The role of soils in provision of energy

Acknowledgments The inputs of J.S. and D.N. contributes to the Newton Bhabha Virtual Centre on Nitrogen Efficiency in Whole Cropping Systems (NEWS) project no. NEC 05724, the DFID-NERC El Niño programme in project NE P004830, ‘Building Resilience in Ethiopia’s Awassa Region to Drought’ (BREAD), the ESRC NEXUS programme in project IEAS/POO2501/1, ‘Improving Organic Resource Use in Rural Ethiopia’ (IPORE), and the GCRF South Asian Nitrogen Hub (NE/S009019/1). The input of J.F. and J.S. contributes to the NERC funded Global Methane project, MOYA (NE/N016211/1). The input of P.S. contributes to the UKRI-funded projects DEVIL (NE/M021327/1), Soils-R-GRREAT (NE/P019455/1) and N-Circle (BB/N013484/1), the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme projects CIRCASA (grant agreement no. 774378) and UNISECO (grant agreement no. 773901), and the Wellcome Trust-funded project Sustainable and Healthy Food Systems (SHEFS).Peer reviewedPostprin

How work integration social enterprises help to realise capability: a comparison of three Australian settings

Work Integration Social Enterprises (WISEs) are a response to reconfiguring social support for disadvantaged people. Here, theory and methodology from social geography were applied, to consider capability realized in/by three Australian regional city WISEs. Data were gathered using observation and interviews with supervisors and employees. Coding identified capability, then analyzed by physicality, people, narratives and practices to explore how WISEs ‘assemble’ capability. Comparing across cases highlighted elements that contribute to capability realization. Evidence generated reveals features of work and organization design that might be deployed to enhance capability realization. Social geographical approaches provide insights into how social enterprises generate value

Using micro-geography to understand the realisation of wellbeing: a qualitative GIS study of three social enterprises

Social enterprises are promoted as a method of welfare reform, to transition people out of disadvantage by addressing poverty, unfulfilled capabilities and social exclusion. This study explores how three Work Integration Social Enterprises (WISEs) in Australia help to realise wellbeing for their employees by mapping their micro-geographical experience of wellbeing. By mapping the sites within a social enterprise where wellbeing is realised, we provide a practical, empirical and replicable methodology that is useful for gaining insights into where and how wellbeing realisation occurs. This situates wellbeing as an upstream place-based resource likely to influence downstream health outcomes

The Blue Ribbon Committee II Report and Recommendations on Surgical Education and Training in the United States: 2024.

OBJECTIVE: An expert panel made recommendations to optimize surgical education and training based on the effects of contemporary challenges. BACKGROUND: The inaugural Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC I) proposed sweeping recommendations for surgical education and training in 2004. In light of those findings, a second BRC (BRC II) was convened to make recommendations to optimize surgical training considering the current landscape in medical education. METHODS: BRC II was a panel of 67 experts selected on the basis of experience and leadership in surgical education and training. It was organized into subcommittees which met virtually over the course of a year. They developed recommendations, along with the Steering Committee, based on areas of focus and then presented them to the entire BRC II. The Delphi method was chosen to obtain consensus, defined as ≥80% agreement among the panel. Cronbach α was computed to assess the internal consistency of 3 Delphi rounds. RESULTS: Of the 50 recommendations, 31 obtained consensus in the following aspects of surgical training (# of consensus recommendation/# of proposed): Workforce (1/5); Medical Student Education (3/8); Work Life Integration (4/6); Resident Education (5/7); Goals, Structure, and Financing of Training (5/8); Education Support and Faculty Development (5/6); Research Training (7/9); and Educational Technology and Assessment (1/1). The internal consistency was good in Rounds 1 and 2 and acceptable in Round 3. CONCLUSIONS: BRC II used the Delphi approach to identify and recommend 31 priorities for surgical education in 2024. We advise establishing a multidisciplinary surgical educational group to oversee, monitor, and facilitate implementation of these recommendations