We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
A new formulation of pyroxasulfone + encapsulated saflufenacil has been developed. Combining these two herbicides extends the application window to early postemergence. Pyroxasulfone, saflufenacil (suspension concentrate), and pyroxasulfone + encapsulated saflufenacil (microcapsule suspension) were applied to corn preemergence and evaluated for corn injury, corn yield, and visible weed control; in addition, the interaction (antagonistic, additive, or synergistic) was ascertained for each parameter. Six field trials were conducted at three locations in southwestern Ontario in 2022 and 2023. Pyroxasulfone was applied at 90, 120, and 150 g ai ha−1; saflufenacil was applied at 56, 75, and 95 g ai ha−1; and pyroxasulfone + encapsulated saflufenacil was applied at 146, 195, 245 g ai ha−1, equal to the combined rates of pyroxasulfone and saflufenacil. All pyroxasulfone, encapsulated saflufenacil, and pyroxasulfone + encapsulated saflufenacil treatments caused no corn injury. Weed control varied based on application rate and weed species. Reduced weed interference with pyroxasulfone + encapsulated saflufenacil at 195 and 245 g ai ha−1 resulted in corn yield that was similar to the weed-free control and the industry standard of S-metolachlor/atrazine/mesotrione/bicyclopyrone. The interaction between pyroxasulfone and encapsulated saflufenacil for weed control was additive.
Community-engaged partnerships (community/academia/government) can play a role in developing effective protocols that address public health crises. Systemic racism, prioritization of money over humanity, and the repression of the local democratic processes through the State of Michigan Emergency Manager Law (Order of Act 439) all played a role in the Flint Water Crisis. Despite decades of collaboration between Flint-based community organizations and academic institutions, ways to navigate such crises and conduct relevant research were ineffective.
Methods:
The Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research Community Engagement program at the University of Michigan and Flint’s Community Based Organization Partners co-developed the Research Readiness and Partnership Protocol (R2P2) to provide community-engaged recommendations that inform a rapid research response to public health emergencies. The R2P2 Workgroup conducted an extensive literature review and key interviews to inform protocol development.
Results:
This manuscript provides an overview of the Workgroup’s methods, key interview findings, and the main principles identified. Detailed recommendations and key elements to address prior to and during a crisis will be presented including methods for: establishing and maintaining trust, ensuring transparency, supporting clear communication, establishing a “front door” to academic institutions including a means to “sound the alarm,” addressing academic incentives, achieving equitable resource sharing, and addressing systemic racism.
Conclusion:
This manuscript of community perspectives provides essential elements to develop meaningful community-academic research partnerships to address public health crises impacting communities, particularly communities of color. Furthermore, this work highlights an opportunity for greater acknowledgment and utilization of community-based participatory research (CBPR) by academic institutions.
In this article, we analyse how anti-globalist conspiracy theories were mobilised online to delegitimise national authorities and policies designed to curb the Covid-19 pandemic in Canada. These conspiracy theories attacked the political authority underpinning public health measures and targeted purportedly ‘liberal’ policies and ‘globalist’ actors. Our case study examines the Freedom Convoy, a series of protests against Covid-19 vaccine mandates that began in Canada but inspired global demonstrations. The Freedom Convoy fostered and relied upon anti-globalist conspiracy theories, including the ‘Great Reset’ and ‘Great Replacement’, both of which posit a global conspiracy to erode national sovereignty and impose a ‘liberal’ international order. We investigate far-right social media commentary from 4chan’s Politically Incorrect imageboard /pol/, Infowars, and Rebel News, showing how conspiratorial claims were marshalled in alt-tech spaces. These narratives were used to delegitimise public health measures to combat Covid-19 and the Liberal Trudeau government by linking them to various ‘globalist’ forces. In exploring three mechanisms of delegitimation – externalisation, personification, and Othering – we argue that far-right movements like the Freedom Convoy, motivated by anti-globalist conspiracism, mobilise the international realm by leveraging the legitimacy gap of international organisations and agendas to undermine the political authority of actors at the national level.
