Persistence and Achievement in Academics

One of the most valuable commodities in modern society is a college education. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2016), an estimated 20.5 million students enrolled in American colleges and universities during the fall of 2016, with the majority enrolled in undergraduate programs. When assessing undergraduate success, many studies focus on academic achievement, with grade-point average (GPA) serving as the most common measure. Other studies utilize persistence to graduation as the primary measure of success. Based on the available literature, college success can be predicted by several domains, including personality, motivational influences, and social variables. In the present study, the relationships between both measures of student success and measures from all three domains were examined among undergraduate students (N = 141). Simultaneous regression was used to predict achievement and persistence. Results indicated that motivational factors were the best predictors of actual GPA (R2 = .14), social factors best predicted self-reported GPA (R2 = .17), and personality factors best predicted intention to withdraw from school (R2 = .26). Attempts to predict likelihood to earn a degree were marginally successful, but motivational factors explained only 6% of the variance at best. Results indicated that higher student achievement (i.e., actual GPA) was predicted by greater need for achievement, less fear of failure, and not perceiving schools as being subjective in their treatment of high-achieving students

Reply Brief for Petitioners, Gonzalez v. Google, 143 S.Ct. 1191 (2023) (No. 21-1333)

QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 203(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an “interactive computer service” (such as YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter) for “publish[ ing] ... information provided by another” “information content provider” (such as someone who posts a video on YouTube or a statement on Facebook). This is the most recent of three court of appeals’ decisions regarding whether section 230(c)(1) immunizes an interactive computer service when it makes targeted recommendations of information provided by such another party. Five courts of appeals judges have concluded that section 230(c)(1) creates such immunity. Three court of appeals judges have rejected such immunity. One appellate judge has concluded only that circuit precedent precludes liability for such recommendations. The question presented is: Does section 230(c)(1) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information

Brief for Petitioners, Gonzalez v. Google, 143 S.Ct. 1191 (2023) (No. 21-1333)

QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 203(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an “interactive computer service” (such as YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter) for “publish[ ing] ... information provided by another” “information content provider” (such as someone who posts a video on YouTube or a statement on Facebook). This is the most recent of three court of appeals’ decisions regarding whether section 230(c)(1) immunizes an interactive computer service when it makes targeted recommendations of information provided by such another party. Five courts of appeals judges have concluded that section 230(c)(1) creates such immunity. Three court of appeals judges have rejected such immunity. One appellate judge has concluded only that circuit precedent precludes liability for such recommendations. The question presented is: Does section 230(c)(1) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Gonzalez v. Google, 143 S.Ct. 1191 (2023) (No. 21-1333)

QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 203(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an “interactive computer service” (such as YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter) for “publish[ ing] ... information provided by another” “information content provider” (such as someone who posts a video on YouTube or a statement on Facebook). This is the most recent of three court of appeals’ decisions regarding whether section 230(c)(1) immunizes an interactive computer service when it makes targeted recommendations of information provided by such another party. Five courts of appeals judges have concluded that section 230(c)(1) creates such immunity. Three court of appeals judges have rejected such immunity. One appellate judge has concluded only that circuit precedent precludes liability for such recommendations. The question presented is: Does section 230(c)(1) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information

Reply Brief for Petitioners, Gonzalez v. Google, 143 S.Ct. 1191 (2023) (No. 21-1333)

QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 203(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an “interactive computer service” (such as YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter) for “publish[ ing] ... information provided by another” “information content provider” (such as someone who posts a video on YouTube or a statement on Facebook). This is the most recent of three court of appeals’ decisions regarding whether section 230(c)(1) immunizes an interactive computer service when it makes targeted recommendations of information provided by such another party. Five courts of appeals judges have concluded that section 230(c)(1) creates such immunity. Three court of appeals judges have rejected such immunity. One appellate judge has concluded only that circuit precedent precludes liability for such recommendations. The question presented is: Does section 230(c)(1) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information

Next Generation Community Leaders Initiative: Collaborating With Youth to Develop Leaders and Healthier Communities

Central to addressing the social determinants of health and challenges to health equity in the United States is the growing acknowledgement among solution seekers of the importance of cross-sector collaborators and partners. Youth are an underutilized and overlooked partner, especially in vulnerable urban communities, who bring diverse perspectives on their communities. Provided the opportunity and resources (e.g., coaching, compensation, and connections), youth can add value as partners to solve problems and achieve goals to benefit their communities. In this paper we review and discuss the Next Generation Community Leaders initiative (NGCL) a $2.8 million initiative funded by New Jersey Health Initiatives, the statewide grantmaking program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. We also describe findings from an independent evaluation of NGCL that explored how investments in youth through youth-serving organizations benefitted the youth who participated and increased health equity in their communities. Finally, we share 5 principles of youth engagement that we identified through our work as practitioners and scholars

A questionnaire elicitation of surgeons' belief about learning within a surgical trial

PMID: 23145113 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID: PMC3493499 Free PMC ArticlePeer reviewedPublisher PD

The Meta-Position of Phe4 in Leu-Enkephalin Regulates Potency, Selectivity, Functional Activity, and Signaling Bias at the Delta and Mu Opioid Receptors

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.As tool compounds to study cardiac ischemia, the endogenous δ-opioid receptors (δOR) agonist Leu5-enkephalin and the more metabolically stable synthetic peptide (d-Ala2, d-Leu5)-enkephalin are frequently employed. However, both peptides have similar pharmacological profiles that restrict detailed investigation of the cellular mechanism of the δOR’s protective role during ischemic events. Thus, a need remains for δOR peptides with improved selectivity and unique signaling properties for investigating the specific roles for δOR signaling in cardiac ischemia. To this end, we explored substitution at the Phe4 position of Leu5-enkephalin for its ability to modulate receptor function and selectivity. Peptides were assessed for their affinity to bind to δORs and µ-opioid receptors (µORs) and potency to inhibit cAMP signaling and to recruit β-arrestin 2. Additionally, peptide stability was measured in rat plasma. Substitution of the meta-position of Phe4 of Leu5-enkephalin provided high-affinity ligands with varying levels of selectivity and bias at both the δOR and µOR and improved peptide stability, while substitution with picoline derivatives produced lower-affinity ligands with G protein biases at both receptors. Overall, these favorable substitutions at the meta-position of Phe4 may be combined with other modifications to Leu5-enkephalin to deliver improved agonists with finely tuned potency, selectivity, bias and drug-like properties

Evaluating 'Prefer not to say' Around Sensitive Disclosures

As people's offline and online lives become increasingly entwined, the sensitivity of personal information disclosed online is increasing. Disclosures often occur through structured disclosure fields (e.g., drop-down lists). Prior research suggests these fields may limit privacy, with non-disclosing users being presumed to be hiding undesirable information. We investigated this around HIV status disclosure in online dating apps used by men who have sex with men. Our online study asked participants (N=183) to rate profiles where HIV status was either disclosed or undisclosed. We tested three designs for displaying undisclosed fields. Visibility of undisclosed fields had a significant effect on the way profiles were rated, and other profile information (e.g., ethnicity) could affect inferences that develop around undisclosed information. Our research highlights complexities around designing for non-disclosure and questions the voluntary nature of these fields. Further work is outlined to ensure disclosure control is appropriately implemented around online sensitive information disclosures