We show the Harris–Viehmann conjecture under some Hodge–Newton reducibility condition for a generalisation of the diamond of a non-basic Rapoport–Zink space at infinite level, which appears as a cover of the non-semi-stable locus in the Hecke stack. We show also that the cohomology of the non-semi-stable locus with coefficients coming from a cuspidal Langlands parameter vanishes. As an application, we show the Hecke eigensheaf property in Fargues’ conjecture for cuspidal Langlands parameters in the $ {\mathrm {GL}}_2$-case.

To understand a treatment’s potential impact at the individual level, it is crucial to explore whether the effect differs across patient subgroups and covariate values. Meta-analysis provides an important tool for detecting treatment–covariate interactions, as it can improve power compared to a single study. However, aggregation bias can occur when estimating individual-level treatment–covariate interactions in meta-analysis, due to trial-level confounding. This refers to when the association between the covariate and treatment effect across trials (at the aggregate level) differs from that observed within trials (at the individual level). It is, thus, recommended that heterogeneity in the treatment effect at the individual level should be disentangled from that at the trial level, ideally using an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. Here, we explain this issue and provide new intuition about how trial-level confounding is impacted by differences in within-trial distributions of covariates and how this corresponds to asymmetry in subgroup-specific funnel plots in the case of categorical covariates. We then propose a sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of interaction estimates to potential trial-level confounding. We illustrate these concepts using simulated and real data from an IPD meta-analysis of trials conducted on the TICO/ACTIV-3 platform, which assessed passive immunotherapy treatments for inpatients with COVID-19.

In this paper, I critically rethink how interdisciplinary approaches to artificial intelligence (AI) are framed, particularly in relation to technology-facilitated gender- and sexuality-based violence (TFGSBV). While collaboration across disciplines is often positioned as a solution to AI-related harms, I argue that these approaches can reproduce the very exclusions they aim to address. Drawing on my work with the Feminist Internet Research Network and dialogues with researchers and activists across the Majority Worlds, I propose liveability – not only as a principle, but as a practice – for interdisciplinary work.

Liveability refers to the conditions that allow individuals and communities to thrive – emotionally, politically and socially – even amid structural violence and technological harm. I treat interdisciplinarity not as a goal in itself, but as an ethical and relational process grounded in care, accountability and situated knowledge. Through feminist and queer perspectives, I examine how AI harms are often abstracted into technical problems, and I advocate for slower, more grounded practices that centre lived experience. Through lessons from Feminist Internet Research Network’s multistakeholder collaborations, I show how introducing liveability into interdisciplinary and multistakeholder work – particularly around TFGSBV – enables alternative, more inclusive forms of collaboration.

Liveability becomes a compass for working across difference, shifting interdisciplinary AI research towards justice, community and collective transformation.

The relationship between Nepal and China during the 1910s to 1940s remains an underexplored topic. This article revisits this thirty-year period by examining Chinese knowledge production on Nepal as an early instance of inter-Asia engagement. First, it demonstrates how epistemological barriers – shaped by coloniality and asymmetrical worldviews – severely hindered direct Chinese understanding of Nepal, despite sustained intellectual efforts. It then interrogates the in-betweenness of this disconnection, arguing that these mediated engagements were not merely failures of direct contact. Instead, the article contends that the liminal, hybrid, and shifting nature of these mediated encounters enabled forms of subjectivity transference and affective affiliation that were productive in sustaining inter-Asian referencing. To support this claim, the article examines the writings of various Chinese political critics, officials, and diplomats on Nepal. Despite their limitations, these intellectual engagements are ultimately seen as productive. First, they expose the liminal, shifting, and dynamic nature of knowledge production, in contrast to the fixed forms associated with colonial epistemologies. Second, they enable forms of subjectivity transference that foster affective affiliations. They also offer renewed possibilities for understanding inter-Asian referencing as a methodological strategy for rethinking inter-Asian relationalities.

Despite substantial corporate investment in mentorship, learning, and talent development, access to these knowledge sharing practices may be unequal. This could be due to structural prejudices that determine who receives mentorship, whose learning is prioritised, and how knowledge is shared in organisations. Philosophical business ethics research has primarily focused on speaker-directed epistemic injustice, where employees’ testimony is silenced or discredited. This article introduces hearer-directed epistemic injustice, a novel concept that highlights the wrong suffered by employees who are unjustly denied knowledge. Using Hidden Figures as a case, this article illustrates how testimonial oversimplification or omission can perpetuate structural inequalities in organisations. By extending Fricker’s theory of epistemic injustice, I argue that “speakers”—mentors, managers, finance professionals, and leaders—should actively foster virtuous knowledge sharing practices. This research contributes to business ethics by providing a conceptual framework for identifying hearer-directed epistemic injustice in organisations and ways to mitigate prejudice in organisational epistemic practices.

We surveyed physicians and patients to create a novel Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) for non-severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Patients generally ranked uncomfortable but non-life-threatening symptoms as less desirable, while physicians focused on traditional medical outcomes. When developing DOORs, both patient and clinician perspectives should be considered.