Recent Development on Underground Coal Gasification and Subsequent CO2 Storage

Underground coal gasification (UCG) is the in-situ conversion of deep underground coal to synthesis gas for heating, chemical manufacturing and power generation. UCG has been the subject of extensive pilot testing but technical and environmental concerns remain, not least its greenhouse gas emissions. An attractive solution is to combine UCG with CO2 capture and storage (CCS) so that the CO2 generated from the UCG and combustion of synthesis gas is re-injected back underground in the UCG cavities, adjacent unmineable coal seams and stressed strata. Thereby the emissions from UCG are eliminated and deep coal reserves become a new source of energy supply. This paper reviews the recent global development of UCG projects, the research progress of UCG technology and the technical developments and economic feasibility of UCG-CCS in recent EU projects

Seven easy steps to open science: An annotated reading list

The open science movement is rapidly changing the scientific landscape. Because exact definitions are often lacking and reforms are constantly evolving, accessible guides to open science are needed. This paper provides an introduction to open science and related reforms in the form of an annotated reading list of seven peer-reviewed articles, following the format of Etz, Gronau, Dablander, Edelsbrunner, and Baribault (2018). Written for researchers and students-particularly in psychological science-it highlights and introduces seven topics: understanding open science; open access; open data, materials, and code; reproducible analyses; preregistration and registered reports; replication research; and teaching open science. For each topic, we provide a detailed summary of one particularly informative and actionable article and suggest several further resources. Supporting a broader understanding of open science issues, this overview should enable researchers to engage with, improve, and implement current open, transparent, reproducible, replicable, and cumulative scientific practices

Effects of meal variety on expected satiation : evidence for a 'perceived volume' heuristic

Meal variety has been shown to increase energy intake in humans by an average of 29%. Historically, research exploring the mechanism underlying this effect has focused on physiological and psychological processes that terminate a meal (e.g., sensory-specific satiety). We sought to explore whether meal variety stimulates intake by influencing pre-meal planning. We know that individuals use prior experience with a food to estimate the extent to which it will deliver fullness. These ‘expected satiation’ judgments may be straightforward when only one meal component needs to be considered, but it remains unclear how prospective satiation is estimated when a meal comprises multiple items. We hypothesised that people simplify the task by using a heuristic, or ‘cognitive shortcut.’ Specifically, as within-meal variety increases, expected satiation tends to be based on the perceived volume of food(s) rather than on prior experience. In each trial, participants (N = 68) were shown a plate of food with six buffet food items. Across trials the number of different foods varied in the range one to six. In separate tasks, the participants provided an estimate of their combined expected satiation and volume. When meal variety was high, judgments of perceived volume and expected satiation ‘converged.’ This is consistent with a common underlying response strategy. By contrast, the low variety meals produced dissociable responses, suggesting that judgments of expected satiation were not governed solely by perceived volume. This evidence for a ‘volume heuristic’ was especially clear in people who were less familiar with the meal items. Together, these results are important because they expose a novel process by which meal variety might increase food intake in humans

Foundations for Open Scholarship Strategy Development, Version 2.1 [Pre-print]

This document aims to agree on a broad, international strategy for the implementation of open scholarship that meets the needs of different national and regional communities but works globally. Scholarly research can be idealised as an inspirational process for advancing our collective knowledge to the benefit of all humankind. However, current research practices often struggle with a range of tensions, in part due to the fact that this collective (or “commons”) ideal conflicts with the competitive system in which most scholars work, and in part because much of the infrastructure of the scholarly world is becoming largely digital. What is broadly termed as Open Scholarship is an attempt to realign modern research practices with this ideal. We do not propose a definition of Open Scholarship, but recognise that it is a holistic term that encompasses many disciplines, practices, and principles, sometimes also referred to as Open Science or Open Research. We choose the term Open Scholarship to be more inclusive of these other terms. When we refer to science in this document, we do so historically and use it as shorthand for more general scholarship. The purpose of this document is to provide a concise analysis of where the global Open Scholarship movement currently stands: what the common threads and strengths are, where the greatest opportunities and challenges lie, and how we can more effectively work together as a global community to recognise and address the top strategic priorities. This document was inspired by the Foundations for OER Strategy Development and work in the FORCE11 Scholarly Commons Working Group, and developed by an open contribution working group. Our hope is that this document will serve as a foundational resource for continuing discussions and initiatives about implementing effective strategies to help streamline the integration of Open Scholarship practices into a modern, digital research culture. Through this, we hope to extend the reach and impact of Open Scholarship into a global context, making sure that it is truly open for all. We also hope that this document will evolve as the conversations around Open Scholarship progress, and help to provide useful insight for both global co-ordination and local action. We believe this is a step forward in making Open Scholarship the norm. Ultimately, we expect the impact of widespread adoption of Open Scholarship to be diverse. We expect novel research practices to accelerate the pace of innovation, and therefore stimulate critical industries around the world. We could also expect to see an increase in public trust of science and scholarship, as transparency becomes more normative. As such, we expect interest in Open Scholarship to increase at multiple levels, due to its inherent influence on society and global economics

