Scholars know little about participation in consultative events such as town halls, and even less about newer modalities, such as telephone town halls. We study participation in such events with a large, randomized field trial in which Australian voters received varying invitations to a telephone town hall with their representative. In addition to invitations framed prospectively or retrospectively, a control condition provided no rationale for participation. Surprisingly, the control group had higher acceptance rates than retrospective for both events, and for prospective in May. After accounting for this, treatment groups remained on the call longer, significantly for prospective in July. We see no differences by gender, but the youngest cohort had higher acceptance rates in the prospective condition than in the control for both events.

How can communities on campus support scholars in developing specific, situated practices for ethical, accountable, impactful collaborations beyond campus? What opportunities can we open by being communally, radically present in our work? In considering these questions, I draw on three-plus years of organizing and facilitating two scholarly Collectives. These Collectives sustain lived community for scholars bending university systems toward liberatory work. From inside these Collectives, I trace seven guiding principles, including 1) learning alongside situated stories (as opposed to abstracted “advice”), 2) analyzing the specific institutional mechanisms we work through, 3) centering joy, 4) reimagining what we call possible, and 5) naming the places where we refuse educational systems’ dangerous expectations. I ground these principles in lived stories with fellow Collective members, celebrating how living alongside one another can open relational scholarships that are respectful, inspiring, undisciplined, and growing into what we need them to be.

The success of modern product design often relies on the thoughtful selection of next-generation technologies. However, common systems engineering methodologies tend to treat new technologies as risks to be minimized rather than as opportunities to enhance system capabilities. To bridge this gap, this study presents a new framework called PoLaRis for comprehensive technology infusion concepts assessment based on three parameters: Leap Potential, Learning and Risk. The introduction of Learning as a decision-making criterion complements Risk and Leap Potential, embedding an organizational learning perspective that values the knowledge gained through technology infusion. These three main parameters can be evaluated through expert feedback or a numerical approach. In the numerical approach, rooted in DSM analysis, Risk is quantified based on the maturity of the technology components and a system integration risk metric, while Learning is estimated from the structural complexity of the architectural changes. Leap Potential is quantified using the Technology Leap Potential (TLP) metric, which captures a technology’s contribution to product value from the user’s perspective and applies to both incremental and disruptive innovations. Two case studies were conducted to evaluate three smartwatch concepts featuring an AI power-saving chip and innovative stress detection methods. The first case study relied on 11 expert evaluations, while the second applied the numerical approach. The results showed alignment between expert and numerical assessments, indicating the internal consistency between the selected mathematical measures and expert opinions. Taken together, the Leap–Learning–Risk profiles visualize each option’s benefits and trade-offs, facilitating comparison and informed decision making.

For received theories, (suboptimal) temptations arise first, and, consequently, people set up rules or institutions to control them. Hence, any deviation from institutions is suboptimal. However, these received theories face an anomaly, coined here the ‘Holiday License Paradox’: Why would people who adopt optimal institutions turn around and designate ‘holidays’ (cheat days) that allow them to indulge in suboptimal consumption? To solve this paradox, this paper reverses the entry point: people first set up rules – whereas temptations are identifiable only with respect to those rules. This solution raises a new question: what is the origin of rules? People adopt rules to control ‘temerity’, i.e., overconfidence. This raises a further question: what is the origin of temerity? Temerity is a default heuristic expressing the optimal response in life-and-death decisions. Thus, temerity-as-heuristics is rather efficient on average. However, temerity can become excessive, and, at second approximation, people adopt rules to control temerity. Once we regard rules or institutions to come first, i.e., prior to temptations, it becomes possible to solve the Holiday License Paradox.

This article examines Redcliffe N. Salaman’s (1874–1955) efforts to establish a national system for producing virus-free seed potatoes in 1930s Britain. It explores how scientific authority was mobilized to reshape agricultural practices and assert regulatory control over seed production. Although Salaman’s proposals were never fully realized, they laid the groundwork for enduring strategies to improve potato crop health by protecting seed from infectious agents and their insect vectors. Salaman’s work drew on both traditional horticultural knowledge and emerging microbiological techniques, spanning field and laboratory settings. He exemplifies how diverse modes of science making shaped a period of increasing professionalization and institutionalization in the biological sciences. By tracing interactions between scientists and other actors – including growers, seedsmen and government officials – the article shows how plant virus control was gradually redefined from a craft-based practice to a scientific domain. This article contributes to the early history of virology from an agricultural perspective, as well as to broader historiographical debates on the role of science in agriculture, the professionalization of expertise and the construction of regulatory authority in twentieth-century Britain.

Free association (e.g., what is the first word that comes to mind when given a cue word) can reveal multiple linguistic relationships between cues and responses, even when a specific association (i.e., semantic, phonological) is intended. In this study, we investigated the influence of morphological similarity on semantic and phonological free association. Previously collected large datasets were used to evaluate morphological similarity between cues and responses in a semantic association task and a phonological association task. The results indicate that morphologically related cue–response word pairs comprised less than 2% of pairs in both association tasks. When morphologically related responses were detected in both tasks, we found more words that were non-compounds than compounds, more decomposition than composition and more suffixation than prefixation. There were task-specific differences in the psycholinguistic properties of cue words eliciting morphologically related responses. We interpret the results following a two-stage lexical model, where free association primarily involves the exploration of conceptual/lemma representations in the mental lexicon, as opposed to form/lexeme representations.

In randomized clinical trials, participant retention is critical to ensure the validity and unbiased interpretation of study results. Within a multisite trial of individuals with high impact chronic pain, we explored whether a letter mailed in advance of follow-up study assessments at 3-, 6-, and 12-months from randomization improved participant retention. 4063 advance letters were mailed to 2037 participants at least once throughout their study participation. Increases in participant retention and follow-up assessment rates were observed across all study groups, sites, and timepoints. Mailing a letter in advance of follow-up study assessments in this randomized clinical trial improved participant retention.

Since collecting and conservation efforts for plant genetic resources began in earnest a century ago, genebanks and stored accessions have proliferated, irrationally so. Many smaller national genebanks are falling considerably short of their mandates to conserve diversity and promote its use. Combined and functioning as intended, the International Treaty, the Crop Trust and the Svalbard Global Seed Vault create the context in which these genebanks could safely and positively transition to focus on facilitating experimentation and use by their farmers. There is precedent for a creative approach in the massive distribution of seeds to farmers in the U.S. in the 1800s that enabled the introduction, spread and adaptation of many crops. Progress will require resolution of the Treaty’s ‘access and benefit-sharing’ impasse, which could be advanced by an embrace of the Treaty’s provisions, more collaboration for conservation, and a facilitated shift in focus to the distribution and use of genetic resources, especially by smaller genebanks and for ‘opportunity crops’ of primary interest to developing countries.

Digitalisation in health introduces new actors, risks, and challenges into health governance. Global health institutions such as World Bank, World Health Organisation, and the now-disbanded US Agency for International Development play a central role in shaping how governments navigate this evolving technical terrain. This paper examines digital health discourses of these organisations in the early 2020s, asking why, how, and by whom digital health is promoted. Using Political Discourse Analysis, we study three flagship documents, selected from 72. Our analysis shows that these organisations engage in depoliticisation, portraying digital health as an inevitable wave that governments must adopt rapidly and extensively. This techno-optimist framing overlooks government capacity gaps concerning the complexity of strategic adoption and asymmetric power relations with technology providers, and the absence of political engagement with risks and challenges. These discourses foster a depoliticised vision of digital health, overlooking the political mechanisms for digitalisation to benefit the public.