9,987 research outputs found
Protocol for an HTA report: Does therapeutic writing help people with long-term conditions? Systematic review, realist synthesis and economic modelling
This article is made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/Introduction: Long-term medical conditions (LTCs) cause reduced health-related quality of life and considerable health service expenditure. Writing therapy has potential to improve physical and mental health in people with LTCs, but its effectiveness is not established. This project aims to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of therapeutic writing in LTCs by systematic review and economic evaluation, and to evaluate context and mechanisms by which it might work, through realist synthesis.
Methods: Included are any comparative study of therapeutic writing compared with no writing, waiting list, attention control or placebo writing in patients with any diagnosed LTCs that report at least one of the following: relevant clinical outcomes; quality of life; health service use; psychological, behavioural or social functioning; adherence or adverse events. Searches will be conducted in the main medical databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library and Science Citation Index. For the realist review, further purposive and iterative searches through snowballing techniques will be undertaken. Inclusions, data extraction and quality assessment will be in duplicate with disagreements resolved through discussion. Quality assessment will include using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Data synthesis will be narrative and tabular with meta-analysis where appropriate. De novo economic modelling will be attempted in one clinical area if sufficient evidence is available and performed according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) reference case.National Institute for Health Research
Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programm
Logic Programming and Logarithmic Space
We present an algebraic view on logic programming, related to proof theory
and more specifically linear logic and geometry of interaction. Within this
construction, a characterization of logspace (deterministic and
non-deterministic) computation is given via a synctactic restriction, using an
encoding of words that derives from proof theory.
We show that the acceptance of a word by an observation (the counterpart of a
program in the encoding) can be decided within logarithmic space, by reducing
this problem to the acyclicity of a graph. We show moreover that observations
are as expressive as two-ways multi-heads finite automata, a kind of pointer
machines that is a standard model of logarithmic space computation
Tolerating Hate in the Name of Democracy
This article offers a comprehensive and critical analysis of Eric Heinzeâs book Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship (Oxford University Press, 2016). Heinzeâs project is to formulate and defend a more theoretically complex version of the idea (also defended by people like Ronald Dworkin and James Weinstein) that general legal prohibitions on hate speech in public discourse compromises the stateâs democratic legitimacy. We offer a detailed synopsis of Heinzeâs view, highlighting some of its distinctive qualities and strengths. We then develop a critical response to this view with three main focal points: (1) the characterisation of democratic legitimacy as something distinct from (and whose demands arenât identical with those of) legitimacy per se; (2) the claim that the requirements of democracy are hypothetical, rather than categorical, imperatives; and relatedly (3) the question of how we should reconcile the requirements of democratic legitimacy with the costs that may follow from prioritising democratic legitimacy. We argue that there are significant difficulties for Heinzeâs account on all three fronts
Unconstitutionally Illegitimate Discrimination
When government officials express intent to disparage or discriminate against a group, the constitutional consequences can be severe, but they are rarely imposed. In this Article, I argue that discriminatory motive is and should be enough to declare government acts unconstitutional. Second, I argue that the main reason why is the harm to government legitimacy. While some argue that the concern with intentional discrimination is its harm, such as its stigmatizing effect, I argue that the focus should not be on harm, but on how it delegitimizes government. I make the descriptive claim that Constitutional doctrine, in its broad outlines, reflects a legitimacy-based view. In the Equal Protection context, courts have set out how discriminatory goals are not legitimate state interests. In the Executive action context, courts state that absent a legitimate and bona fide justification, the Executive may not have power delegated from Congress to act. What courts have not done is specified what happens when the hammer falls: how intent disables government policymaking and for how long. The legitimacy-focused approach can neutralize government decisions, even when the government tries to re-do its policy and claim new reasons. Third, I argue that a legitimacy-focused approach towards constitutional intent doctrine that I advance in this Article is normatively preferable. The approach does incentivize insincere reasons for government actions. However, I argue that advantages outweigh those costs. There are real benefits to even insincere expressions of non-discrimination. Conversely, when the government makes discriminatory statements, this is very strong evidence of discriminatory motive. During a time of nationwide litigation of intentional discrimination claims in areas including immigration rights, voting rights, and religious non-establishment, it has never been more important to set out the doctrine, the costs, and the consequences of unconstitutionally illegitimate intent
Introduction: Hegel, Wittgenstein, Identity, Difference
