Michiel Meijer, Charles Taylor’s Doctrine of Strong Evaluation: Ethics and Ontology in a Scientific Age

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 809-812
Author(s):  
Paolo Costa ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Strong Evaluation

scholarly journals Flap fixation in preventing seroma formation after mastectomy: an updated meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nunzio Velotti ◽  
Gennaro Limite ◽  
Antonio Vitiello ◽  
Giovanna Berardi ◽  
Mario Musella
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Seroma Formation ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Axillary Lymph ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Effective Technique ◽  
Strong Evaluation ◽  
Flap Fixation

AbstractSeroma formation following mastectomy is one of the most experienced complications, with a very variable incidence ranging from 3 to 90%. In recent years, many publications have been realized to define an effective technique to prevent its formation and several approaches have been proposed. Given the potential of flap fixation in reducing seroma formation, we performed a meta-analysis of the literature to investigate the role of this approach as definitive gold standard in mastectomy surgery. Inclusion criteria regarded all studies reporting on breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy with or without axillary lymph node dissection; studies that compared mastectomy with flap fixation to mastectomy without flap fixation were selected. Papers were eligible for inclusion if outcome was described in terms of seroma formation. As secondary outcome, also surgical site infection (SSI) was evaluated. The included studies were 12, involving 1887 female patients: 221/986 (22.41%) patients experienced seroma formation after flap fixation and 393/901 (43.61%) patients had this complication not receiving flap fixation, with a significant statistical difference between the two groups (OR = 0.267, p = 0.001, 95% CI 0.153, 0.464). About, SSI 59/686 (8.6%) in flap fixation group and 67/686 (9.7%) in patients without flap fixation, with no statistical differences between groups (OR = 0.59, p = 0.056, 95% CI 0.344, 1.013).The heterogeneity between included studies does not allow us to reach definitive conclusions but only to suggest the strong evaluation of this approach after mastectomy in seroma preventing and SSI reduction.

scholarly journals Aksjologiczna nieprzejrzystość. O silnych wartościowaniach w dziennikach pisarzy

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-46
Author(s):  
Robert Piłat
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
Charles Taylor ◽  
Strong Evaluation ◽  
Literary Journals ◽  
Self Knowledge

Rozważam pytanie, czy dzienniki pisarzy ujawniają silne wartościowania w sensie zaproponowanym przez Charlesa Taylora. Wartościowania te są, według tego filozofa, najlepszymi aksjologicznymi wyjaśnieniami własnych preferencji działania, jakie dana osoba potrafi sformułować i przedstawić jako racje swoich preferencji. Ta aksjologiczna świadomość jest nietrywialnym wewnętrznym wyborem spośród wielu możliwych wyjaśnień – samointerpretacją nakierowaną na odsłonięcie źródła dobroci tych wartości, które dana osoba uznaje. Poszukuję śladów tej świadomości w wybranych dziennikach pisarzy. Moje wnioski są sceptyczne. Dzienniki poddają wprawdzie tropy kierujące ku silnie wartościowanym dobrom, lecz tropy te okazują się zbyt chaotyczne i niezdecydowane. Trzeba przyznać rację Davidowi Parkerowi, który poszukiwał fundamentalnej aksjologicznej świadomości raczej w autobiografiach. Tylko zdystansowana refleksja daje szansę na ujawnienie silnych wartościowań. Jest tak pomimo licznych aporii związanych z samowiedzą. Axiological Opacity: On Strong Evaluations in Literary Journals In the present article, I discuss the issue of whether writers’ diaries reveal strong evaluations of their authors. Following Charles Taylor, I understand strong evaluation as the best axiological explanation which a given person is able to formulate and present as the reason for his or her preferences. This axiological awareness is a non-trivial internal choice made from among many possible explanations – it is a self-interpretation aimed at showing the source of the goodness instantiated by the person’s values. In the article, I look for evidence of such awareness in several well-known writers’ diaries. My conclusions are skeptical. Although the journals provide some clues in the search for strong evaluations, they are too chaotic and inconclusive. David Parker believes it more promising to look for fundamental axiological awareness in autobiographies instead. I find his approach correct; distanced reflection seems to be the only chance to reveal strong evaluations. This is despite the aporias involved in self-knowledge.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Biomass Yield and Nutritional Composition of Soybean (Glycine Max (L.)Merrill) Varieties Grown in Low Land Areas of Eastern Amhara, Ethiopia

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abito Asres ◽  
Solomon Tiruneh
Keyword(s):  
Glycine Max ◽  
Seed Yield ◽  
Dry Matter ◽  
Biomass Yield ◽  
Block Design ◽  
Nutritional Composition ◽  
Dry Matter Yield ◽  
Combined Analysis ◽  
Strong Evaluation ◽  
Glycine Max L

