Comparing groups versus individuals in decision making: A systematic review protocol

Background Biodiversity management requires effective decision making at various stages. However decision making in the real world is complex, driven by multiple factors and involves a range of stakeholders. Understanding the factors that influence decision making is crucial to addressing the conflicts that arise in conservation. Decisions can be made either by individuals or by groups. This precise context has been studied extensively for several decades by behavioural economists, social psychologists and intelligence analysts. The observations from these disciplines can offer useful insights for biodiversity conservation. A systematic review on group versus individual decision making is currently lacking. This systematic review would enable us to synthesize the key insights from these disciplines for a range of scenarios useful for conservation. Methods The review will document studies that have investigated differences between group and individual decision making. The focus will be on empirical studies; the comparators in this case are decisions made by individuals while the intervention is group decision making. Outcomes include level of bias in decision outcomes or group performance. The search terms will include various combinations of the words “group”, “individual” and “decision-making”. The searches will be conducted in major publication databases, google scholar and specialist databases. Articles will be screened at the title and abstract and full text level by two reviewers. After checking for internal validity, the articles will be synthesized into subsets of decision contexts in which decision making by groups and individuals have been compared. The review process, all extracted data, original studies identified in the systematic review process and inclusion and exclusion decisions will be freely available as Additional file 1 in the final review.NM is funded by the Fondation Weiner Anspach in Belgium. WJS is funded by Arcadia. LVD was supported under the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Sustainability (BESS) Programme, grant code NE/K015419/1. GES is funded by The Nature Conservancy.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from BioMed Central via http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13750-016-0066-

Decision support tools for agriculture: Towards effective design and delivery

Decision support tools, usually considered to be software-based, may be an important part of the quest for evidence-based decision-making in agriculture to improve productivity and environmental outputs. These tools can lead users through clear steps and suggest optimal decision paths or may act more as information sources to improve the evidence base for decisions. Yet, despite their availability in a wide range of formats, studies in several countries have shown uptake to be disappointingly low. This paper uses a mixed methods approach to investigate the factors affecting the uptake and use of decision support tools by farmers and advisers in the UK. Through a combination of qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys, we found that fifteen factors are influential in convincing farmers and advisers to use decision support tools, which include usability, cost-effectiveness, performance, relevance to user, and compatibility with compliance demands. This study finds a plethora of agricultural decision support tools in operation in the UK, yet, like other studies, shows that their uptake is low. A better understanding of the fifteen factors identified should lead to more effective design and delivery of tools in the future.This research was funded as part of Defra's Sustainable Intensification Platform (Project Code LM0201). In addition, WJS was funded by Arcadia, LVD was funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council under the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Sustainability (BESS) programme, grant code NE/K015419/1. T.A. was supported by the European Commission's Marie Curie International Incoming Fellowship Programme (PIIF-GA-2011-303221) and the Isaac Newton Trust.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Elsevier via https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.00

Exploring the spatialities of technological and user re-scripting: The case of decision support tools in UK agriculture

The use of decision support tools on-farm may help to deliver evidence-based guidance to farmers, helping to improve productivity and prevent environmental degradation. While much research has sought to increase the uptake of decision support tools in practice, largely by identifying desirable characteristics of system design, rather little work has used a spatial lens to investigate how they are actually used. Using Latour’s notion of ‘the script’, this paper looks at the spatialities of technological and user re-scripting associated with the introduction of decision support tools on-farm. Although there is some literature on how technologies may be re-scripted by users, studies concerning decision support tools are more limited. Furthermore, while there are studies about how technology (not decision support tools) re-scripts agricultural societies, these are generally concerned with macro-level impacts (e.g. labour changes), rather than exploring life on individual farms. This paper, therefore, focuses on exploring the spatialities of re-scripting, investigating how tools themselves are co-constituted in various ways by different users in different spaces, but more particularly on how life on the farm may be changed by the introduction of decision tools. A case study of decision support tool use on farms in England and Wales demonstrates the need to explore spaces on individual farms if we wish to understand processes occurring at the interface between tools and farmers. Firstly, situated knowledge held by farmers and advisers leads to resistance, negotiation, and re-scripting of decision support tools, which are perceived to provide the ‘view from nowhere’. Secondly, the introduction of decision support tools changes the workflows of farmers, affecting how and when they interact with different spaces of their farm. In signalling the need for more research to theorise the spatialities of re-scripting, we briefly explore how our work can inform policy and the development of decision support tools

