4 results
73061 The UAB COVID-19 Collaborative Outcomes Research Enterprise (CORE): Developing a Learning Health System in Response to the Global Pandemic
- Jami L. Anderson, Becky Reamey, Emily Levitan, Alia Tunagur, Michael J. Mugavero
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 5 / Issue s1 / March 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 30 March 2021, p. 128
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
ABSTRACT IMPACT: Interdisciplinary networks represent critical components of translational science and learning system development. Our work impacts translational research by presenting an evidence-based approach to developing interdisciplinary networks in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; the approach presented may have broad applications within other academic institutions and medical centers. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: As a local response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we established the University of Alabama at Birmingham COVID-19 Collaborative Outcomes Research Enterprise (CORE) as an interdisciplinary learning health system (LHS) to achieve an integrated health services and outcomes research response amid the pandemic. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We adapted a learning system framework, based upon a scoping review of the literature and the Knowledge to Action Framework for implementation science. Leveraging this framework, we developed an institutional-level collaborative network of extant expertise and resources to rapidly develop an interdisciplinary response to COVID-19. The network was designed to quickly collect newly published or clinical information related to COVID-19, to evaluate potential usefulness of this information, and to disseminate the new knowledge throughout the interdisciplinary network; we strove to engage a wide variety of expertise and skills in the network. Thus, we subsequently used social network analysis to examine the emergence of informal work patterns and diversified network capabilities based on the LHS framework. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We identified three principal characteristics of institutional LHS development including: 1.) identifying network components; 2.) building the institutional collaborative network; and 3.) diversifying network capabilities. Seven critical components of LHS were identified including: 1.) collaborative and executive leadership, 2.) research coordinating committee, 3.) oversight and ethics committee, 4.) thematic scientific working groups, 5.) programmatic working groups, 6.) informatics capabilities, and 7.) patient advisory groups. Evolving from the topical interests of the initial CORE participants, three scientific working groups (health disparities, neurocognition, and critical care) were developed to support the learning network. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Interdisciplinary collaborative networks are critical to the development of LHS. The COVID-19 CORE LHS framework served as a foundational resource that may support further institutional-level efforts to develop responsive learning networks. The LHS approach presented may have broad applications within other academic institutions and centers.
Herbivorous dinosaur jaw disparity and its relationship to extrinsic evolutionary drivers
- Jamie A. MacLaren, Philip S. L. Anderson, Paul M. Barrett, Emily J. Rayfield
-
- Journal:
- Paleobiology / Volume 43 / Issue 1 / February 2017
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 15 December 2016, pp. 15-33
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Morphological responses of nonmammalian herbivores to external ecological drivers have not been quantified over extended timescales. Herbivorous nonavian dinosaurs are an ideal group to test for such responses, because they dominated terrestrial ecosystems for more than 155 Myr and included the largest herbivores that ever existed. The radiation of dinosaurs was punctuated by several ecologically important events, including extinctions at the Triassic/Jurassic (Tr/J) and Jurassic/Cretaceous (J/K) boundaries, the decline of cycadophytes, and the origin of angiosperms, all of which may have had profound consequences for herbivore communities. Here we present the first analysis of morphological and biomechanical disparity for sauropodomorph and ornithischian dinosaurs in order to investigate patterns of jaw shape and function through time. We find that morphological and biomechanical mandibular disparity are decoupled: mandibular shape disparity follows taxonomic diversity, with a steady increase through the Mesozoic. By contrast, biomechanical disparity builds to a peak in the Late Jurassic that corresponds to increased functional variation among sauropods. The reduction in biomechanical disparity following this peak coincides with the J/K extinction, the associated loss of sauropod and stegosaur diversity, and the decline of cycadophytes. We find no specific correspondence between biomechanical disparity and the proliferation of angiosperms. Continual ecological and functional replacement of pre-existing taxa accounts for disparity patterns through much of the Cretaceous, with the exception of several unique groups, such as psittacosaurids that are never replaced in their biomechanical or morphological profiles.
