Extent Of Disagreement Research Articles

Why Democratize Psychiatric Research?

Abstract: Building on decades of rich discussions of why 'nothing about us without us' matters in the field of psychiatry, this paper aims to illuminate the justifications underlying participatory research in psychiatry, and how these justifications might shape participatory methodologies. This is accomplished through the examination of several epistemic and ethical features of psychiatry that underlie the importance of engaging in participatory research in the field, unpacking their connection to participatory research, and offering suggestions related to their implications for research methodologies. The epistemic features include: the irreducible value of patient experience, the extent of disagreement and uncertainty in the field, and the value-laden nature of knowledge in psychiatry. The ethical features include: the preponderance of harm, denials of agency and epistemic injustice, and the constant struggle for power. These features offer useful touchpoints for thinking through why participation matters in mental health research.

Situation awareness for engine room monitoring at future shore control centre

ABSTRACT Situation Awareness (SA) is a cornerstone for system verification and validation, particularly vital at the future Shore Control Centre (SCC). However, engine room monitoring (ERM) receives little attention regarding the SA. This research conducted two Likert-type surveys with 201 marine engineers and employed a descriptive statistic and the Mann–Whitney U test to investigate cue strengths in forming comprehension around the engine room and generality in cue strengths by ship types, experience and ranks of respondents. The importance varies to different extents, and their perspectives seem not to deviate much, with the max disagreement rate at 12% by ship types and the ranks of respondents. The extent of disagreement tends to reduce with the increment of experience thresholds. The outcomes offer a promising strategy for developing a human-centred monitoring system to mitigate the potential risk of information overload and incorrect schema instantiation at the future SCC.

Modelling climate suitability for Striga asiatica, a potential invasive weed of cereal crops

Striga asiatica (L.) Kuntze (Lamiales: Orobanchaceae), a hemi-parasitic plant native to sub-Saharan Africa and tropical Asia, is particularly problematic to rice, corn, and sorghum cultivation in Africa. Striga asiatica produces a large number of small sized (<0.5 mm) seeds, thereby facilitating easy dispersion by commercial exchange of contaminated grains. The distribution of this species in Africa is regulated by climate, which is the main factor determining local suitability. Modelling is a useful tool to analyse climate suitability for species. This study aimed to determine the areas more vulnerable to S. asiatica invasion both in the present and under the projected climate change model using two methods: MaxEnt (as a correlative approach) and CLIMEX (as a semi-mechanistic approach). The MIROC-H Global Climate Model and the A2 and RCP 8.5 scenarios (the most pessimistic one) were used. Our projections indicated areas suitable for S. asiatica invasion in all continents under both present and projected climate change, with high suitability areas in South America, Africa, and Europe. We found agreement and disagreement between CLIMEX and MaxEnt outputs and the extent of disagreement on the increases in climate suitability by 2050 and 2100 in North America, Europe, and eastern, southern, and western Australia. This study provides a useful tool to design strategies aimed at preventing the introduction and establishment of S. asiatica in South America, with considerable agreement between CLIMEX and MaxEnt outputs.

A Messianic Jewish Approach to Jewish Catholicism: Responding to Antoine Lévy's Jewish Church

Antoine Lévy's recent volume, Jewish Church, presents his vision of a Catholic bilateral ecclesiology in which the Jewishness of the universal Church is manifested through the particular Torah-based corporate life of Jewish Catholics. Lévy articulates this vision through a sustained engagement with my writings on this subject. In this article, I first summarize and affirm the heart of Lévy's ecclesiological thesis, along with its soteriological foundation. I then show how his misunderstanding of my work sometimes leads him to exaggerate the extent of disagreement that exists between us. I conclude by highlighting three areas of genuine disagreement that merit further discussion: (1) Do the Jewish people bear any corporate responsibility for the death of Jesus? (2) Does the Church bear responsibility for the emergence of supersessionism? (3) Is there symmetry or asymmetry in the authority of Jewish and Christian tradition for Jewish disciples of Jesus?

