A grammar of Belep

This dissertation is a description of the grammar of Belep [yly], an Austronesian language variety spoken by about 1600 people in and around the Belep Isles in New Caledonia. The grammar begins with a summary of the cultural and linguistic background of Belep speakers, followed by chapters on Belep phonology and phonetics, morphology and word formation, nouns and the noun phrase, verbs and the verb group, basic clause structure, and clause combining. The phonemic inventory of Belep consists of 18 consonants and 10 vowels and is considerably smaller than that of the surrounding languages. This is due to the fact that Belep consonants do not contrast in aspiration and Belep vowels do not contrast in length, unlike in Belep’s closest relative Balade Nyelâyu. However, like-vowel hiatuses—sequences of heterosyllabic like vowels—are common in Belep, where the stress correlates of vowel length, intensity, and pitch do not generally coincide. Belep morphology is exclusively suffixing and fairly synthetic; it is characterized by a large disconnect between the phonological and the grammatical word and the existence of a number of proclitics and enclitics. Belep nouns fall into four noun classes, which are defined by their compatibility with the two available (alienable and inalienable) possessive constructions. Belep transitive verbs are divided into bound and free roots, while intransitive verbs are divided between those which require a nominative argument and those which require an absolutive argument. While the surrounding languages have a split-ergative argument structure, Belep has an unusual split-intransitive nominative-absolutive system, with the further complication that transitive subjects may be marked as genitive depending on the specificity of the absolutive argument. Belep case marking is accomplished through the use of cross-linguistically unusual ditropic clitics; clitics marking the function of a Belep noun phrase are phonologically bound to whatever element precedes the noun phrase. In general, Belep lacks true complementation, instead making use of coordinate structures with unique linkers as a complementation strategy

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Reinventing Franchises: Gender Swapping and (In)Equity

Remakes and reboots are a common practice in Hollywood, and in the 2010s, this practice included a trend of reinventing older properties with the twist of gender-swapping the central roles. The release of, for example, Ocean’s 8 (Ross, 2018) and Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) allowed audiences to re-envision franchises with largely female casts. This move on the part of studios could be viewed as a sincere attempt to balance the longstanding inequalities in relation to gender on screen. It could also be cynically construed as a brazen attempt to squeeze more money out of successful franchises by drawing in a larger (female) demographic. Whatever their purposes, the films’ premises imply a direct gender switch, which would theoretically lead to a reverse in the amount and content of male versus female dialogue. But is there really an equitable reworking of dialogue? Are gender roles truly reversed in these reboots? This talk will utilize a videographic criticism approach to answer these questions through a comparative analysis of Ocean’s 11 (Soderbergh, 2001) and Ocean’s 8, as well as Ghostbusters 1984 (Reitman) and 2016. By reediting the original films to include only moments when women speak, and reediting the reboots to include only the moments when men speak, we can directly compare the amount and content of dialogue. Placing these reedited versions side by side, I can draw concrete conclusions about gender roles and the equality, or continued imbalances, in gender-swapped reboots

How to Mislead with Data: A Critical Review of Ray's "Academic Achievement and Demographic Traits of Homeschool Students: A Nationwide Study" (2010) Background of the study

2 One of the publications most widely cited to support the claim that homeschoolers have higher levels of academic achievement than other children is Dr. Brian D. Ray's Progress Report pamphlet, produced by HSLDA in 2009 and hosted on their website. In this pamphlet, Ray discusses the findings of his 2008 study on homeschoolers' academic achievement, where he combined homeschool students' test scores on a variety of standardized tests with their parents' responses to a web survey requesting demographic information. In his 2009 pamphlet, Ray presents his findings in a somewhat deceptive way. He does not describe his methodology or where his data came from, and he only highlights the findings that align with his beliefs about homeschooling. More complete information on Ray's study is available, however, in the actual published, peer-reviewed version of his article, "Academic achievement and demographic traits of homeschool students: A nationwide study," which appeared in the journal Academic Leadership in 2010 and may be viewed here. Demographic information about Ray's participants reveals that they are overwhelmingly white and Christian, come from wealthy, intact, well-educated families, and are largely self-selected for their ability to do well at standardized tests. Somewhat unsurprisingly, participants in Ray's study scored on average in the 86 th percentile on standardized tests. Participants who were female; whose parents spent more than $600 per year on their educations; who had higher family incomes; whose parents had both graduated from college; who had fewer siblings; who had more structured educations; who spent more time in structured learning; and who started homeschooling younger all scored higher than other participants. Participants' scores did not differ based on their curriculum or the amount of state regulation. 59% of participants had been homeschooled for their entire lives. Ray's study does not prove that homeschoolers have higher academic achievement than other children. It merely gives a description of the demographics of a particularly privileged subset of homeschoolers (composing approximately 2-3% of all homeschoolers) and an average of their standardized test scores. It cannot be used to make any claims about the relationship between homeschooling and public schooling, nor about homeschoolers as a population. In the sections that follow, I will first give some background of the study, then outline the major points made by Ray's Progress Report and those made in his published journal article. Next I will provide a critical analysis of Ray's study, and finally I will summarize what his results actually mean