The emergence of ‘compassionate cities’ and ‘compassionate communities’ (CCC) as social movements has become a pronounced development in public health approaches to the end-of-life. Drawing on the World Health Organisations’ Ottawa Charter, it contends that end-of-life care has become individualised and medicalised and promotes the ‘rediscovery’ of community approaches. Drawing on a range of sociological theory insights, it deploys a ‘critical interpretative’ analytic approach to literature identified in a narrative review. The paper aims to question the affirmative consensus that exists around CCC by building on the emergence of critical themes have recently emerged in various meta-reviews. This analysis identifies tensions and inconsistencies between the ideals of The Ottawa Charter, CCC practice and a relatively superficial and uncritical deployment of theory, particularly in relation to its status as a conservative or radical movement. The paper concludes by suggesting constructive ways forward.

This article examines the evolving landscape of accounting, distinguishing between mainstream practices and critical developments that challenge conventional notions of accounting and accountability. By engaging with perspectives that reimagine accounting’s role, the paper highlights how rights intersect with accounting practices and how accounting, in turn, shapes rights. While financial and non-financial disclosures can expose human rights abuses, concerns persist over ‘accountability-washing’ and the dominance of economic interests. The reluctance of standard-setting bodies, such as the International Sustainability Standards Board, to integrate human rights underscores the political and institutional barriers to change. The article concludes by exploring future research directions through which business and human rights scholars and critical accounting researchers can mutually benefit from each other’s insights.

While abortion has been a contentious and salient political issue in the United States for decades, the debate around abortion has evolved in terms of the rhetorical frames employed by advocates on both sides. Using vignettes of statements made by hypothetical lawmakers, we evaluate responsiveness to some of these emergent frames. Specifically, we evaluate “pro-woman” framing employed by pro-life advocates, which positions abortion restrictions as being in the interests of women. The experiment also manipulates to whom the frame is attributed in two ways, the gender and the partisanship of the lawmaker. This 2 × 2 × 2 experiment explores the intersection of how abortion restrictions are framed, including the roles gender and partisanship in the persuasiveness of the frames. We find that voters are more receptive to the pro-woman frame compared to the classic fetal rights framing. Importantly, this holds even among supporters of abortion rights, casting substantial light on persuadable groups.

Network meta-analysis (NMA) facilitates the comparison of multiple treatments by integrating both direct and indirect evidence. Applications of NMA in medical decision making have grown exponentially. However, the validity of NMA findings depends on key assumptions: homogeneity, transitivity, and consistency. A lack of consistent assessment of these assumptions potentially compromises the reliability of NMA outcomes. The objective of this study is to evaluate the extent to which researchers address NMA assumptions and report the assessment of evidence certainty in NMA publications. A total of 22,079 studies were identified from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL (January 2010–August 2024). A sample of 393 NMAs was calculated to represent this population and randomly selected. Data on study characteristics, NMA assumptions, and the certainty of evidence were extracted and analyzed descriptively. Of the 393 NMAs, 71.8% were published between 2020 and 2024. Homogeneity was assessed in 300 (76.3%) NMAs, transitivity in 45 (11.5%) NMAs, and consistency in 265 (67.4%) NMAs. The certainty of evidence was assessed in 110 (28.0%) studies, predominantly using GRADE (71 NMAs; 18.1%) or CINeMA (29 NMAs; 7.4%). NMAs published in journals with high-impact factors more frequently evaluate these aspects than those published in low-impact journals. The assessment of NMA assumptions is inconsistently reported across studies, particularly for transitivity and consistency assumptions. Our findings highlight the need for standardized protocols or reporting guidelines to ensure these assessments are conducted and transparently reported.

This article interrogates the concept of ‘polycrisis’ through a decolonial, Global South-centered lens, arguing that current polycrisis discourse inadequately addresses entrenched global inequalities and power asymmetries. It contends that the convergence of crises – ecological, economic, social, and political – is not a novel universal condition but a structural feature of neoliberal global capitalism, long experienced in the Global South. The paper conceptualizes the polycrisis as an organic crisis of hegemonic neoliberalism and imperial modernity. It foregrounds Global South epistemologies and counter-hegemonic responses to demonstrate how subaltern actors are theorizing and contesting global crises. Methodologically, it adopts an interdisciplinary, interpretive approach that privileges Southern knowledge production. The paper finally advocates for a post-neoliberal approach that center around equality, sustianability and justice to navigate the polycrisis.

Strategic litigation has emerged as a prominent tool in the business and human rights (BHR) field, offering a pathway to promote corporate accountability, test innovative legal arguments and push for systemic change. While often framed as private tort actions, such litigation frequently aims to shape broader norms beyond individual remedies. This article explores how strategic litigation contributes to the evolution of corporate responsibility to respect human rights by analysing two case studies: supply chain liability claims in English courts and corporate climate litigation in the Netherlands. Drawing on these examples, the article argues that, despite its limitations, strategic BHR litigation plays an important role in translating soft law standards, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, into enforceable legal duties.

Semioidentity refers to the sign–identity relationship in its pragmatic and metapragmatic dimensions. A component of social semiotic analysis, the study of semioidentity offers a distinctive contribution to archaeology by making explicit the different kinds of signs and their functions in the interpretive process. It privileges indexical signs as a means of anchoring interpretation and thus provides opportunities for additional higher-order claims about ideology and belief systems. A semiotic approach contributes to knowledge growth by positing that the most reliable interpretations—that is, those most likely to be true in the long term—are those that incorporate a variety of semiotic resources since their functions will act to constrain one another. In this essay, I discuss semiotic resources and semiotic ideology from the perspective of Peircean semiotics. I then offer a case study focusing on the archaeology of the Pueblo Revolt and the emergence of a pan-Pueblo historical consciousness to illustrate some of the rich insights that it affords.

In deep learning, interval neural networks are used to quantify the uncertainty of a pre-trained neural network. Suppose we are given a computational problem $P$ and a pre-trained neural network $\Phi _P$ that aims to solve $P$. An interval neural network is then a pair of neural networks $(\underline {\phi }, \overline {\phi })$, with the property that $\underline {\phi }(y) \leq \Phi _P(y) \leq \overline {\phi }(y)$ for all inputs $y$, where the inequalities are meant componentwise. $(\underline {\phi }, \overline {\phi })$ are specifically trained to quantify the uncertainty of $\Phi _P$, in the sense that the size of the interval $[\underline {\phi }(y),\overline {\phi }(y)]$ quantifies the uncertainty of the prediction $\Phi _P(y)$. In this paper, we investigate the phenomenon when algorithms cannot compute interval neural networks in the setting of inverse problems. We show that in the typical setting of a linear inverse problem, the problem of constructing an optimal pair of interval neural networks is non-computable, even with the assumption that the pre-trained neural network $\Phi _P$ is an optimal solution. In other words, there exist classes of training sets $\Omega$, such that there is no algorithm, even randomised (with probability $p \geq 1/2$), that computes an optimal pair of interval neural networks for each training set ${\mathcal{T}} \in \Omega$. This phenomenon happens even when we are given a pre-trained neural network $\Phi _{{\mathcal{T}}}$ that is optimal for $\mathcal{T}$. This phenomenon is intimately linked to instability in deep learning.