Contesting the idea of disagreement as the circumstance of politics

Many political and legal philosophers believe that disagreement forms part of the “circumstances of politics”, even to a point where we might say that disagreement is the definitive circumstance of politics. That is to say, disagreement is understood as a central problem of politics, with which the enterprise of constitutional design is centrally concerned. Disagreement is both insoluble and is constitutive and characteristic of politics as such. And, for the most part, liberal and republican theorists dispute only the subject or extent of disagreement, with Rawls emphasizing disagreement as to questions of the good amidst a presumed consensus on questions of right or of justice, but with Bellamy and Waldron arguing that disagreement extends to questions of right as well as good, and that constitutions should be designed accordingly. In turn, such framings of disagreement underlie questions of institutional design, most notably the problem of judicial review and its relation to democratic legitimacy. The purpose of this paper is to challenge this dominant understanding of disagreement as such as being a definitive circumstance of politics, and therefore, as a central problem of constitutional design. I make this argument with reference to two thinkers in particular, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Pierre Bourdieu. Drawing on Bourdieu, I will argue that ostensible disagreement – as expressed in competing assertions or claims as to the right or the good – need not necessarily be framed in propositional terms, but can rather be understood as socially performative and as exercises of symbolic and social power. Thus, disagreement as such is not antecedent to political and social order but is rather constituted and formatted by it. In turn, I will argue that Rousseau’s constitutional projects can be understood as reflecting a similar insight. In contrast to Rawlsian liberalism, the fundamental problem of political order, for Rousseau, is not a propositional one at all, concerning disagreement as to the right or the good. The starting point of political order is not the search for the good (or the right), but rather, the problem of, and the need for recognition, as the social context within which claims of right and good are asserted. A central challenge of politics, then, is how it is possible to constitute a shared symbolic universe in which political communication and political discourse can assume transparent and non-dominating forms. I will conclude by offering examples as to how constitutional design can account for this problem.

Investigating disagreement in the scientific literature.

Disagreement is essential to scientific progress but the extent of disagreement in science, its evolution over time, and the fields in which it happens remain poorly understood. Here we report the development of an approach based on cue phrases that can identify instances of disagreement in scientific articles. These instances are sentences in an article that cite other articles. Applying this approach to a collection of more than four million English-language articles published between 2000 and 2015 period, we determine the level of disagreement in five broad fields within the scientific literature (biomedical and health sciences; life and earth sciences; mathematics and computer science; physical sciences and engineering; and social sciences and humanities) and 817 meso-level fields. Overall, the level of disagreement is highest in the social sciences and humanities, and lowest in mathematics and computer science. However, there is considerable heterogeneity across the meso-level fields, revealing the importance of local disciplinary cultures and the epistemic characteristics of disagreement. Analysis at the level of individual articles reveals notable episodes of disagreement in science, and illustrates how methodological artifacts can confound analyses of scientific texts.

Survey of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons on Area and Volume Changes in Orbital Floor and Medial Wall Defects

Criteria for surgical repair of isolated orbital floor and medial wall defects when no functional deficits are present is controversial and based on various methods of calculating critical defect size that, if untreated, could result in enophthalmos.1 There have been surveys in the United States, United Kingdom, and other countries reporting on materials and surgical technique in isolated orbital floor fractures; however, to date, no survey has been completed that focuses on specific metrics practicing oral surgeons use in determining if surgery is recommended.2 The purpose of this research was to anonymously survey oral and maxillofacial surgeons to determine the most frequently utilized metrics and methods currently used in practice for determining the necessity of a surgery when functional and/or cosmetic defects are not present. An anonymous survey was sent to United States oral and maxillofacial residency programs and private practicing surgeons who perform surgical orbit fracture repairs. The survey was designed to determine which radiographic features the participant preferred when determining whether to recommend surgical correction and the methods they used to procure these measurements. Each question was analyzed individually. Initial results showed that over 75% surgeons preferred to use an area measurement of “greater than 50% of the floor” when using area as a predictor; however, there was a stark disagreement between participants when deciding if area or volume was more important, with participants equally split between the 2 factors. The more years the participant has been in practice was more closely associated with using area instead of volume. Using a clinical example, over 50% of the participants recommended surgery to a patient when defect alone would be the determining factor. These results are unsurprising given the surplus of literature available that speaks on controversies regarding defect size and surgical repair. This survey helped illuminate what metrics surgeons are currently using to measure defect and recommend orbital surgery when defect size becomes the main determinant. The extent of disagreement between surgeons illustrates the need to validate an optimal, universally accepted method for determining and measuring critical-size defects in surgical decision-making.

