The Mutual Interpretation of Active and Passive Microwave Sensor Outputs

Mutual interpretation of active and passive microwave sensor output

Radar backscattering data for surfaces of geological interest

Radar backscattering data for surfaces of geological interes

Radar and microwave radiometric techniques for geoscience experiments

Radar backscattering data for farm crop

‘The show must go on!’ Fieldwork, mental health and wellbeing in Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences

Fieldwork is central to the identity, culture and history of academic Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences (GEES). However, in this paper we recognise that, for many academic staff, fieldtrips can be a profoundly challenging “ordeal,” ill‐conducive to wellness or effective pedagogic practice. Drawing on research with 39 UK university‐based GEES academics who self‐identify as having a mental health condition, we explore how mental health intersects with spaces and expectations of fieldwork in Higher Education. We particularly focus on their accounts of undertaking undergraduate residential fieldtrips and give voice to these largely undisclosed experiences. Their narratives run counter to normative, romanticised celebrations of fieldwork within GEES disciplines. We particularly highlight recurrent experiences of avoiding fieldwork, fieldwork‐as‐ ordeal, and “coping” with fieldwork, and suggest that commonplace anxieties within the neoliberal academy – about performance, productivity, fitness‐to‐work, self‐presentation, scrutiny and fear‐of‐falling‐behind – are felt particularly intensely during fieldwork. In spite of considerable work to make fieldwork more accessible to students, we find that field‐based teaching is experienced as a focal site of distress, anxiety and ordeal for many GEES academics with common mental health conditions. We conclude with prompts for reflection about how fieldwork could be otherwise

A Ranking of State Governments' Efficient Use of Expenditures to Encourage Small Firm Births

We assume state governments are rational in their budgeting behavior. If this is true, then it is intuitive that they would allocate their expenditures so as to receive the maximum possible benefit for the least cost. Within the parameters of this study, we assume state governments work to receive the maximum number of firm births for the least amount of expenditure. Using regression analysis, we attempt to determine common state government expenditures that indirectly promote firm birth. We then employ non-parametric efficiency testing to rank states by their relative efficiency in using the significant expenditures to promote firm births. The regression results reveal three positive and significant expenditures in determining small firm birth, while relative efficiency rankings based on the use of these target expenditures indicate how states compare to their peers in terms of efficient expenditure use

Get What You Give? An Examination of Enlightened Self-Interest, Philanthropic Intent, and Engagement in Philanthropy for Small Firm Owners

Prior researchers agree that small businesses are important community contributors due to their active engagement in broader social responsibility activities, such as philanthropy. Despite their purported importance to charitable giving and philanthropy, little is known about the factors that motivate small business owners’ decisions to engage in philanthropic giving. We integrate enlightened self-interest theory and the theory of planned behavior to examine how enlightened self-interest influences intentions to engage in philanthropy during start-up, which in turn impacts current levels of engagement in philanthropic activities. Our results suggest that intentions to engage in philanthropy at start-up do partially mediate the relationship between enlightened self-interest and engagement in philanthropy behaviors; thus, suggesting that entrepreneurs’ motivations grounded in enlightened self-interest influence intentions to engage in philanthropy and subsequent engagement in such activities

Potential Impact of the 2016 Consensus Definitions of Sepsis and Septic Shock on Future Sepsis Research