We cannot but begin this volume with Wittgensteinâs famous remark that âHegel seems to me to be always wanting to say that things which look different are really the same. Whereas my interest is in showing that things which look the same are really different.â (MDC: p.157) This is, however, a casual remark, and it seems that we should not put too much emphasis on it. (For a discussion of how the remark should properly be understood, see Chapter 20.) In compiling this collection of essays we adopted from this remark the idea that the problem of difference in identity is the common topic between Hegel and Wittgenstein. The remark presents a certain interplay (or, one might say, dialectics) of identity and difference. And it is questions of identity and difference between Hegel and Wittgenstein (with respect to certain aspects of their works, under certain interpretations, etc.) that are addressed by the essays in this volume
Learning Together: Localism, Collaboration and Reflexivity in the Development of Prison and University Learning Communities
This paper engages with challenges of localism, collaboration and reflexivity in thinking about the conceptualisation and development of partnership learning communities between higher education and criminal justice institutions. Grounded in experiences of partnership working in the UK and Australia, our arguments are twofold: first, drawing on missions, policy and practice challenges, that there is a case to be made for partnership-working between higher education and criminal justice institutions; and second that, although there is a need to think about collaborative international structures, there is also a need to reflect critically on how different socio-political and cultural realities (both within and beyond national borders) might shape the particular nature of partnership working. Therefore, while warmly welcoming international collaboration in this field, we urge caution in importing or exporting different models of partnership working. We make the case, instead, for open-textured theoretical and empirical reflexivity
Inducing syntactic cut-elimination for indexed nested sequents
The key to the proof-theoretic study of a logic is a proof calculus with a
subformula property. Many different proof formalisms have been introduced (e.g.
sequent, nested sequent, labelled sequent formalisms) in order to provide such
calculi for the many logics of interest. The nested sequent formalism was
recently generalised to indexed nested sequents in order to yield proof calculi
with the subformula property for extensions of the modal logic K by
(Lemmon-Scott) Geach axioms. The proofs of completeness and cut-elimination
therein were semantic and intricate. Here we show that derivations in the
labelled sequent formalism whose sequents are `almost treelike' correspond
exactly to indexed nested sequents. This correspondence is exploited to induce
syntactic proofs for indexed nested sequent calculi making use of the elegant
proofs that exist for the labelled sequent calculi. A larger goal of this work
is to demonstrate how specialising existing proof-theoretic transformations
alleviate the need for independent proofs in each formalism. Such coercion can
also be used to induce new cutfree calculi. We employ this to present the first
indexed nested sequent calculi for intermediate logics.Comment: This is an extended version of the conference paper [20
The Cultural Lives of Californians: Insights from the California Survey of Arts and Cultural Participation
Over the past two decades, numerous reports indicate that national rates of arts attendance have been declining. This downward trend is reflected in both survey data and in the day-to-day experiences of many nonprofit arts organizations. In California, attendance rates -- as defined by traditional measures -- have also declined. And yet, there is a sense that the arts and culture are flourishing as never before, with a renewed vigor and excitement. How do we understand this apparent contradiction?The trend in attendance figures, however, does not reflect Californians' participation in a wide array of arts and cultural activities. People's participation in arts and cultural activities, especially in ways that allow them to develop or release their own artistic impulse, is extensive -- and perhaps nowhere more so than in California.At the same time, California's cultural landscape is undergoing massive changes, affecting the ways people encounter, experience and engage with art. These changes include California's demographic shift to being a so-called "majority-minority" state and rapid technological advances that offer new opportunities for artistic expression and access. These changes pose challenges and exciting new opportunities for how artists and organizations create and share their expertise and work. But to understand these changes and their implications for the nonprofit arts field, a broader, more nuanced, more complete understanding of how Californians participate in arts and culture is required.The California Survey of Arts & Cultural Participation is a tool we developed to ask a wide range of questions about what Californians do to engage with arts and culture
No Platforming
This paper explains how the practice of âno platformingâ can be reconciled with a liberal politics. While opponents say that no platforming flouts ideals of open public discourse, and defenders see it as a justifiable harm-prevention measure, both sides mistakenly treat the debate like a run-of-the-mill free speech conflict, rather than an issue of academic freedom specifically. Content-based restrictions on speech in universities are ubiquitous. And this is no affront to a liberal conception of academic freedom, whose purpose isnât just to protect the speech of academics, but also to give them the prerogative to determine which views and speakers have sufficient disciplinary credentials to receive a hearing in academic contexts. No platforming should therefore be acceptable to liberals, in principle, in cases where it is used to support a university culture that maintains rigorous disciplinary standards, by denying attention and credibility to speakers without appropriate disciplinary credentials
- âŠ