Expert-augmented machine learning

Machine learning is proving invaluable across disciplines. However, its success is often limited by the quality and quantity of available data, while its adoption is limited by the level of trust afforded by given models. Human vs. machine performance is commonly compared empirically to decide whether a certain task should be performed by a computer or an expert. In reality, the optimal learning strategy may involve combining the complementary strengths of humans and machines. Here, we present expert-augmented machine learning (EAML), an automated method that guides the extraction of expert knowledge and its integration into machine-learned models. We used a large dataset of intensive-care patient data to derive 126 decision rules that predict hospital mortality. Using an online platform, we asked 15 clinicians to assess the relative risk of the subpopulation defined by each rule compared to the total sample. We compared the clinician-assessed risk to the empirical risk and found that, while clinicians agreed with the data in most cases, there were notable exceptions where they overestimated or underestimated the true risk. Studying the rules with greatest disagreement, we identified problems with the training data, including one miscoded variable and one hidden confounder. Filtering the rules based on the extent of disagreement between clinician-assessed risk and empirical risk, we improved performance on out-of-sample data and were able to train with less data. EAML provides a platform for automated creation of problem-specific priors, which help build robust and dependable machine-learning models in critical applications.

Additional validation study and French cross-cultural adaptation of the Pediatric Stroke Outcome Measure-Summary of Impressions (PSOM-SOI).

The Pediatric Stroke Outcome Measure-Summary of Impressions (PSOM-SOI) measures neurological function across right and left sensorimotor domains (Item A), language production (Item B), language comprehension (Item C), and cognition/behaviour (Item D). This study was a cross-cultural adaptation into French of the PSOM-SOI and an assessment of its reliability and limitations of use. The translation and adaptation of the PSOM-SOI was followed by the assessment of its reliability in a cohort of 69 children with diagnosed acute neonatal arterial ischemic stroke. Three independent raters retrospectively scored the PSOM-SOI based on data from in-person neurological examination and results of standardized tests performed at age 7 in the cohort database. Comparison 1 (C1) involved a less experienced rater and an experienced rater and comparison 2 (C2) involved 2 experienced raters. Inter-rater reliability (IRR) was measured with Kappa coefficients. The cross-cultural adaptation was easily performed, and no rater had difficulties using the French PSOM-SOI. The IRR was better in C1 than C2. For Item A, the agreement in C1 (κ=0.47) and C2 (κ=0.44) was moderate. The C1 agreement was substantial for Items B (κ=0.71) and C (κ=0.70); the C2 agreement was fair for Item B (κ=0.23) and slight for Item C (κ=0.16). For Item D, the agreement was moderate in C1 (κ=0.52) and fair in C2 (κ=0.35). In all but one comparison, agreement or minor disagreement (≤0.5 points) was obtained for more than 90% of the item scores. Regarding the total score, agreement for normal function (≤0.5) versus abnormal function (>0.5) was achieved for 90% in C1 and 67% in C2. The IRR of the French PSOM-SOI gave variable results depending on the item and rater's experience, but the extent of disagreements was minor for individual items and total score. Additional prospective validation studies using the French PSOM-Short Neurological Exam to score the PSOM-SOI are needed. A dichotomised total score (cut-off≤0.5) could be used to define normal function versus poor outcome.

Necessity of “objective awareness” for the “existence of dispute”

It has been a year since the ICJ for the first time declined jurisdiction because the respondent was not aware that there was a dispute – the “objective awareness” test. The court was deeply divided on this issue, and the decision has been widely criticized for its adoption of the objective awareness test. This article argues that the Court was correct in applying the objective awareness test. The awareness of the respondent has always been found by the PCIJ and ICJ – whether directly or indirectly – and there are sound policy reasons that necessitate it. Firstly, for a dispute to exist for the ICJ to exercise jurisdiction, the extent of disagreement between the parties has to reach a certain degree of seriousness. Such a degree of seriousness cannot exist if the respondent is unaware of the dispute. Secondly, unlike the observation by the judges in the minority, the objective awareness test flows from the jurisprudence of the PCIJ and the ICJ. Thirdly, flexibility at the stage of jurisdiction does not imply that the dispute has to be routinely held to exist. Fourthly, if the respondent is caught unaware and surprise litigation is allowed, it will undermine the confidence of States in the international adjudication process, particularly those that have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. Lastly, it would make the expression of disagreement at multilateral negotiations impossible. States will be uncomfortable expressing their views freely since in every disagreement there would be roots of a dispute.

