On Component Forces in Physics: A Pragmatic View

Do component forces exist? I argue that the answer lies in the affirmative, on historical and operational grounds

When the tail wags the dog? Digitalisation and corporate reporting

To facilitate digital corporate reporting and enable computers to ‘read’ accounting information, standard-setters must construct a taxonomy to assign contextual ‘metadata’ that codifies disclosures arising from accounting concepts, standards and practices. But digitalisation poses a problem for corporate reporting. Within internationally accepted accounting practice, ‘principles-based’ standards give companies significant discretion in deciding what they disclose and how they report accounts of their activity. How would the principles-based nature of corporate reporting be influenced by the construction of a taxonomy that seeks to specify all accounting disclosures? Drawing on literature examining the constitutive potential of classification and formal representation, we use our case study of the digitalisation project undertaken by the global standard-setter, the IASB, to understand how digitalisation intervenes on standard-setting and reporting practice despite the intentions of standard-setters. Our results detail how standard-setters sought to minimise the impact of digitalisation by modelling the taxonomy only on disclosures explicitly required by accounting standards. We reveal the circumstances that led the IASB to change its taxonomy design by seeking to capture not only what should be reported (as prescribed in extant accounting standards) but also what was being reported (as prescribed in a new classification called ‘Common Practices’). We analyse the process by which international accounting disclosure practices were judged to be ‘common’, and demonstrate how the ‘Common Practices’ classification was perceived by early users of the taxonomy. When interpreting the IASB’s Common Practices (what is) as disclosure standards (what should be), digitalisation generates a self-validating feedback loop that can generate more homogenous corporate reporting and push International Financial Reporting Standards beyond the principles-based approach they were designed to engender. Although standard-setters became increasingly aware of the influence of the digital (machine-readable) ‘tail’ on the traditional reporting (human-readable) ‘dog’, their attempts to take tighter control of the taxonomy development process strengthened user perceptions that the taxonomy and its ‘Common Practices’ represented an authoritative view of what should be reported. Our results reveal the process by which digital reporting both represents and intervenes in accounting, and how digitalisation impacts key accounting debates. As digitalisation attempts to provide a universal codification of reporting disclosures, it valorises comprehensive machine-friendly disclosure rules over principles, which offer standardised comparability over entity-specific communication. Our study also offers a perspective on the relations between information representation and intervention that moves beyond a study of passive, ‘reactive’ conformance to consider how representations can intervene despite the intentions of those generating the representation. In doing so, we reveal the constitutive potential of digital representations in generating ‘non-passive’ conformance

Algorithm and performance of a clinical IMRT beam-angle optimization system

This paper describes the algorithm and examines the performance of an IMRT beam-angle optimization (BAO) system. In this algorithm successive sets of beam angles are selected from a set of predefined directions using a fast simulated annealing (FSA) algorithm. An IMRT beam-profile optimization is performed on each generated set of beams. The IMRT optimization is accelerated by using a fast dose calculation method that utilizes a precomputed dose kernel. A compact kernel is constructed for each of the predefined beams prior to starting the FSA algorithm. The IMRT optimizations during the BAO are then performed using these kernels in a fast dose calculation engine. This technique allows the IMRT optimization to be performed more than two orders of magnitude faster than a similar optimization that uses a convolution dose calculation engine.Comment: Final version that appeared in Phys. Med. Biol. 48 (2003) 3191-3212. Original EPS figures have been converted to PNG files due to size limi

'Word from the street' : when non-electoral representative claims meet electoral representation in the United Kingdom

Taking the specific case of street protests in the UK – the ‘word from the street’– this article examines recent (re)conceptualizations of political representation, most particularly Saward’s notion of ‘representative claim’. The specific example of nonelectoral claims articulated by protestors and demonstrators in the UK is used to illustrate: the processes of making, constituting, evaluating and accepting claims for and by constituencies and audiences; and the continuing distinctiveness of claims based upon electoral representation. Two basic questions structure the analysis: first, why would the political representative claims of elected representatives trump the nonelectoral claims of mass demonstrators and, second, in what ways does the ‘perceived legitimacy’ of the former differ from the latter

What is theoretical progress of science?

