UGA’s Green Infrastructure Plan: Student Envisioned Plans to Improve Ecosystem Services on Campus

Proceedings of the 2011 Georgia Water Resources Conference, April 11, 12, and 13, 2011, Athens, Georgia.Graduate students from the “Nature and Sustainability” studio course at UGA’s College of Environment and Design created Green Infrastructure Plans for UGA’s Campus. Objectives of this service learning project included gathering inventory information, analyzing existing conditions, garnering stakeholder input and crafting plans at two scales. Students individually prepared campus wide plans, and then created site plans for a specific area. These proposed interventions were based on creating or enhancing a network of linkages and hubs (corridors and patches), otherwise known as Green Infrastructure, which supports ecosystem services such as water and nutrient cycling. Unfortunately, legacy land use and substantial impermeable area on campus hinders ecosystem function. In order to reverse these trends to approach a more sustainable trajectory, students sought to preserve, enhance and/or restore critical ecosystem services. This planning process may inform future planning efforts undertaken by the Office of University Architects to improve the green infrastructure of campus and further sustainability goals.Sponsored by: Georgia Environmental Protection Division U.S. Geological Survey, Georgia Water Science Center U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia Water Resources Institute The University of Georgia, Water Resources FacultyThis book was published by Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-2152. The views and statements advanced in this publication are solely those of the authors and do not represent official views or policies of The University of Georgia, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Georgia Water Research Institute as authorized by the Water Research Institutes Authorization Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-307) or the other conference sponsors

Are sciences essential and humanities elective? Disentangling competing claims for humanities research public value

[EN] Recent policy discourse suggests that arts and humanities research is seen as being less useful to society than other disciplines, notably in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The paper explores how this assumption s construction has been built and whether it is based upon an unfair prejudice: we argue for a prima facie case to answer in assuming that arts and humanities research s lower societal value. We identify a set of claims circulating in policy circles regarding science, technology, engineering and math- ematics research and arts and humanities research s differences. We find two groups: arts and humanities research is less useful than science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and arts and humanities research is merely differently useful. We argue that empirical analysis is necessary to disentangle which ones are true to assess whether policy-making is being based on rational and evidence-based claims. We argue that debates about public research value should recognise that humanities have different (but equally valid) kinds of societal value.This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education, which funded the PhD research fellowship of Julia Olmos Peñuela through the F.P.U program [AP2007- 01850]. The research fellowship took place in the framework of the HERAVALUE project, Measuring the public value of arts and humanities research, financially supported by the HERA Joint Research Programme, cofunded by AHRC, AKA, DASTI, ETF, FNR, FWF, HAZU, IRCHSS, MHEST, NWO, RANNIS, RCN, VR and The European Community FP7 2007-2013, under the Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities programme. The authors would like to thank the editors and two anonymous referees for their invaluable comments. Any errors or omissions remain the authors’ responsibilitieOlmos-Peñuela, J.; Benneworth, P.; Castro-Martínez, E. (2015). Are sciences essential and humanities elective? Disentangling competing claims for humanities research public value. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education. 14(1):61-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022214534081S617814

Tixagevimab–cilgavimab for treatment of patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

Background: Tixagevimab–cilgavimab is a neutralising monoclonal antibody combination hypothesised to improve outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. We aimed to compare tixagevimab–cilgavimab versus placebo, in patients receiving remdesivir and other standard care. Methods: In a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, adults with symptoms for up to 12 days and hospitalised for COVID-19 at 81 sites in the USA, Europe, Uganda, and Singapore were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous tixagevimab 300 mg–cilgavimab 300 mg or placebo, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care. Patients were excluded if they had acute organ failure including receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, vasopressor therapy, mechanical circulatory support, or new renal replacement therapy. The study drug was prepared by an unmasked pharmacist; study participants, site study staff, investigators, and clinical providers were masked to study assignment. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery up to day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home after hospital discharge, with co-primary analyses for the full cohort and for participants who were neutralising antibody-negative at baseline. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as participants who received a complete or partial infusion of tixagevimab–cilgavimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978 and the participant follow-up is ongoing. Findings: From Feb 10 to Sept 30, 2021, 1455 patients were randomly assigned and 1417 in the primary modified intention-to-treat population were infused with tixagevimab–cilgavimab (n=710) or placebo (n=707). The estimated cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 89% for tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 86% for placebo group participants at day 90 in the full cohort (recovery rate ratio [RRR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·97–1·20]; p=0·21). Results were similar in the seronegative subgroup (RRR 1·14 [0·97–1·34]; p=0·13). Mortality was lower in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group (61 [9%]) versus placebo group (86 [12%]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·50–0·97]; p=0·032). The composite safety outcome occurred in 178 (25%) tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 212 (30%) placebo group participants (HR 0·83 [0·68–1·01]; p=0·059). Serious adverse events occurred in 34 (5%) participants in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group and 38 (5%) in the placebo group. Interpretation: Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and other standard care, tixagevimab–cilgavimab did not improve the primary outcome of time to sustained recovery but was safe and mortality was lower. Funding: US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Operation Warp Speed

Concepts of context in music therapy

In contemporary music therapy as well as in related interdisciplinary fields, the importance of context in relation to theory, research, and practice has been emphasized. However, the word context seems to be used in several different ways and conceptualizations of contextual approaches vary too. The objective of this theoretical article is to clarify traditions of language use in relation to context in music therapy. In reviewing and discussing the literature, we focus on the field of mental health care. When discussing issues related to context, this literature partly focuses on the surroundings of music therapy practice, partly on the ecology of reciprocal influences within and between situations or systems. On this basis, three types of context awareness in music therapy are identified: music therapy in context; music therapy as context; and music therapy as interacting contexts. The identified types of context awareness are exemplified through references to music therapy literature and then discussed in relation to two very different metaphors, namely context as frame and context as link. Implications for practice, research, and theory development in music therapy are suggested

Credit Union Legislative Frameworks in the United States of America and the United Kingdom – A Flexible Friend or a Step Towards the Dark Side?

Credit union, Common bond, Financial services authority, Loans, Regulation of credit unions,