The experiment was conducted in three locations Jari, Chefa and Sirinka of Eastern Amhara to select the best performing varieties, in terms of biomass yield, chemical composition, haulm yield, seed yield and other agronomic characteristics of Glycine max (L.) Merrill grown under the rain- fed condition of lowland areas of Eastern Amhara in a randomized complete block design with tree replications. Twelve released soybean varieties were Afgat ,Belesa-95, Boshe , Cheri , Dhidhessa, Gishama , Gizo, Korme, Pawe-03, katta, Wegayen and Wollo were used as a treatments. The seeds were planted in 40 cm between rows and 10 cm between plants on a plot size of 3.2m*4m. Spacing between blocks and plots were 1 and 0.5m, respectively. The seed rate was 60 kg/ha and a fertilizer rate 100 kg/ha NPS was applied during seed planting. The combined analysis of variance over two years at location Jari for dry matter yield of varieties Afgat, Gizo, Pawe-03, Wogayen and Wollo were significantly higher as compared to other soybean varieties. The combined analysis across locations at Jari and Sirinka (2019-second year) showed that varieties Afgat, Gishama, Gizo, Pawe-03, Wogayen and Wollo had higher dry matter yield and varieties Gishama (3.97 t/ha), Gizo (3.60 t/ha), Pawe-03 (4.04 t/ha) and Wogayen (3.36 t/ha) had higher haulm yield as compared with other varieties. The combined analysis across locations at Jari and Sirinka (2019) showed that varieties Pawe-03(2951 kg/ha), Gizo (2862 kg/ha), Afgat (2859 kg/ha), Gishama (2654 kg/ha),Wollo (2461 kg/ha) and Wogayen (2404 kg/ha) had higher seed yield as compared with other varieties. The variety Wollo gave higher crud protein content in two locations (Jari and Sirinka) .Therefore, varieties Afgat, Pawe-03 and Wollo were recommends for the given areas of Jari , Chefa, Sirinka and could be produced in similar environments for the best of produced optimal amount of dry matter, haulm and seed yield and good protein supplement for production of ruminants.Thus, further researches will be needed to investigate on the utilization of livestock.

Evaluation Strategy for Online Courses

2011 ◽  
pp. 899-905
Author(s):  
Tad Waddington ◽  
Bruce Aaron ◽  
Rachael Sheldrick
Keyword(s):  
Return On Investment ◽  
Online Courses ◽  
Transfer Of Knowledge ◽  
Learning Gain ◽  
Evaluation Strategy ◽  
Business Results ◽  
Strong Evaluation ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Four Levels

Any program that includes online learning, or indeed any type of training, benefits from a strong evaluation strategy. Collecting evaluation metrics enables an organization to measure against and report on Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation (participant reaction, learning gain, transfer of knowledge back to the job, and achievement of business results) (Kirkpatrick, 1994), as well as determine the return on investment (ROI) for the program. Any organization should be able to justify the existence of its training program, not only to ensure that the quality of the training is acceptable and maintained, but also to assure stakeholders that the money spent on such a program is defensible. This can mean the difference between having funds for the program increased or losing those needed resources.

WEIGHTING HEALTH STATES AND STRONG EVALUATION

Bioethics ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 240-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANDREW EDGAR
Keyword(s):  
Health States ◽  
Strong Evaluation

Identity, Gender, and Strong Evaluation

Noûs ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 198
Author(s):  
Owen Flanagan
Keyword(s):  
Strong Evaluation

scholarly journals Evaluating Decision Making in Sustainable Project Selection Between Literature and Practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (15) ◽  
pp. 8216
Author(s):  
Rakan Alyamani ◽  
Suzanna Long ◽  
Mohammad Nurunnabi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Information Transfer ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Project Selection ◽  
Project Managers ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Project Cost ◽  
Strong Evaluation ◽  
Selection Of

A robust project selection process is critical for the selection of sustainable projects that meet the needs of an organization or community. There are multiple factors or criteria that can be considered in the selection of the appropriate sustainable project, but it can be challenging to find sufficient depth of expert opinion to perform a strong evaluation of these criteria. Several researchers have turned to the sustainable project literature as a source of expert opinion to evaluate the criteria used in sustainable project selection and rank them based on importance using different multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methodologies. However, using the literature as a source of expert opinion poses a different set of challenges and may not accurately represent the actual opinions of sustainable project subject matter experts (SMEs) and practitioners. In this study, the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) methodology is used to determine the importance of project cost, project maturity, skill and experience, uncertainty, and technology information transfer as selection criteria using collected opinions from academic sustainable project experts and practitioners. The results are then compared with previous research that used the literature to rank these five criteria based on importance when selecting between multiple sustainable project alternatives. The results show that project cost is still considered the major driver of decision making in sustainable project selection by both the literature and practice. However, unlike the literature-as-experts approach, SMEs prioritize skill and experience and technology information transfer over project maturity and uncertainty. Project managers and decision makers can use these findings to best prioritize the types of challenges that may occur depending on inputs for the FAHP analysis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document