The epistemic conception of scientific progress equates progress with accumulation of scientific knowledge. I argue that the epistemic conception fails to fully capture scientific progress: theoretical progress, in particular, can transcend scientific knowledge in important ways. Sometimes theoretical progress can be a matter of new theories ‘latching better onto unobservable reality’ in a way that need not be a matter of new knowledge. Recognising this further dimension of theoretical progress is particularly significant for understanding scientific realism, since realism is naturally construed as the claim that science makes theoretical progress. Some prominent realist positions (regarding fundamental physics, in particular) are best understood in terms of commitment to theoretical progress that cannot be equated with accumulation of scientific knowledge

Lines of Descent: Kuhn and Beyond

yesThomas S. Kuhn is famous both for his work on the Copernican Revolution and his ‘paradigm’ view of scientific revolutions. But Kuhn later abandoned the notion of paradigm (and related notions) in favour of a more ‘evolutionary’ view of the history of science. Kuhn’s position therefore moved closer to ‘continuity’ models of scientific progress, for instance ‘chain-of-reasoning’ models, originally championed by D. Shapere. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the debate around Kuhn’s new ‘developmental’ view and to evaluate these competing models with reference to some major innovations in the history of cosmology, from Copernicanism to modern cosmology. This evaluation is made possible through some unexpected overlap between Kuhn’s earlier discontinuity model and various versions of the later continuity models. It is the thesis of this paper that the ‘chain-of-reasoning’ model accounts better for the cosmological evidence than both Kuhn’s early paradigm model and his later developmental view of the history of science

Cognitive behavioural therapy for adults with dissociative seizures (CODES): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dissociative seizures are paroxysmal events resembling epilepsy or syncope with characteristic features that allow them to be distinguished from other medical conditions. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) plus standardised medical care with standardised medical care alone for the reduction of dissociative seizure frequency. METHODS: In this pragmatic, parallel-arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial, we initially recruited participants at 27 neurology or epilepsy services in England, Scotland, and Wales. Adults (≥18 years) who had dissociative seizures in the previous 8 weeks and no epileptic seizures in the previous 12 months were subsequently randomly assigned (1:1) from 17 liaison or neuropsychiatry services following psychiatric assessment, to receive standardised medical care or CBT plus standardised medical care, using a web-based system. Randomisation was stratified by neuropsychiatry or liaison psychiatry recruitment site. The trial manager, chief investigator, all treating clinicians, and patients were aware of treatment allocation, but outcome data collectors and trial statisticians were unaware of treatment allocation. Patients were followed up 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. The primary outcome was monthly dissociative seizure frequency (ie, frequency in the previous 4 weeks) assessed at 12 months. Secondary outcomes assessed at 12 months were: seizure severity (intensity) and bothersomeness; longest period of seizure freedom in the previous 6 months; complete seizure freedom in the previous 3 months; a greater than 50% reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline; changes in dissociative seizures (rated by others); health-related quality of life; psychosocial functioning; psychiatric symptoms, psychological distress, and somatic symptom burden; and clinical impression of improvement and satisfaction. p values and statistical significance for outcomes were reported without correction for multiple comparisons as per our protocol. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population with multiple imputation for missing observations. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, ISRCTN05681227, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325544. FINDINGS: Between Jan 16, 2015, and May 31, 2017, we randomly assigned 368 patients to receive CBT plus standardised medical care (n=186) or standardised medical care alone (n=182); of whom 313 had primary outcome data at 12 months (156 [84%] of 186 patients in the CBT plus standardised medical care group and 157 [86%] of 182 patients in the standardised medical care group). At 12 months, no significant difference in monthly dissociative seizure frequency was identified between the groups (median 4 seizures [IQR 0-20] in the CBT plus standardised medical care group vs 7 seizures [1-35] in the standardised medical care group; estimated incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·78 [95% CI 0·56-1·09]; p=0·144). Dissociative seizures were rated as less bothersome in the CBT plus standardised medical care group than the standardised medical care group (estimated mean difference -0·53 [95% CI -0·97 to -0·08]; p=0·020). The CBT plus standardised medical care group had a longer period of dissociative seizure freedom in the previous 6 months (estimated IRR 1·64 [95% CI 1·22 to 2·20]; p=0·001), reported better health-related quality of life on the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-5 Level Health Today visual analogue scale (estimated mean difference 6·16 [95% CI 1·48 to 10·84]; p=0·010), less impairment in psychosocial functioning on the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (estimated mean difference -4·12 [95% CI -6·35 to -1·89]; p<0·001), less overall psychological distress than the standardised medical care group on the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-10 scale (estimated mean difference -1·65 [95% CI -2·96 to -0·35]; p=0·013), and fewer somatic symptoms on the modified Patient Health Questionnaire-15 scale (estimated mean difference -1·67 [95% CI -2·90 to -0·44]; p=0·008). Clinical improvement at 12 months was greater in the CBT plus standardised medical care group than the standardised medical care alone group as reported by patients (estimated mean difference 0·66 [95% CI 0·26 to 1·04]; p=0·001) and by clinicians (estimated mean difference 0·47 [95% CI 0·21 to 0·73]; p<0·001), and the CBT plus standardised medical care group had greater satisfaction with treatment than did the standardised medical care group (estimated mean difference 0·90 [95% CI 0·48 to 1·31]; p<0·001). No significant differences in patient-reported seizure severity (estimated mean difference -0·11 [95% CI -0·50 to 0·29]; p=0·593) or seizure freedom in the last 3 months of the study (estimated odds ratio [OR] 1·77 [95% CI 0·93 to 3·37]; p=0·083) were identified between the groups. Furthermore, no significant differences were identified in the proportion of patients who had a more than 50% reduction in dissociative seizure frequency compared with baseline (OR 1·27 [95% CI 0·80 to 2·02]; p=0·313). Additionally, the 12-item Short Form survey-version 2 scores (estimated mean difference for the Physical Component Summary score 1·78 [95% CI -0·37 to 3·92]; p=0·105; estimated mean difference for the Mental Component Summary score 2·22 [95% CI -0·30 to 4·75]; p=0·084), the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 scale score (estimated mean difference -1·09 [95% CI -2·27 to 0·09]; p=0·069), and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scale depression score (estimated mean difference -1·10 [95% CI -2·41 to 0·21]; p=0·099) did not differ significantly between groups. Changes in dissociative seizures (rated by others) could not be assessed due to insufficient data. During the 12-month period, the number of adverse events was similar between the groups: 57 (31%) of 186 participants in the CBT plus standardised medical care group reported 97 adverse events and 53 (29%) of 182 participants in the standardised medical care group reported 79 adverse events. INTERPRETATION: CBT plus standardised medical care had no statistically significant advantage compared with standardised medical care alone for the reduction of monthly seizures. However, improvements were observed in a number of clinically relevant secondary outcomes following CBT plus standardised medical care when compared with standardised medical care alone. Thus, adults with dissociative seizures might benefit from the addition of dissociative seizure-specific CBT to specialist care from neurologists and psychiatrists. Future work is needed to identify patients who would benefit most from a dissociative seizure-specific CBT approach. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment programme