bmotif: A package for motif analyses of bipartite networks

1. Bipartite networks are widely-used to represent a diverse range of species interactions, such as pollination, herbivory, parasitism and seed dispersal. The structure of these networks is usually characterised by calculating one or more indices that capture different aspects of network architecture. While these indices capture useful properties of networks, they are relatively insensitive to changes in network structure. Consequently, variation in ecologically-important interactions can be missed. Network motifs are a way to characterise network structure that is substantially more sensitive to changes in pairwise interactions, and is gaining in popularity. However, there is no software available in R, the most popular programming language among ecologists, for conducting motif analyses in bipartite networks. Similarly, no mathematical formalisation of bipartite motifs has been developed. 2. Here we introduce bmotif: a package for counting motifs, and species positions within motifs, in bipartite networks. Our code is primarily an R package, but we also provide MATLAB and Python code of the core functionality. The software is based on a mathematical framework where, for the first time, we derive formal expressions for motif frequencies and the frequencies with which species occur in different positions within motifs. This framework means that analyses with bmotif are fast, making motif methods compatible with the permutational approaches often used in network studies, such as null model analyses. 3. We describe the package and demonstrate how it can be used to conduct ecological analyses, using two examples of plant-pollinator networks. We first use motifs to examine the assembly and disassembly of an Arctic plant-pollinator community, and then use them to compare the roles of native and introduced plant species in an unrestored site in Mauritius. 4. bmotif will enable motif analyses of a wide range of bipartite ecological networks, allowing future research to characterise these complex networks without discarding important meso-scale structural detail.Cambridge Faculty of Mathematics Bridgwater Summer Research Fund/CMP bursary fun

Selection of tuning parameters in bridge regression models via Bayesian information criterion

We consider the bridge linear regression modeling, which can produce a sparse or non-sparse model. A crucial point in the model building process is the selection of adjusted parameters including a regularization parameter and a tuning parameter in bridge regression models. The choice of the adjusted parameters can be viewed as a model selection and evaluation problem. We propose a model selection criterion for evaluating bridge regression models in terms of Bayesian approach. This selection criterion enables us to select the adjusted parameters objectively. We investigate the effectiveness of our proposed modeling strategy through some numerical examples.Comment: 20 pages, 5 figure

Methodological criteria for the assessment of moderators in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials : a consensus study

Background: Current methodological guidelines provide advice about the assessment of sub-group analysis within RCTs, but do not specify explicit criteria for assessment. Our objective was to provide researchers with a set of criteria that will facilitate the grading of evidence for moderators, in systematic reviews. Method: We developed a set of criteria from methodological manuscripts (n = 18) using snowballing technique, and electronic database searches. Criteria were reviewed by an international Delphi panel (n = 21), comprising authors who have published methodological papers in this area, and researchers who have been active in the study of sub-group analysis in RCTs. We used the Research ANd Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method to assess consensus on the quantitative data. Free responses were coded for consensus and disagreement. In a subsequent round additional criteria were extracted from the Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook, and the process was repeated. Results: The recommendations are that meta-analysts report both confirmatory and exploratory findings for subgroups analysis. Confirmatory findings must only come from studies in which a specific theory/evidence based apriori statement is made. Exploratory findings may be used to inform future/subsequent trials. However, for inclusion in the meta-analysis of moderators, the following additional criteria should be applied to each study: Baseline factors should be measured prior to randomisation, measurement of baseline factors should be of adequate reliability and validity, and a specific test of the interaction between baseline factors and interventions must be presented. Conclusions: There is consensus from a group of 21 international experts that methodological criteria to assess moderators within systematic reviews of RCTs is both timely and necessary. The consensus from the experts resulted in five criteria divided into two groups when synthesising evidence: confirmatory findings to support hypotheses about moderators and exploratory findings to inform future research. These recommendations are discussed in reference to previous recommendations for evaluating and reporting moderator studies