Disagreement Between Self-Reporting and Objective Diagnosis in Chronic Diseases Among Omanis 2008

Background: Health specialists and researchers usually collect information about chronic diseases from self-reports. However, the accuracy of self-reports has been questioned as it relies on the respondents’ understanding of pathological conditions and their ability to recall information. Accordingly, an objective diagnosis is generally regarded as a more precise indication of the presence of disease.Objective: The study objectives were to determine the extent of disagreement between self-reporting and objective diagnosis, identify contributory factors to the discrepancy, and examine the effects of the incongruity on quality of healthcare services and health status.Methods: Secondary data from the most recent Oman World Health Survey (OWHS), for which data were readily available (2008), were analysed in the current study. This was the most recent survey conducted in Oman to date as collection of the data for the subsequent survey only commenced in February 2017 and is still in progress. Agreement between the self-reporting of chronic disease (diabetes mellitus and hypertension) and the results of medical examinations was calculated using kappa (ϰ) statistics. Sociodemographic risk factors for the self-reported and objective measurement of disease were identified (second objective). Univariate analysis was measured initially to determine associations between the variables and the outcome. Thereafter, significant variables were included in multivariate analysis performed using logistic regression. The impact of disagreement on quality of healthcare service and health status (third objective) was also examined using the chi-square test in relation to health service quality and health status variables.Results: Of 3524 Oman adults, aged ≥ 20 years (48% males), agreement between the self-reported and objective measurement of chronic disease was found to be poor to moderate (ϰ = 0.001-0.141). The highest agreement was observed for diabetes mellitus (ϰ = 0.402) and the lowest was found for asthma (ϰ = 0.000). Socioeconomic or demographic characteristics were not significantly associated with the degree of agreement attained between the methods used to measure chronic disease (p = &gt; 0.050), except for sex, age and region. The discrepancy did not significantly impact on familial support (i.e., financial, social, health, physical and personal), the responsiveness of the health system, and household income or expenditure. However, the disagreement was associated with significant effects for other healthcare service and health status variables, i.e., quality of life and health service utilisation (p = &lt; 0.050). It was found that people with the chronic disease and aware of their health status (positive agreement), and those with negative objective measure but positive self-reported disease (negative disagreement), were more likely to access healthcare services (83% of who had a positive agreement for chronic lung disease) and to be satisfied with the quality of care provided (82% of who had a negative disagreement for hypertension), compared to those who assumed they were healthy but had a chronic disease.Conclusions and Recommendations: Although agreement between the self-reported and objective measurement of chronic disease was found to be poor to moderate, we found that some socioeconomic demographic characteristics, such as educational and economic level, did not affect the agreement of measure tools for hypertension and diabetes, except for sex, age and region. Contrary to our expectations, disagreement between objective and self-reported measures in chronic diseases appears not to significantly impact on the quality of healthcare services and health status. The high use of health care services in participants with positive disagreement may result in unnecessary healthcare service costs required to treat chronic diseases. The implications on health services use and planning of this disagreement in the diagnosis of chronic diseases have been scarcely addressed in the literature, therefore, the results from our study need to be taken as a first approximation to this issue. Provided the unexpected results, we recommend examining closely the integrity of the dataset before giving full value about the validity of them.

Ruling divided

Issue salience and ideological disagreement often predict coalition government behavior. However, research on portfolio allocation has yet to fully specify the complex relationship between issue salience, disagreement, and coalition negotiations. Scholars treat issue salience and disagreement as distinct and disconnected, despite evidence that they work together and with conditional effects in a range of settings. Following a logic of portfolio trades or “logrolls,” we propose that the relative salience of issues and disagreements at the issue level within the coalition both moderate the effect of issue salience on portfolio allocation. Using data drawn from the Parliamentary Democracy Data Archive, we find compelling evidence for our theory that links party manifestos to portfolio allocation. Consistent with a story on the conditional effect of salience and disagreement, we find evidence that the effect of salience is mitigated by the extent of disagreement between coalition parties.