We assume that a judge's task is to categorize each of N subjects into one of r known classes. The design of primary interest is employed if the judge is presented with s groups, each containing r subjects, such that each group of size r consists of exactly one subject of each of the r types. The probability distribution for the total number of correct choices is developed and used to test the null hypothesis that the judge is “guessing” in favor of the alternative that he or she is operating at a better than chance level. The power of the procedure is shown to be superior to two other procedures which appear in the literature.
Conversation Analysis (CA) is one of the predominant methods for the detailed study of human social interaction. Bringing together thirty-four chapters written by a team of world-renowned experts, this Handbook represents the first comprehensive overview of conversation-analytic methods. Topics include how to collect, manage, and transcribe data; how to explore data in search of possible phenomena; how to form and develop collections of phenomena; how to use different types of evidence to analyze data; how to code and quantify interaction; and how to apply, publish, and communicate findings to those who stand to benefit from them. Each method is introduced clearly and systematically, and examples of CA in different languages and cultures are included, to show how it can be applied in multiple settings. Comprehensive yet accessible, it is essential reading for researchers and advanced students in disciplines such as Linguistics, Sociology, Anthropology, Communication and Psychology.
This chapter discusses different types of evidence that conversation analysts use to ground their claims about social action. We begin by reviewing the epistemological perspective of CA, which demands that evidence reflect participants’ orientations; as a critical part of understanding the terms ‘participant orientation’ and ‘relevance,’ here we also discuss two ways in which CA’s position and emphasis on them are commonly misunderstood. The bulk of this chapter then reviews and illustrates a range of types of participant-orientation evidence. We organize our presentation of types of evidence roughly by sequential position vis-à-vis the focal action about which the analyst is making claims, including evidence to be found in: (i) next-turn, (ii) same-turn (e.g., same-TCU self-repair, accounts), (iii) prior turn or sequence, (iv) third turn/position (e.g., repair after next turn, courses of action/activity), (v) fourth turn/position, and (vi) more distal positions. We also discuss other forms of evidence that are not necessarily defined by sequential position, including: (i) third-party conduct, (ii) reported conduct, (iii) deviant cases, and (iv) distributional evidence. We conclude by offering some brief reflections on bringing different types and positions of evidence together toward the construction of an argument.
While the preceding chapters of the Handbook have focused on practical skills in CA research methods, this chapter looks towards the path ahead. A diverse group of conversation analysts were asked to outline possible projects, point readers toward un- or under-described interactional phenomena, and discuss persistent issues in the field. The contributions address future advances in data collection, specific interactional practices, the complex interplay between language and the body, and cross-cultural and crosslinguistic comparisons, among other issues. The chapter concludes with a concise reiteration of the bedrock principle that underpins all CA research methods.
This chapter is written for conversation analysts and is methodological. It discusses, in a step-by-step fashion, how to code practices of action (e.g., particles, gaze orientation) and/or social actions (e.g., inviting, information seeking) for purposes of their statistical association in ways that respect conversation-analytic (CA) principles (e.g., the prioritization of social action, the importance of sequential position, order at all points, the relevance of codes to participants). As such, this chapter focuses on coding as part of engaging in basic CA and advancing its findings, for example as a tool of both discovery and proof (e.g., regarding action formation and sequential implicature). While not its main focus, this chapter should also be useful to analysts seeking to associate interactional variables with demographic, social-psychological, and/or institutional-outcome variables. The chapter’s advice is grounded in case studies of published CA research utilizing coding and statistics (e.g., those of Gail Jefferson, Charles Goodwin, and the present author). These case studies are elaborated by discussions of cautions when creating code categories, inter-rater reliability, the maintenance of a codebook, and the validity of statistical association itself. Both misperceptions and limitations of coding are addressed.