V. Pettilä on työryhmän ARISE Investigators jäsen.Study objective: The influence of the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) on the conduct of future sepsis research is unknown. We seek to examine the potential effect of the new definitions on the identification and outcomes of patients enrolled in a sepsis trial. Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of the Australasian Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation (ARISE) trial of early goal-directed therapy that recruited 1,591 adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with early septic shock diagnosed by greater than or equal to 2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria and either refractory hypotension or hyperlactatemia. The proportion of participants who would have met the Sepsis-3 criteria for quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qS0FA) score, sepsis (an increased Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score >= 2 because of infection) and septic shock before randomization, their baseline characteristics, interventions delivered, and mortality were determined. Results: There were 1,139 participants who had a qSOFA score of greater than or equal to 2 at baseline (71.6% [95% confidence interval [Cl) 69.4% to 73.8%]). In contrast, 1,347 participants (84.7% [95% CI 82.9% to 86.4%]) met the Sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis. Only 1,010 participants were both qSOFA positive and met the Sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis (63.5% [95% CI 61.1% to 65.8%]). The Sepsis-3 definition for septic shock was met at baseline by 203 participants (12.8% [95% CI 11.2% to 14.5%]), of whom 175 (86.2% [95% CI 81.5% to 91.0%]) were also qSOFA positive. Ninety-day mortality for participants fulfilling the Sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis and septic shock was 20.4% (95% CI 18.2% to 22.5%) (274/1,344) and 29.6% (95% CI 23.3% to 35.8% [60/203]) versus 9.4% (95% CI 5.8% to 13.1%) (23/244) and 17.1% (95% CI 15.1% to 19.1% [237/1,388]), respectively, for participants not meeting the criteria (risk differences 11.0% [95% CI 6.2% to 14.8%] and 12.5% [95% CI 6.3% to 19.4%], respectively). Conclusion: Most ARISE participants did not meet the Sepsis-3 definition for septic shock at baseline. However, the majority fulfilled the new sepsis definition and mortality was higher than for participants not fulfilling the criteria. A quarter of participants meeting the new sepsis definition did not fulfill the qSOFA screening criteria, potentially limiting its utility as a screening tool for sepsis trials with patients with suspected infection in the ED. The implications of the new definitions for patients not eligible for recruitment into the ARISE trial are unknown.Peer reviewe

Do management control systems stifle innovation in small firms? A mediation approach

How entrepreneurial orientation (EO) as a strategy manifests into entrepreneurial behaviors like innovation, is an important research topic but not well understood. There is a gap in the examination of EO and entrepreneurial behavioral outcomes. Since mediators exist (see Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009; Wales, 2016; Wales, Patel, Parida, & Kreiser, 2013) additional research is needed to uncover these potential relationships. Research suggests that management controls systems (MCS) may serve as a mediator between strategy and innovation outcomes. There is, however, conflicting evidence regarding the impact and use of management control systems (MCS) in the small firm context. As such, we examine the relationship between an individual-level measure of EO (IEO) and innovation level and explore the mediating role of financial and nonfinancial MCS on that relationship. Results suggest that nonfinancial MCS partially mediate the relationship between IEO and innovation, while financial MCS do not

Chemotherapy versus supportive care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: improved survival without detriment to quality of life

BACKGROUND: In 1995 a meta-analysis of randomised trials investigating the value of adding chemotherapy to primary treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) suggested a small survival benefit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy in each of the primary treatment settings. However, the metaanalysis included many small trials and trials with differing eligibility criteria and chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: The aim of the Big Lung Trial was to confirm the survival benefits seen in the meta-analysis and to assess quality of life and cost in the supportive care setting. A total of 725 patients were randomised to receive supportive care alone (n = 361) or supportive care plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 364). RESULTS: 65% of patients allocated chemotherapy (C) received all three cycles of treatment and a further 27% received one or two cycles. 74% of patients allocated no chemotherapy (NoC) received thoracic radiotherapy compared with 47% of the C group. Patients allocated C had a significantly better survival than those allocated NoC: HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.89, p = 0.0006), median survival 8.0 months for the C group v 5.7 months for the NoC group, a difference of 9 weeks. There were 19 (5%) treatment related deaths in the C group. There was no evidence that any subgroup benefited more or less fromchemotherapy. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of the pre-defined primary and secondary quality of life end points, although large negative effects of chemotherapy were ruled out. The regimens used proved to be cost effective, the extra cost of chemotherapy being offset by longer survival. CONCLUSIONS: The survival benefit seen in this trial was entirely consistent with the NSCLC meta-analysis and subsequent similarly designed large trials. The information on quality of life and cost should enablepatients and their clinicians to make more informed treatment choices