Health information use by patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) pre and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objective We conducted an international survey of patients with SLE to assess their access, preference and trust in various health information sources pre-COVID-19 and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Patients with SLE were recruited from 18 observational cohorts, and patients self-reporting SLE were recruited through five advocacy organisations. Respondents completed an online survey from June 2020 to December 2021 regarding the sources of health information they accessed in the 12 months preceding (pre-11 March 2020) and during (post-11 March 2020) the pandemic. Multivariable logistic regressions assessed factors associated with accessing news and social media post-11 March 2020, and self-reporting negative impacts from health information accessed through these sources. Results Surveys were completed by 2111 respondents; 92.8% were female, 76.6% had postsecondary education, mean (SD) age was 48.8 (14.0) years. Lupus specialists and family physicians were the most preferred sources pre-11 March 2020 and post-11 March 2020, yet were accessed less frequently (specialists: 78.5% pre vs 70.2% post, difference -8.3%, 95% CI -10.2% to -6.5%; family physicians: 57.1% pre vs 50.0% post, difference -7.1%, 95% CI -9.2% to -5.0%), while news (53.2% pre vs 62.1% post, difference 8.9%, 95% CI 6.7% to 11.0%) and social media (38.2% pre vs 40.6% post, difference 2.4%, 95% CI 0.7% to 4.2%) were accessed more frequently post-11 March 2020 vs pre-11 March 2020. 17.2% of respondents reported negative impacts from information accessed through news/social media. Those outside Canada, older respondents or with postsecondary education were more likely to access news media. Those in Asia, Latin America or younger respondents were more likely to access social media. Those in Asia, older respondents, males or with postsecondary education in Canada, Asia or the USA were less likely to be negatively impacted. Conclusions Physicians, the most preferred and trusted sources, were accessed less frequently, while news and social media, less trusted sources, were accessed more frequently post-11 March 2020 vs pre-11 March 2020. Increasing accessibility to physicians, in person and virtually, may help reduce the consequences of accessing misinformation/disinformation