Lexical comparisons of signed languages and the effects of iconicity

Lexical comparisons of signed languages present new methodological challenges not found in comparisons of spoken languages. Two standards for comparing wordlists are examined using a sample of four European sign languages that are not known to be related to each other and a second sample of different dialects of the signed languages of Spain. The use of different standards is shown to affect the numerical results; comparing signs on the basis of probable historical relatedness typically yields percentages that are 5-10% greater than comparisons on the basis of similarity. The amount of iconicity inherent in signed languages affects the wordlist scores even more. Comparing lexical items that were chosen for their low potential for iconicity resulted in significantly lower scores among unrelated languages than did word lists of basic vocabulary or highly iconic signs. Conversely, the non-iconic word list comparison showed greater similarity between closely related language varieties. Therefore, wordlists that are low in iconicity give more insightful results than wordlists that include significant numbers of iconic items

Implications of HGV charging for the UK

Road transport taxation in Europe is undergoing a major and radical shift away from fixed charges and fuel duties towards pricing according to distance travelled and externalities produced. Implementation is underway in some states, change being led by national schemes for the freight sector only. The UK is considering such a system for implementation by 2008, to use global positioning system technology. The paper reviews the current developments and considers charging scenarios, including a scenario for covering the full external costs of the UK freight industry. Implications for taxation policy are considered, including whether the doctrine of revenue neutrality is consistent with 'sustainable mobility'. Consideration is given to a transition strategy which could bridge between the current level and structure of prices and a future, more economically efficient approach

Any Time? Any Place? The impact on student learning of an on-line learning environment.

Original paper can be found at: http://www.actapress.com/Content_of_Proceeding.aspx?proceedingID=292#pages Copyright ACTA Press [Full text of this paper is not available in the UHRA]An increasing number of HE institutions are adopting virtual and managed learning environments (VLEs and MLEs), which offer flexible access to on-line learning materials all day and every day. There are multiple claims about e-learning enhancing learning and teaching (eg. [1] Britain and Liber, 1999; [2]Conole, 2002; [4]Allen, 2003; [5]Littlejohn and Higginson, 2003) such as supporting active learning, facilitative rather than didactic teaching and increased student motivation but these are not pre determined outcomes. Much depends on how lecturers use the available technology and how students respond to that use. This paper reports on a research project which has evaluated the students' own experience of on-line learning at the University of Hertfordshire. Using its own institution-wide MLE (StudyNet) academic staff at the university have been able to offer students on-line access to their study material from September 2001. Activities available for students using StudyNet include participating in discussion forums, using formative assessment materials and accessing journal articles as well as viewing and downloading courseware for each of their courses. Students were invited to participate in a questionnaire and focus groups to identify the characteristics of the on-line learning environment which benefited their learning

Changes in DNA bending and flexing due to tethered cations detected by fluorescence resonance energy transfer

Local DNA deformation arises from an interplay among sequence-related base stacking, intrastrand phosphate repulsion, and counterion and water distribution, which is further complicated by the approach and binding of a protein. The role of electrostatics in this complex chemistry was investigated using tethered cationic groups that mimic proximate side chains. A DNA duplex was modified with one or two centrally located deoxyuracils substituted at the 5-position with either a flexible 3-aminopropyl group or a rigid 3-aminopropyn-1-yl group. End-to-end helical distances and duplex flexibility were obtained from measurements of the time-resolved Förster resonance energy transfer between 5′- and 3′-linked dye pairs. A novel analysis utilized the first and second moments of the G(t) function, which encompasses only the energy transfer process. Duplex flexibility is altered by the presence of even a single positive charge. In contrast, the mean 5′–3′ distance is significantly altered by the introduction of two adjacently tethered cations into the double helix but not by a single cation: two adjacent aminopropyl groups decrease the 5′–3′ distance while neighboring aminopropynyl groups lengthen the helix