What You Find Depends on How You Measure It: Reactivity of Response Scales Measuring Predecisional Information Distortion in Medical Diagnosis

“Predecisional information distortion” occurs when decision makers evaluate new information in a way that is biased towards their leading option. The phenomenon is well established, as is the method typically used to measure it, termed “stepwise evolution of preference” (SEP). An inadequacy of this method has recently come to the fore: it measures distortion as the total advantage afforded a leading option over its competitor, and therefore it cannot differentiate between distortion to strengthen a leading option (“proleader” distortion) and distortion to weaken a trailing option (“antitrailer” distortion). To address this, recent research introduced new response scales to SEP. We explore whether and how these new response scales might influence the very proleader and antitrailer processes that they were designed to capture (“reactivity”). We used the SEP method with concurrent verbal reporting: fifty family physicians verbalized their thoughts as they evaluated patient symptoms and signs (“cues”) in relation to two competing diagnostic hypotheses. Twenty-five physicians evaluated each cue using the response scale traditional to SEP (a single response scale, returning a single measure of distortion); the other twenty-five did so using the response scales introduced in recent studies (two separate response scales, returning two separate measures of distortion: proleader and antitrailer). We measured proleader and antitrailer processes in verbalizations, and compared verbalizations in the single-scale and separate-scales groups. Response scales did not appear to affect proleader processes: the two groups of physicians were equally likely to bolster their leading diagnosis verbally. Response scales did, however, appear to affect antitrailer processes: the two groups denigrated their trailing diagnosis verbally to differing degrees. Our findings suggest that the response scales used to measure information distortion might influence its constituent processes, limiting their generalizability across and beyond experimental studies

Registered Replication Report: Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998)

Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence ("professor") subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than participants primed with a category associated with a lack of intelligence ("soccer hooligans"). In two unpublished replications of this study designed to verify the appropriate testing procedures, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, and Holland observed a smaller difference between conditions (2%-3%) as well as a gender difference: Men showed the effect (9.3% and 7.6%), but women did not (0.3% and -0.3%). The procedure used in those replications served as the basis for this multilab Registered Replication Report. A total of 40 laboratories collected data for this project, and 23 of these laboratories met all inclusion criteria. Here we report the meta-analytic results for those 23 direct replications (total N = 4,493), which tested whether performance on a 30-item general-knowledge trivia task differed between these two priming conditions (results of supplementary analyses of the data from all 40 labs, N = 6,454, are also reported). We observed no overall difference in trivia performance between participants primed with the "professor" category and those primed with the "hooligan" category (0.14%) and no moderation by gender

Body appreciation around the world: Measurement invariance of the Body Appreciation Scale-2 (BAS-2) across 65 nations, 40 languages, gender identities, and age.

The Body Appreciation Scale-2 (BAS-2) is a widely used measure of a core facet of the positive body image construct. However, extant research concerning measurement invariance of the BAS-2 across a large number of nations remains limited. Here, we utilised the Body Image in Nature (BINS) dataset - with data collected between 2020 and 2022 - to assess measurement invariance of the BAS-2 across 65 nations, 40 languages, gender identities, and age groups. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis indicated that full scalar invariance was upheld across all nations, languages, gender identities, and age groups, suggesting that the unidimensional BAS-2 model has widespread applicability. There were large differences across nations and languages in latent body appreciation, while differences across gender identities and age groups were negligible-to-small. Additionally, greater body appreciation was significantly associated with higher life satisfaction, being single (versus being married or in a committed relationship), and greater rurality (versus urbanicity). Across a subset of nations where nation-level data were available, greater body appreciation was also significantly associated with greater cultural distance from the United States and greater relative income inequality. These findings suggest that the BAS-2 likely captures a near-universal conceptualisation of the body appreciation construct, which should facilitate further cross-cultural research. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Eye tracking: empirical foundations for a minimal reporting guideline

In this paper, we present a review of how the various aspects of any study using an eye tracker (such as the instrument, methodology, environment, participant, etc.) affect the quality of the recorded eye-tracking data and the obtained eye-movement and gaze measures. We take this review to represent the empirical foundation for reporting guidelines of any study involving an eye tracker. We compare this empirical foundation to five existing reporting guidelines and to a database of 207 published eye-tracking studies. We find that reporting guidelines vary substantially and do not match with actual reporting practices. We end by deriving a minimal, flexible reporting guideline based on empirical research (Section "empirically based minimal reporting guideline")