153 research outputs found

    A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

    Get PDF
    Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions 1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process 2. In April 2020, an influential paper 3 proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization

    A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

    Get PDF
    DATA AVAILABILITY : All data and study material are provided either in the Supplementary information or through the two online repositories (OSF and Tableau Public, both accessible via https://psyarxiv.com/58udn). No code was used for analyses in this work.Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process. In April 2020, an influential paper proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization.The National Science Foundation; Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Brazilian Federal Agency for the Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education); Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Brazilian Federal Agency for the Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education); the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation | Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development); National Science Foundation grants; the European Research Council; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.http://www.nature.com/naturehj2024Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS)Non

    Australian climate warming: observed change from 1850 and global temperature targets

    Get PDF
    Mean annual temperature is often used as a benchmark for monitoring climate change and as an indicator of its potential impacts. The Paris Agreement of 2015 aims to keep the global average temperature well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, with a preferred limit of 1.5°C. Therefore, there is interest in understanding and examining regional temperature change using this framework of ‘global warming levels’, as well as through emissions pathways and time horizons. To apply the global warming level framework regionally, we need to quantify regional warming from the late 19th century to today, and to future periods where the warming levels are reached. Here we supplement reliable observations from 1910 with early historical datasets currently available back to 1860 and the latest set of global climate model simulations from CMIP5/CMIP6 to examine the past and future warming of Australia from the 1850–1900 baseline commonly used as a proxy for pre-industrial conditions. We find that Australia warmed by ~1.6°C between 1850–1900 and 2011–2020 (with uncertainty unlikely to substantially exceed ±0.3°C). This warming is a ratio of ~1.4 times the ~1.1°C global warming over that time, and in line with observed global land average warming. Projections for global warming levels are also quantified and suggest future warming of slightly less than the observed ratio to date, at ~1.0–1.3 for all future global warming levels. We also find that to reliably examine regional warming under the emissions pathway framework using the latest climate models from CMIP6, appropriate weights to the ensemble members are required. Once these weights are applied, results are similar to CMIP5

    A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

    Get PDF
    Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process2. In April 2020, an influential paper3 proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization

    A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

    Get PDF
    Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process2. In April 2020, an influential paper3 proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization

    Atmospheric trends explained by changes in frequency of short-term circulation patterns

    No full text
    Abstract The circulation of the atmosphere is subject to natural and anthropogenic forcings that alter the energy balance of the climate system. In each hemisphere the zonally averaged atmospheric circulation can be represented by a single overturning cell if viewed in isentropic coordinates, highlighting the connections between tropics and extratropics. Here we present clusters of the meridional atmospheric circulation based on reanalysis data. Our results reveal preferred global circulation regimes with two clusters in each solstice season. These clusters show strong trends in their occurrence in the last two decades of the 20th century coincident with the depletion of the low-stratospheric ozone over Antarctica. We hypothesize that a change in the occurrence of short-term circulation regimes may lead to some long-term atmospheric trends. Finally, we show a strong coupling between the atmospheric circulation in boreal and austral winters and propose a mechanism linking anomalies in both seasons to the stratospheric ozone that requires confirmation with modelling experiments

    The Australian Science Communicators conference 2020

    No full text
    The Australian Science Communicators conference 202

    Formalizing Trust in Historical Weather Data

    No full text
    Historical instrumental weather observations are vital to understanding past, present, and future climate variability and change. However, the quantity of historical weather observations to be rescued globally far exceeds the resources available to do the rescuing. Which observations should be prioritized? Here we formalize guidelines help make decisions on rescuing historical data. Rather than wait until resource-intensive digitization is done to assess the data’s value, insights can be gleaned from the context in which the observations were made and the history of the ob-servers. Further insights can be gained from the transcription platforms used and the transcribers involved in the data rescue process, without which even the best historical observations can be mishandled. We use the concept of trust to help integrate and formalize the guidelines across the life cycle of data rescue, from the original observation source to the transcribed data element. Five cases of citizen science-based historical data rescue, two from Canada and three from Australia, guide us in constructing a trust checklist. The checklist assembles information from the original observers and their observations to the current transcribers and transcription approaches they use. Nineteen elements are generated to help future data rescue projects answer the question of whether resources should be devoted to rescuing historical meteorological material under consideration
    • …
    corecore