirely MDT-driven. We discuss implications in relation to the current eco-political climate, and the quality and safety of care. Our findings are in line with the current national initiatives in the UK on streamlining MDT meetings, and could help decide how to re-organise them to be most efficient.

Reasonable Bounds on Rationality

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Igor Grossmann ◽  
Richard Eibach
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Bounded Rationality ◽  
Cognitive Resources ◽  
Previous Theory ◽  
Making Choices ◽  
Points Of View ◽  
Sound Judgment

Previous theory and research on bounded rationality has emphasized how limited cognitive resources constrain people from making utility maximizing choices. This paper expands the concept of bounded rationality to consider how people’s rationality may be constrained by their internalization of a qualitatively distinct standard for sound judgment, which is commonly labeled reasonableness. In contrast to rationality, the standard of reasonableness provides guidance for making choices in situations that involve balancing incommensurable values and interests or reconciling conflicting points-of-view. We review recent evidence showing that laypeople readily recognize the distinctions between rationality and reasonableness and thus are able to utilize these as distinct standards to inform their everyday decision-making. The fact that people appear to have internalized rationality and reasonableness as distinct standards of sound judgment supports the notion that people’s pursuit of rationality may be bounded by their determination to also be reasonable.

Information support for expert evaluation of the states of the external environment

2020 ◽  
pp. 71-76
Author(s):  
Rasol Murtadha Najah
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Environmental Conditions ◽  
Fuzzy Inference ◽  
Environmental Parameters ◽  
Information Support ◽  
Expert Assessment ◽  
Fuzzy Variables ◽  
Decision Making Models ◽  
The Difference ◽  
State Of The Environment

This article discusses the application of methods to enhance the knowledge of experts to build a decision-making model based on the processing of physical data on the real state of the environment. Environmental parameters determine its ecological state. To carry out research in the field of expert assessment of environmental conditions, the analysis of known works in this field is carried out. The results of the analysis made it possible to justify the relevance of the application of analytical, stochastic models and models based on methods of enhancing the knowledge of experts — experts. It is concluded that the results of using analytical and stochastic objects are inaccurate, due to the complexity and poor mathematical description of the objects. The relevance of developing information support for an expert assessment of environmental conditions is substantiated. The difference of this article is that based on the analysis of the application of expert methods for assessing the state of the environment, a fuzzy logic adoption model and information support for assessing the environmental state of the environment are proposed. The formalization of the parameters of decision-making models using linguistic and fuzzy variables is considered. The formalization of parameters of decision-making models using linguistic and fuzzy variables was considered. The model’s description of fuzzy inference is given. The use of information support for environment state assessment is shown on the example of experts assessing of the land desertification stage.

A novel q-rung orthopair fuzzy TODIM approach for multi-criteria group decision making based on Shapley value and relative entropy

2021 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 235-250
Author(s):  
Liuxin Chen ◽  
Nanfang Luo ◽  
Xiaoling Gou
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Relative Entropy ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Shapley Value ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Similarity Measures ◽  
Entropy Measure ◽  
Shapley Values ◽  
Interactive Relationship ◽  
The Difference

In the real multi-criteria group decision making (MCGDM) problems, there will be an interactive relationship among different decision makers (DMs). To identify the overall influence, we define the Shapley value as the DM’s weight. Entropy is a measure which makes it better than similarity measures to recognize a group decision making problem. Since we propose a relative entropy to measure the difference between two systems, which improves the accuracy of the distance measure.In this paper, a MCGDM approach named as TODIM is presented under q-rung orthopair fuzzy information.The proposed TODIM approach is developed for correlative MCGDM problems, in which the weights of the DMs are calculated in terms of Shapley values and the dominance matrices are evaluated based on relative entropy measure with q-rung orthopair fuzzy information.Furthermore, the efficacy of the proposed Gq-ROFWA operator and the novel TODIM is demonstrated through a selection problem of modern enterprises risk investment. A comparative analysis with existing methods is presented to validate the efficiency of the approach.

scholarly journals New dilemmas, old problems: advances in data analysis and its geoethical implications in groundwater management

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
César de Oliveira Ferreira Silva ◽  
Mariana Matulovic ◽  
Rodrigo Lilla Manzione
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Data Analytics ◽  
Data Science ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Aquifer Recharge ◽  
Groundwater Governance ◽  
Ethical Attitude ◽  
New Information ◽  
Modeling Experiment ◽  
Using Data

Abstract Groundwater governance uses modeling to support decision making. Therefore, data science techniques are essential. Specific difficulties arise because variables must be used that cannot be directly measured, such as aquifer recharge and groundwater flow. However, such techniques involve dealing with (often not very explicitly stated) ethical questions. To support groundwater governance, these ethical questions cannot be solved straightforward. In this study, we propose an approach called “open-minded roadmap” to guide data analytics and modeling for groundwater governance decision making. To frame the ethical questions, we use the concept of geoethical thinking, a method to combine geoscience-expertise and societal responsibility of the geoscientist. We present a case study in groundwater monitoring modeling experiment using data analytics methods in southeast Brazil. A model based on fuzzy logic (with high expert intervention) and three data-driven models (with low expert intervention) are tested and evaluated for aquifer recharge in watersheds. The roadmap approach consists of three issues: (a) data acquisition, (b) modeling and (c) the open-minded (geo)ethical attitude. The level of expert intervention in the modeling stage and model validation are discussed. A search for gaps in the model use is made, anticipating issues through the development of application scenarios, to reach a final decision. When the model is validated in one watershed and then extrapolated to neighboring watersheds, we found large asymmetries in the recharge estimatives. Hence, we can show that more information (data, expertise etc.) is needed to improve the models’ predictability-skill. In the resulting iterative approach, new questions will arise (as new information comes available), and therefore, steady recourse to the open-minded roadmap is recommended. Graphic abstract

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document