Exclusion of Public From a Proceeding Merely Upon Request is in Excess of Court\u27s Power

A trial court may, in a dissolution of marriage proceeding, exclude the public and the press from trial; such exclusion, however, is within the court\u27s jurisdiction only when cogent reasons for the exclusion exist

Social comparison: dimensional influences on academic and cccupational choice

Vocational theorists have long recognized the important role of social surroundings for a career decision-maker. Social comparison theory would suggest that the career decision maker identify and compare themselves with other people (targets of comparison) on relevant dimensions in order to gain more information about themselves. Social comparison is particularly prevalent in situations of ambiguity or uncertainty such as that which is inherent in occupational choice. Given the minimal research conducted in combining these areas within the literature, a primary purpose of this study was exploring an appropriate methodology for addressing the questions of how social comparison operates in academic and occupational choice. Another purpose was to explore the salient factors and dimension in this process. A clear difference emerged in primed versus unprimed methodology, in which participants were explicitly asked about their own social comparison behaviors and preferences in occupational decision making either before or after rating fictional career speakers, which served as comparison targets. This finding supported the first hypothesis in this study. Differences also emerged regarding the method in which participant preferences were indicated via rating or ranking of comparison targets. In general, upward targets were chosen or evaluated more highly as comparison targets, providing support for the second hypothesis. Also, as the third hypothesis predicted, various participant variables, such as vocational interests, sex, career aspirations, and gender self-concept influenced their evaluation and selection of some comparison targets

Passive self-ligating brackets vs. conventional brackets: Is there a difference in the transverse dimension? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and Objectives: Self-ligating brackets have risen in popularity in clinical orthodontics, but many claims made by their manufacturers have been made without substantial evidence. Any differences among the bracket types are very small when consulting new peer reviewed literature testing their differences. Nevertheless, self-ligating brackets are still purported to be able to increase the dental transverse dimension more effectively than conventional brackets. In 2018, Yang et al. performed a systematic review on the transversal changes, space closure, and efficiency of conventional and self-ligating appliances. Since then, there were several clinical trials published in the literature comparing the mandibular arch dimensional changes between these two types of brackets. The purpose of this systematic review was to include the new studies to give more practical advice on bracket selection in contemporary orthodontic practice. Methods: This systematic review was conducted similarly to the Yang et al (2018) systematic review. An extensive systematic search of the most recent literature published after December 2016 to April 2022 was carried out to compare passive self-ligating brackets with conventional brackets in treating the transverse dental dimension. Randomized controlled trials only were included after systematically hand searching the PubMed literature database with the search terms: “passive” “self-ligating” “brackets” “conventional” “transverse” “orthodontics” respectively. Each article that met inclusion criteria was reviewed by a statistician to confirm heterogeneity and for potential meta-analyses. Results: Out of 19 papers initially screened by abstract, 11 were included in this systematic review, with 6 being new articles having been published in the last 5 years. 2 were included with 4 articles were included in a previously published meta-analysis review to synthesize their results. Meta-analyses showed that passive self-ligating brackets increased intermolar width more than conventional brackets (0.59mm; p = 0.0008), while conventional preadjusted brackets increased intercanine width more than passive self-ligating brackets (0.42mm; p = 0.007) Conclusions: The systematic review found 6 studies out of 19 to be included in a qualitative systematic review. From these six, 2 were included in a meta-analysis including 4 studies used in the previous systematic review. Passive self-ligating brackets expanded the mandibular intermolar width slightly more than conventional brackets, and conventional preadjusted brackets expanded intercanine width slightly more than passive self-ligating brackets, both being statistically significant respectively. High heterogeneity in the intercanine measurements calls these results into question. The difference in width increases between the bracket types were deemed not clinically significant. Future research should standardize arch forms and wire sequences to further differentiate between the two bracket types

The acronym’s forgotten letter: Beliefs about transgender men and women

Psychologists have long recognized the role of stereotyping social minority groups. The current sociopolitical environment of hostility toward transgender individuals would suggest that transgender stereotypes are negative. The purpose of this study was to explore the stereotypes of transgender women and men and examine the content of these stereotypes in comparison to cisgender women and men. It was expected that stereotypes would reflect that transgender individuals are social outsiders who do not fit their assigned gender role, placing them in the low warmth – low competence cluster of the stereotype content model. Multidimensional scaling and cluster analyses revealed a clear difference between the stereotypes of cisgender women and men versus transgender women and men. Specifically, three groups of stereotypes emerged for women, men, and transgender. In examination of the first hypothesis, transgender women and men were disproportionately assigned traits rated negatively and low in competence. Transgender women and men appeared to be assigned traits rated neutral or low in warmth. In examination of the second hypotheses, the feminine stereotypes of cisgender women and the masculine stereotypes of cisgender men were distinct from the non-gendered stereotypes of their transgender counterparts. In examination of the third hypothesis, stereotype content dimensions of valence, warmth, competence, and gender were somewhat interrelated as expected; however, these dimensions were all distinct and uniquely useful in examining stereotype content. Also, as the fourth hypotheses predicted, various participant variables, such as sex, sex role attitudes, transphobia, social distance, and gender self-concept influenced their perception of stereotypes

The Womyn Behind the Counselor: A Panel Discussion of Transitions to a Predominantly White Institution

The purpose of this interactive panel is to educatestaff, faculty, and students on the experiences counseling doctoral students have when transitioning from a racially/ethnically diverse institution or neighborhood to a predominantly White institution (PWI). We hope that our audience may gain a better understanding of how our transition experiences affect our relations with racial/ethnic minority students and our multicultural training experiences on campus. The panel will consist of five doctoral students representing Latina/o, Asian American, East Asian, biracial, and White cultural backgrounds. They will share their unique experiences with identifying with the majority (e.g., predominantly Latina/o or Asian) versus minority racial/ethnic groups, helping racial/ethnic minority students navigate feelings of marginalization at a PWI, and seeking out opportunities to engage with racial/ethnic communities on campus. The moderator will facilitate the panel with prepared questions, but time will also be allotted for questions from the audience. The panelists and moderator will share about a new free and confidential drop-in consultation program that students can use to gain a counselor\u27s perspective and/or learning aboutcounseling

Clean Water Act Permitting of Discharges from Pesticide Applications

On November 27, 2006 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule clarifying two specific circumstances in which a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit is not required to apply pesticides to or around water. They are: 1) the application of pesticides directly to water to control pests, and 2) the application of pesticides to control pests that are present over or near water, where a portion of the pesticides will unavoidably be deposited to the water to target the pests. On January 7, 2009, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held in National Cotton Council et al. v. EPA that the final rule was not a reasonable interpretation of the CWA and vacated the rule. The 6th Circuit held that CWA permits are required for all biological pesticide applications and chemical pesticide applications that leave a residue in water, when such applications are made in or over, including near, waters of the U.S. On June 8, 2009, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals granted EPA a 2-year stay of the mandate in National Cotton Council et al. v. EPA. Before the ruling takes effect on April 9, 2011, EPA plans to issue a final general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for covered pesticide applications, to assist authorized states to develop their NPDES permits and to provide outreach and education to the regulated community. EPA estimates that the ruling affects approximately 365,000 pesticide applicators that perform 5.6 million pesticide applications annually. EPA’s latest thinking on a number of issues is presented here, including who needs permit coverage for what kinds of pesticide applications, permit limits and conditions, and monitoring and reporting requirements