Factorization of Operators Through Orlicz Spaces

[EN] We study factorization of operators between quasi-Banach spaces. We prove the equivalence between certain vector norm inequalities and the factorization of operators through Orlicz spaces. As a consequence, we obtain the Maurey-Rosenthal factorization of operators into L-p-spaces. We give several applications. In particular, we prove a variant of Maurey's Extension Theorem.The research of the first author was supported by the National Science Centre (NCN), Poland, Grant No. 2011/01/B/ST1/06243. The research of the second author was supported by Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad, Spain, under project #MTM2012-36740-C02-02Mastylo, M.; Sánchez Pérez, EA. (2017). Factorization of Operators Through Orlicz Spaces. Bulletin of the Malaysian Mathematical Sciences Society. 40(4):1653-1675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40840-015-0158-5S16531675404Calderón, A.P.: Intermediate spaces and interpolation, the complex method. Stud. Math. 24, 113–190 (1964)Davis, W.J., Garling, D.J.H., Tomczak-Jaegermann, N.: The complex convexity of quasi-normed linear spaces. J. Funct. Anal. 55, 110–150 (1984)Defant, A.: Variants of the Maurey–Rosenthal theorem for quasi Köthe function spaces. Positivity 5, 153–175 (2001)Defant, A., Mastyło, M., Michels, C.: Orlicz norm estimates for eigenvalues of matrices. Isr. J. Math. 132, 45–59 (2002)Defant, A., Sánchez Pérez, E.A.: Maurey–Rosenthal factorization of positive operators and convexity. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 297, 771–790 (2004)Defant, A., Sánchez Pérez, E.A.: Domination of operators on function spaces. Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 146, 57–66 (2009)Diestel, J.: Sequences and Series in Banach Spaces. Springer, Berlin (1984)Diestel, J., Jarchow, H., Tonge, A.: Absolutely Summing Operators. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)Dilworth, S.J.: Special Banach lattices and their applications. In: Handbook of the Geometry of Banach Spaces, vol. 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2001)Figiel, T., Pisier, G.: Séries alétoires dans les espaces uniformément convexes ou uniformément lisses. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, Paris, Série A 279, 611–614 (1974)Kalton, N.J., Montgomery-Smith, S.J.: Set-functions and factorization. Arch. Math. (Basel) 61(2), 183–200 (1993)Kamińska, A., Mastyło, M.: Abstract duality Sawyer formula and its applications. Monatsh. Math. 151(3), 223–245 (2007)Kantorovich, L.V., Akilov, G.P.: Functional Analysis, 2nd edn. Pergamon Press, Oxford (1982)Lindenstrauss, J., Tzafriri, L.: Classical Banach Spaces II. Springer, Berlin (1979)Lozanovskii, G.Ya.: On some Banach lattices IV, Sibirsk. Mat. Z. 14, 140–155 (1973) (in Russian); English transl.: Siberian. Math. J. 14, 97–108 (1973)Lozanovskii, G.Ya.:Transformations of ideal Banach spaces by means of concave functions. In: Qualitative and Approximate Methods for the Investigation of Operator Equations, Yaroslavl, vol. 3, pp. 122–147 (1978) (Russian)Mastyło, M., Szwedek, R.: Interpolative constructions and factorization of operators. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 401, 198–208 (2013)Nikišin, E.M.: Resonance theorems and superlinear operators. Usp. Mat. Nauk 25, 129–191 (1970) (Russian)Okada, S., Ricker, W.J., Sánchez Pérez, E.A.: Optimal Domain and Integral Extension of Operators acting in Function Spaces. Operator Theory: Adv. Appl., vol. 180. Birkhäuser, Basel (2008)Pisier, G.: Factorization of linear operators and geometry of Banach spaces. CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, vol. 60. Published for the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Washington, DC (1986)Reisner, S.: On two theorems of Lozanovskii concerning intermediate Banach lattices, geometric aspects of functional analysis (1986/87). Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1317, pp. 67–83. Springer, Berlin (1988)Wojtaszczyk, P.: Banach Spaces for Analysts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991

