An Automated Geometric Appraisal Model

The idea of the circular economy is gaining steam in academia through the green economics of human resources policies in Asia. A high performance model delivers superior outcomes but does not deter praiseworthy professors from biased human interference. Using the computerized-based geometric performance base incentive model (CGPBI) is particularly beneficial in encouraging faculty who have achieved superior outcomes in all areas of science, academia, and other contributions. To fill this gap, the author proposed a geometric hybrid reward policy model that includes a number of fictitious variables such as topic tolerance, the effects of subject matter, and the average outcome across all subjects. This model uses Python to construct a standardized framework to gather data on the success of faculty. It provides a robust indication of comparative success and motivates workers to achieve more transparent performance outcomes. The author proposes the use of a multi-source assessment (MSA) to evaluate the faculty's annual results.

Variations by ethnicity in referral and treatment pathways for IAPT service users in South London

Background The Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme aims to provide equitable access to therapy for common mental disorders. In the UK, inequalities by ethnicity exist in accessing and receiving mental health treatment. However, limited research examines IAPT pathways to understand whether and at which points such inequalities may arise. Methods This study examined variation by ethnicity in (i) source of referral to IAPT services, (ii) receipt of assessment session, (iii) receipt of at least one treatment session. Routine data were collected on service user characteristics, referral source, assessment and treatment receipt from 85 800 individuals referred to South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust IAPT services between 1st January 2013 and 31st December 2016. Multinomial and logistic regression analysis was used to assess associations between ethnicity and referral source, assessment and treatment receipt. Missing ethnicity data (18.5%) were imputed using census data and reported alongside a complete case analysis. Results Compared to the White British group, Black African, Asian and Mixed ethnic groups were less likely to self-refer to IAPT services. Black Caribbean, Black Other and White Other groups are more likely to be referred through community services. Almost all racial and minority ethnic groups were less likely to receive an assessment compared to the White British group, and of those who were assessed, all racial and ethnic minority groups were less likely to be treated. Conclusions Racial and ethnic minority service users appear to experience barriers to IAPT care at different pathway stages. Services should address potential cultural, practical and structural barriers.

On Some Issues of Source Assessment in the History of Political and Legal Doctrines: Competition of Different Approaches

The paper is devoted to a little-studied problem, namely, source assessment in the history of political and legal doctrines from the perspective of the competition of different approaches. In this paper, sources refer to various forms of theoretical knowledge: views, doctrines, theories, concepts, ideas, schools, trends and approaches. In other words, we consider the types of sources in which thinkers of different eras and trends try to reflect the essence of state legal phenomena, primarily, the state and law, and other closely related institutions, such as power, property, democracy, the rule of law, etc. One of the main ideas of the paper is to justify the fact that the history of doctrines is primarily the evolution of the struggle between them. Moreover, the opposition of ideas is actually observed from the very beginning of political and legal thought. The problem of an objective assessment of the doctrines is highlighted, since there are many factors that prevent this. In this regard, we consider the time (chronological), methodological, ideological, political, scientific, ideological and other circumstances, including individual preferences. The assessment is based on the main form of theoretical political and legal knowledge, i.e. a doctrine and its structure. It is the structural elements of political doctrine that are evaluated by researchers of ideas, who themselves are not always free in their expert activities. This aspect is also reflected in the paper.The author summarizes: since the history of ideas is a history of struggle, competition in their evaluation is inevitable. It is possible to adhere to various philosophical views, but it is impossible to neglect the scientific validity of the teaching that is subject to evaluation. At the same time, this problem does not concern the doctrines that are being evaluated, but the personality of the evaluator of the doctrines, sometimes formed by the greatest thinkers.