Glossary of Terms—Analysis and Prevention of Component and Equipment Failures

This glossary is a compilation of terms related to the analysis and prevention of component and equipment failures. It is intended to help promote clear thinking and useful failure analysis. The definitions presented are those used in this Volume and reflect a common and modern understanding of these terms as used in the literature and in reports by practicing failure analysts.

Considering the Case for Diversity in Natural Resources

Although there is widespread support for diversity in natural resources, diversity is valued for different reasons. It is important to understand and critically examine these reasons, to ensure diversity efforts express clear thinking and appropriate motivations. We compiled recent (2000–2019) diversity literature in fisheries, forestry, range, and wildlife, and used a qualitative coding procedure to identify reasons articulated in support of diversity. We developed a subset of these reasons into formal arguments to assess their underlying beliefs and assumptions. Our analysis reveals a high frequency of instrumental arguments emphasizing the benefits of diversity for natural resources. Drawing on the large body of interdisciplinary diversity scholarship outside natural resources, we discuss the challenges and potential risks of predicating the case for diversity largely on instrumental arguments. We encourage natural resources communities to expand the diversity discourse by engaging with themes developed in interdisciplinary diversity literatures, including equity, social justice, and intersectionality.

A four-step strategy for handling missing outcome data in randomised trials affected by a pandemic

Background: The coronavirus pandemic (Covid-19) presents a variety of challenges for ongoing clinical trials, including an inevitably higher rate of missing outcome data, with new and non-standard reasons for missingness. International drug trial guidelines recommend trialists review plans for handling missing data in the conduct and statistical analysis, but clear recommendations are lacking.Methods: We present a four-step strategy for handling missing outcome data in the analysis of randomised trials that are ongoing during a pandemic. We consider handling missing data arising due to (i) participant infection, (ii) treatment disruptions and (iii) loss to follow-up. We consider both settings where treatment effects for a ‘pandemic-free world’ and ‘world including a pandemic’ are of interest. Results: In any trial, investigators should; (1) Clarify the treatment estimand of interest with respect to the occurrence of the pandemic; (2) Establish what data are missing for the chosen estimand; (3) Perform primary analysis under the most plausible missing data assumptions followed by; (4) Sensitivity analysis under alternative plausible assumptions. To obtain an estimate of the treatment effect in a ‘pandemic-free world’, participant data that are clinically affected by the pandemic (directly due to infection or indirectly via treatment disruptions) are not relevant and can be set to missing. For primary analysis, a missing-at-random assumption that conditions on all observed data that are expected to be associated with both the outcome and missingness may be most plausible. For the treatment effect in the ‘world including a pandemic’, all participant data is relevant and should be included in the analysis. For primary analysis, a missing-at-random assumption – potentially incorporating a pandemic time-period indicator and participant infection status – or a missing-not-at-random assumption with a poorer response may be most relevant, depending on the setting. In all scenarios, sensitivity analysis under credible missing-not-at-random assumptions should be used to evaluate the robustness of results. We highlight controlled multiple imputation as an accessible tool for conducting sensitivity analyses.Conclusions: Missing data problems will be exacerbated for trials active during the Covid-19 pandemic. This four-step strategy will facilitate clear thinking about the appropriate analysis for relevant questions of interest.

Bridging the Gap: The Value of Science in Coaching

Science is one of the greatest achievements of mankind. It has saved billions of lives, created astonishing technology, solved global problems, and helped raise the standard of living for all. But science is often misinterpreted and misapplied, and sometimes has a negative reputation in the coaching community. Part of the problem is that the definition of science varies for different people. We may use the word science to mean the facts that we know about the world – the force of gravity, the mass of an object, the anatomy of the knee etc. These are clear, objective facts, and cannot be disputed. However, we may also use the term science to mean scientific thinking, clear thinking, or critical thinking. This is where we might not know the exact facts about something, but we can use the principles of evidence, logic, rationality and reason to make a strong inference about it. We can then test, analyse and evaluate, deciding on what has worked and why. This is evidence-based practice. Scientist Carl Sagan put it well when he said, “science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.”

Change is Hard but Not Impossible

Chapter 7 summarizes the main points of the book and reiterates concrete, actionable steps to encourage rational and clear thinking when it comes to political discussion. It also reflects on the successes of the LGBT community and allies in terms of opinion change, focusing on three important components: visibility and closeness, message and tone, and diversity. While it may seem that we are in constant and vigorous disagreement, there are many things we share in common, including a desire to stop the contentiousness and vitriol in American politics. The concluding chapter includes a summary of the entire book, highlighting how to use tools like data and information, emotion, interpersonal trust, and shared identities to promote meaningful and productive discussion about sometimes difficult political issues.

Charitable purposes, demonstrable benefit and the role of the Charity Commission: the fourth Pemsel head recast

The Charities Act 2011 requires that charitable purposes must fit within one or more of the statutory descriptions of ‘charity’ and, demonstrably, be in the public benefit. From the perspective of the now dismantled fourth Pemsel head of charity, this article examines the elusive concept of a charitable purpose and the misconceived statutory public benefit requirement. The guidance and decision-making roles of the Charity Commission are appraised and problems in applying the current law exposed. As few charity cases reach the courts or Upper Tribunal, this work analyses the limited, but important, registration appeals that have reached the First-tier Tribunal. It will explore the emerging trends in charity appeals, the divergent approaches adopted by the Commission and the Tribunal and the lamentable degree of unpredictability facing prospective charity trustees. It concludes that an absence of clear-thinking pervades this vital aspect of charity law and invites reworking and revision.