Comparable endocrine and neuromuscular adaptations to variable vs. constant gravity-dependent resistance training among young women.

BACKGROUND:Variable resistance has been shown to induce greater total work and muscle activation when compared to constant resistance. However, little is known regarding the effects of chronic exposure to variable resistance training in comparison with constant resistance training. The aim of the present study was therefore to examine the effects of chain-loaded variable and constant gravity-dependent resistance training on resting hormonal and neuromuscular adaptations. METHODS:Young women were randomly assigned to variable resistance training (VRT; n = 12; age, 23.75 ± 3.64 years; and BMI, 26.80 ± 4.21 kg m-2), constant resistance training (CRT; n = 12; age, 23.58 ± 3.84 years; BMI, 25.25 ± 3.84 kg m-2), or control (Con; n = 12; age, 23.50 ± 2.93 years; BMI, 27.12 ± 12 kg m-2) groups. CRT performed 8-week total-body free-weight training three times per week with moderate-to-high intensity (65-80% 1RM; periodized). VRT was the same as CRT but included variable resistance via chains (15% of total load). Resting serum samples were taken before and after the 8-week intervention for GH, IGF-1, cortisol, myostatin, and follistatin analyses. RESULTS:Both VRT and CRT groups displayed moderate-to-large significant increases in GH (197.1%; ES = 0.78 vs. 229.9%; ES = 1.55), IGF-1 (82.3%; ES = 1.87 vs. 66%; ES = 1.66), and follistatin (58.8%; ES = 0.80 vs. 49.15%; ES = 0.80) and decreases in cortisol (- 19.9%; ES = - 1.34 vs. - 17.1%; ES = - 1.05) and myostatin (- 26.9%; ES = - 0.78 vs. - 23.2%; ES = - 0.82). Also, VRT and CRT resulted in large significant increases in bench press (30.54%; ES = 1.45 vs. 25.08%; ES = 1.12) and squat (30.63%; ES = 1.28 vs. 24.81%; ES = 1.21) strength, with no differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS:Implementing chain-loaded VRT into a periodized resistance training program can be an effective alternative to constant loading during free-weight RT among untrained young women

Building a tool to overcome barriers in research-implementation spaces: The conservation evidence database

Conservation practitioners, policy-makers and researchers work within shared spaces with many shared goals. Improving the flow of information between conservation researchers, practitioners and policy-makers could lead to dramatic gains in the effectiveness of conservation practice. However, several barriers can hinder this transfer including lack of time, inaccessibility of evidence, the real or perceived irrelevance of scientific research to practical questions, and the politically motivated spread of disinformation. Conservation Evidence works to overcome these barriers by providing a freely-available database of summarized scientific evidence for the effects of conservation interventions on biodiversity. The methods used to build this database – a combination of discipline-wide literature searching and subject-wide evidence synthesis – have been developed over the last 15 years to address the challenges of synthesizing large volumes of evidence of varying quality and measured outcomes. Here, we describe the methods to enhance understanding of the database and how it should be used. We discuss how the database can help to expand multi-directional information transfers between research, practice and policy, which should improve the implementation of evidence-based conservation and, ultimately, achieve better outcomes for biodiversity