Moral Philosophy, Moral Expertise, and the Argument from Disagreement.

Several recent articles have weighed in on the question of whether moral philosophers can be counted as moral experts. One argument denying this has been rejected by both sides of the debate. According to this argument, the extent of disagreement in modern moral philosophy prevents moral philosophers from being classified as moral experts. Call this the Argument From Disagreement (AD). In this article, I defend a version of AD. Insofar as practical issues in moral philosophy are characterized by disagreement between moral philosophers who are more or less equally well credentialed on the issue, non-philosophers have no good reasons to defer to their views.

Disagreement over the best way to use the word ‘validity’ and options for reaching consensus

The ability to convey shared meaning with minimal ambiguity is highly desirable for technical terms within disciplines and professions. Unfortunately, there is no widespread professional consensus over the meaning of the word ‘validity’ as it pertains to educational and psychological testing. After illustrating the nature and extent of disagreement, we consider three options for reaching consensus: to eliminate its ambiguity by agreeing a precise technical definition; to embrace its ambiguity by agreeing a catchall lay usage; and to retire ‘validity’ from the testing lexicon.

A Comparison of Between‐Country Measures of Legal Setting and Enforcement of Accounting Standards

AbstractAcademics and practitioners agree that the enforcement of accounting standards has an important role in promoting high quality financial reporting and favourable capital market outcomes. We test three new enforcement proxies from Brown, Preiato and Tarca (2014) that focus specifically on auditing and accounting enforcement. We examine firms’ information environments, represented by the error in analysts’ consensus forecasts and the extent of disagreement among analysts, as indicated by forecast dispersion. For financial years ending from 2003 to 2009, we construct a sample of 357,034 firm–month observations on the errors and dispersion of analysts’ earnings forecasts for 10,769 firms domiciled in those 39 countries. We find that higher scores for all three proxies are associated with lower error and less disagreement in forecasts. In addition, we find that the indices have significant explanatory power when previously used enforcement proxies (such as Kaufmann et al.'s 2010 rule of law measure) are included in the regression models, pointing to the importance of specific measures of accounting enforcement. We conclude that accounting enforcement may be more important in securing favourable economic outcomes than has been previously realised, because researchers commonly have used noisier, more general legal proxies for enforcement that understate its marginal effects.

Calibration of an objective alertness scale

In order to establish validity of an objective scale of alertness–sleepiness, one is forced to somehow calibrate it using subjective scales, such as the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS). We evaluated the effects of prolonged wakefulness on the extent of disagreement between objective and subjective KSS assessments, and tested whether calibration of an objective alertness–sleepiness scale can be established despite the limited reliability of subjective reports. Starting from 7p.m., the resting electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded at 2-hour intervals over the last 32–50h of 44–61-hour wakefulness of 15 healthy study participants. Frontal and occipital scores on the 2nd principal component of the EEG spectrum and occipital alpha-theta power difference were computed for 1-min intervals of 5-min eyes-closed EEG recordings. To obtain alertness scale scores in the range from 5 to 0, positive and negative values of these EEG indexes were assigned to 1 and 0, respectively, and then summed. Although correlation between time courses of objective and subjective (KSS) scores was very strong, evidence for systematic errors in both the mean and the calibration was also found. Correction of these errors resulted in strengthening of correlation (r=0.99) and establishing one-to-one correspondence between the steps of objective and subjective scales. The results indicate that scores from 5 to 0 on the objective alertness scale can be anchored to minimal, mild, moderate, marked, severe, and disabling levels of sleepiness.

