Science framework for conservation and restoration of the sagebrush biome

Keyword(s):  
Science Scope ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 038 (03) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cary Sneider ◽  
Chris Stephenson ◽  
Bruce Schafer ◽  
Larry Flick

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adib Rifqi Setiawan

Berikut ini beberapa publikasi saya pada 2019 ini. Penting atau tidak, saya menganggap bahwa publikasi hanyalah efek samping riset. Di luar publikasi ini, saya juga masih aktif sebagai penulis media daring, seperti Qureta.com, Selasar.com, dan SantriMilenial.net serta mengunggah beberapa artikel preprint melalui layanan Open Science Framework (OSF), EdArxiv.org, dan Research Papers in Economics (RePEc).


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Mazzuca ◽  
Matteo Santarelli

The concept of gender has been the battleground of scientific and political speculations for a long time. On the one hand, some accounts contended that gender is a biological feature, while on the other hand some scholars maintained that gender is a socio-cultural construct (e.g., Butler, 1990; Risman, 2004). Some of the questions that animated the debate on gender over history are: how many genders are there? Is gender rooted in our biological asset? Are gender and sex the same thing? All of these questions entwine one more crucial, and often overlooked interrogative. How is it possible for a concept to be the purview of so many disagreements and conceptual redefinitions? The question that this paper addresses is therefore not which specific account of gender is preferable. Rather, the main question we will address is how and why is even possible to disagree on how gender should be considered. To provide partial answers to these questions, we suggest that gender/sex (van Anders, 2015; Fausto-Sterling, 2019) is an illustrative example of politicized concepts. We show that no concepts are political in themselves; instead, some concepts are subjected to a process involving a progressive detachment from their supposed concrete referent (i.e., abstractness), a tension to generalizability (i.e., abstraction), a partial indeterminacy (i.e., vagueness), and the possibility of being contested (i.e., contestability). All of these features differentially contribute to what we call the politicization of a concept. In short, we will claim that in order to politicize a concept, a possible strategy is to evidence its more abstract facets, without denying its more embodied and perceptual components (Borghi et al., 2019). So, we will first outline how gender has been treated in psychological and philosophical discussions, to evidence its essentially contestable character thereby showing how it became a politicized concept. Then we will review some of the most influential accounts of political concepts, arguing that currently they need to be integrated with more sophisticated distinctions (e.g., Koselleck, 2004). The notions gained from the analyses of some of the most important accounts of political concepts in social sciences and philosophy will allow us to implement a more dynamic approach to political concepts. Specifically, when translated into the cognitive science framework, these reflections will help us clarifying some crucial aspects of the nature of politicized concepts. Bridging together social and cognitive sciences, we will show how politicized concepts are abstract concepts, or better abstract conceptualizations.


Circular ◽  
2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Sky Bristol ◽  
Ned H. Euliss ◽  
Nathaniel L. Booth ◽  
Nina Burkardt ◽  
Jay E. Diffendorfer ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjinnov-2020-000557
Author(s):  
Sharon Rikin ◽  
Eric J Epstein ◽  
Inessa Gendlina

IntroductionAt the early epicentre of the COVID-19 crisis in the USA, our institution saw a surge in the demand for inpatient consultations for areas impacted by COVID-19 (eg, infectious diseases, nephrology, palliative care) and shortages in personal protective equipment (PPE). We aimed to provide timely specialist input for consult requests during the COVID-19 pandemic by implementing an Inpatient eConsult Programme.MethodsWe used the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance implementation science framework and run chart analysis to evaluate the reach, adoption and maintenance of the Inpatient eConsult Programme compared with traditional in-person consults. We solicited qualitative feedback from frontline physicians and specialists for programme improvements.ResultsDuring the study period, there were 46 available in-person consult orders and 21 new eConsult orders. At the peak of utilisation, 42% of all consult requests were eConsults, and by the end of the study period, utilisation fell to 20%. Qualitative feedback revealed subspecialties best suited for eConsults (infectious diseases, nephrology, haematology, endocrinology) and influenced improvements to the ordering workflow, documentation, billing and education regarding use.DiscussionWhen offered inpatient eConsult requests as an alternative to in-person consults in the context of a surge in patients with COVID-19, frontline physicians used eConsult requests and decreased use of in-person consults. As the demand for consults decreased and PPE shortages were no longer a major concern, eConsult utilisation decreased, revealing a preference for in-person consultations when possible.ConclusionsLessons learnt can be used to develop and implement inpatient eConsults to meet context-specific challenges at other institutions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document