Evidence Advisory System Briefing Notes: Ghana

There has been a growing global concern for improving the use of evidence to inform health policy in recent years. Increasingly there is recognition that individual projects or programmes building evidence synthesis skills, may be limited in their effect without a broader consideration of the systems in place which ‘embed’ or ‘institutionalise’ evidence informed policy making practices (Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research and WHO 2007). The GRIP-Health programme is a five-year project supported by the European Research Council which studies the political nature of health policy to understand how to best improve the use of evidence. This explicitly political lens enables us to focus on the contested nature of health issues as well as the institutions that shape the use of evidence in health policy making. We understand institutions as including both formal structures and rules, as well as informal norms and practices (Lowndes and Roberts 2013). The GRIP-Health programme follows the World Health Organization’s view that Ministries of Health remain the ultimate stewards of a nation’s health, and further play a key role in providing information to guide health decisions (World Health Organization 2000, Alvarez-Rosette, Hawkins et al. 2013). As such, GRIP-Health is particularly concerned with the structures and rules created by government to gather, synthesise, or otherwise provide evidence to inform policy making. This working paper is one of a series of six briefs covering a set of countries in which the GRIP-Health programme is undertaking research. This brief presents an overview of what is termed the ‘Evidence Advisory System’ (EAS) for health policy making within the country of interest, which is taken to encompass the key entry points through which research evidence can make its way into relevant health policy decisions. This can include both formal (government mandated) and informal structures, rules, and norms in place. Individual reports in this series can be useful for those considering how to improve evidence use in specific country settings, while taken together the reports identify the differences that can be seen across contexts, permitting reflection or comparison across countries about how evidence advisory systems are structured – including which responsibilities are given to different types of bodies, and how well evidence advice aligns with decision making authority structures

‘Good’ evidence for improved policy making: from hierarchies to appropriateness

Within the field of public health, and increasingly across other areas of social policy, there are widespread calls to increase or improve the use of evidence for policy making. Often these calls rest on an assumption that improved evidence utilisation will be a more efficient or effective means of achieving social goals. Yet, a clear elucidation of what can be considered ‘good evidence’ for policy use is rarely articulated. Many of the current discussions of best practice in the health policy sector derive from the evidence-based medicine (EBM) movement, embracing the ‘hierarchy of evidence’ in framing the selection of evidence – a hierarchy that places experimental trials as preeminent in terms of methodological quality. However, there are a number of difficulties associated with applying EBM methods of grading evidence onto policy making. Numerous public health authors have noted that the hierarchy of evidence is a judgement of quality specifically developed for measuring intervention effectiveness, and as such it cannot address other important health policy considerations such as affordability, salience, or public acceptability (Petticrew and Roberts, 2003). Social scientists and philosophers of knowledge have illustrated other problems in the direct application of the hierarchy of evidence to guide policy. Complex or structural interventions are often not conducive to experimental methods, and as such, a focus on evidence derived from randomised trials may shift policy attention away from broader structural issues (such as addressing the social determinants of health (Solar and Irwin, 2007)), to disease treatment or single element interventions. Social and behavioural interventions also present external validity problems to experimental methods and meta-analyses, as the mechanisms by which an intervention works in one social context may be very different or produce different results elsewhere (Cartwright, 2011). In these cases, policy makers may be better advised to look for evidence about the mechanism of effect, and evidence of local contextual features (Pawson et al., 2005). We argue that rather than adhering to a single hierarchy of evidence to judge what constitutes ‘good’ evidence for policy, it is more useful to examine evidence through the lens of appropriateness. It is important to utilise evidence to improve policy outcomes, yet the form of that evidence should vary depending on the multiple decision criteria at stake. Policy makers must therefore start by articulating their decision criteria in relation to a given problem or policy, so that the appropriate forms of evidence can be drawn on – from both epidemiological and clinical experiments (e.g. for questions of treatment effect), as well as from social scientific, social epidemiological, and multidisciplinary sources (e.g. for questions of complex causality, acceptability, human rights, etc.). Following this selection of types of evidence on the basis of appropriateness, the rigour and quality of the research can be assessed according to the evidentiary best practice standards of the discipline within which the evidence was produced. This approach speaks to calls to improve the use of evidence through ensuring rigour and methodological quality, yet recognises that good evidence is dictated by specific public health or social policy goals