A Comparison of Between-Country Measures of Legal Setting and Enforcement of Accounting Standards

Academics and practitioners agree that the enforcement of accounting standards has an important role in promoting high quality financial reporting and favourable capital market outcomes. Researchers have used a range of proxies to capture differences between countries in the extent of enforcement, usually based on aspects of the legal system or laws in place, rather than the activities of auditors and independent enforcement bodies. We assess the merits of eight proxies that have been used to distinguish between countries’ institutional settings, including three recently-available indices (AUDIT, ENFORCE and their summation, AETOTAL) that focus specifically on auditing and accounting enforcement. We examine firms’ information environments, represented by the error in analysts’ consensus forecasts and the extent of disagreement among analysts, as indicated by forecast dispersion. For financial years ending from 2003 to 2009, we construct a sample of 357,034 firm-month observations on the errors and dispersion of analysts’ earnings forecasts for 10,769 firms domiciled in those 39 countries, where a variety of accounting standards have been followed and institutional settings have varied. While the results for forecast dispersion are equivocal, those for forecast accuracy are clear. AETOTAL has the strongest association with forecast accuracy, and AUDIT, ENFORCE and AETOTAL have additional explanatory power in models including more general legal enforcement (‘rule of law’) measures. We conclude accounting enforcement may be more important in securing favourable economic outcomes than has been realised, because researchers commonly have used noisier, more general legal proxies for enforcement that understate its marginal effects.

Disagreement between Human Papillomavirus Assays: An Unexpected Challenge for the Choice of an Assay in Primary Cervical Screening

We aimed to determine the disagreement in primary cervical screening between four human papillomavirus assays: Hybrid Capture 2, cobas, CLART, and APTIMA. Material from 5,064 SurePath samples of women participating in routine cervical screening in Copenhagen, Denmark, was tested with the four assays. Positive agreement between the assays was measured as the conditional probability that the results of all compared assays were positive given that at least one assay returned a positive result. Of all 5,064 samples, 1,679 (33.2%) tested positive on at least one of the assays. Among these, 41% tested positive on all four. Agreement was lower in women aged ≥30 years (30%, vs. 49% at <30 years), in primary screening samples (29%, vs. 38% in follow-up samples), and in women with concurrent normal cytology (22%, vs. 68% with abnormal cytology). Among primary screening samples from women aged 30–65 years (n = 2,881), 23% tested positive on at least one assay, and 42 to 58% of these showed positive agreement on any compared pair of the assays. While 4% of primary screening samples showed abnormal cytology, 6 to 10% were discordant on any pair of assays. A literature review corroborated our findings of considerable disagreement between human papillomavirus assays. This suggested that the extent of disagreement in primary screening is neither population- nor storage media-specific, leaving assay design differences as the most probable cause. The substantially different selection of women testing positive on the various human papillomavirus assays represents an unexpected challenge for the choice of an assay in primary cervical screening, and for follow up of in particular HPV positive/cytology normal women.

How, where and with whom? Physical activity context preferences of three adult groups at risk of inactivity

BackgroundStrategies to promote physical activity may be more successful if they reflect people's interests.PurposeTo explore physical activity contexts preferred by three adult groups at risk of inactivity: older adults, those...

Assessing Model Uncertainty of Bioaccumulation Models by Combining Chemical Space Visualization with a Process-Based Diagnostic Approach

As models describing human exposure to organic chemicals gain wider use in chemical risk assessment and management, it becomes important to understand their uncertainty. Although evaluation of parameter sensitivity/uncertainty is increasingly common, model uncertainty is rarely assessed. When it is, the assessment is generally limited to a handful of chemicals. In this study, a strategy for more comprehensive model uncertainty assessment was developed. A regulatory model (EUSES) was compared with a research model based on more recent science. Predicted human intake was used as the model end point. Chemical space visualization techniques showed that the extent of disagreement between the models varied strongly with chemical partitioning properties. For each region of disagreement, the primary human exposure vector was determined. The differences between the models' process algorithms describing these exposure vectors were identified and evaluated. The equilibrium assumption for root crops in EUSES caused overestimations in daily intake of superhydrophobic chemicals (log K(OW) > 11, log K(OA) > 10), whereas EUSES's approach to calculating bioaccumulation in fish prey resulted in underestimations for hydrophobic compounds (log K(OW) ∼ 6-8). Uptake of hydrophilic chemicals from soil and bioaccumulation of superhydrophobic chemicals in zooplankton were identified as important research areas to enable further reduction of model uncertainty in bioaccumulation models.