Contributors
-
- By Jon G. Allen, Robert F Anda, Susan L. Andersen, Carl M. Anderson, Wendy d’ Andrea, Tal Astrachan, Anthony W. Bateman, Carla Bernardes, Renato Borgatti, Bekh Bradley, J. Douglas Bremner, John Briere, Amy F. Buckley, Jean-Francois Bureau, Kathleen M. Chard, Dennis Charney, Anthony Charuvastra, Jeewook Choi, Marylene Cloitre, Melody D. Combs, Constance J. Dalenberg, Martin J. Dorahy, Michael D. De Bellis, Anne P. DePrince, Erin C. Dunn, Vincent J. Felitti, Philip A. Fisher, Peter Fonagy, Julian D. Ford, Amit Goldenberg, Megan R. Gunnar, Udi Harari, Felicia Heidenreich, Christine Heim, Judith Herman MD, Monica Hodges, Shlomit Jacobson-Pick, Joan Kaufman, Karestan C. Koenen, Ruth A. Lanius, Jamie L. LaPrairie, Alicia F. Lieberman, Richard J. Loewenstein, Sonia J. Lupien MD, Karlen Lyons-Ruth, Jodi Martin, Bruce McEwen, Alexander C. McFarlane, Rosario Montirosso, Charles B. Nemeroff, Pat Ogden, Fatih Ozbay, Clare Pain, Kelsey Paulson, Oxana G. Palesh, Ms. Keren Rabi, Gal Richter-Levin, Andrea L. Roberts, Cécile Rousseau, Cécile Rousseau, Monica Ruiz-Casares, Christian Schmahl, Allan N. Schore, Sally B. Seraphin, Vansh Sharma, Yi-Shin Sheu, Kelly Skelton, Steven Southwick, David Spiegel, Deborah M. Stone, Nathan Szajnberg, Martin H. Teicher, Akemi Tomoda, Ed Tronick, Onno van der Hart, Bessel van der Kolk, Eric Vermetten, Tamara Weiss, Victor Welzant
- Edited by Ruth A. Lanius, University of Western Ontario, Eric Vermetten, Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands, Clare Pain, University of Toronto
-
- Book:
- The Impact of Early Life Trauma on Health and Disease
- Published online:
- 03 May 2011
- Print publication:
- 05 August 2010, pp vii-xii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
ANNULMENT RETRIBUTIVISM:: A Hegelian Theory of Punishment
- Jami L. Anderson
-
- Journal:
- Legal Theory / Volume 5 / Issue 4 / December 1999
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 December 1999, pp. 363-388
- Print publication:
- December 1999
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Despite the bad press that retributivism often receives, the basic assumptions on which this theory of punishment rests are generally regarded as being attractive and compelling. First of these is the assumption that persons are morally responsible agents and that social practices, such as criminal punishment, must acknowledge that fact. Additionally, retributivism is committed to the claim that punishment must be proportionate to the crime, and not determined by such utilitarian concerns as the welfare of society, or the hope of deterring other criminals.
Jeffrie Murphy writes, “Even many people who do not like the name ‘retributivist’ are persuaded by considerations that are clearly retributive in nature. Suppose it was suggested that we punish negligent vehicular homicide with life imprisonment and first degree murder with a couple of years in jail, and suppose this suggestion was justified with the following utilitarian reason: Conduct of the first sort is much more common and dangerous than conduct of the latter sort (we are much more likely to be killed by a negligent driver than by someone who kills us with the primary object of killing us), and thus we should use the most severe deterrents against those who are genuinely dangerous. If we object to this suggestion, as most of us would want to, that this would be unjust or unfair because it would not be apportioning punishment to fault or desert, we should be making a retributive argument. Thus even if the label ‘retributivist’ repels most people, many of the actual doctrines of the theory do not.” Jeffrie Murphy, Retribution, Justice, And Therapy 230 (1979). Because the most commonly discussed version of retributivism is developed from Kant’s moral and legal theory, I will refer to it as Kantian Retributivism.This interpretation of Kant’s theory of punishment has been developed by Herbert Morris, Persons and Punishment, 52 Monist 475 (1968), and Murphy, supra note 1. Despite its appeal, Kantian Retributivism cannot provide a satisfactory response to a kind of case that is receiving increasingly serious consideration in philosophical literature. The case is this: Many crimes are committed by individuals profoundly disadvantaged by unjust social institutions, such as racism, classism, and/or sexism. If such individuals commit crimes, the retributivist is placed in a very difficult position: Either she must claim that the individual has willfully committed a crime and for that reason deserves punishment, seeming to ignore entirely the social background of the individual, or she can claim that the individual—in virtue of being disadvantaged by social injustices(s)—does not deserve punishment because such punishment would be unfair.Murphy comes to the conclusion that the punishment of such individuals is unfair and, therefore, unwarranted. See Jeffrie Murphy, Marxism and Retribution, in Murphy, supra note 1, at 93–114. I have argued elsewhere that neither strategy is tenable.See Jami L. Anderson, Reciprocity as a Justification for Retributivism, 16 Crim. Just. Ethics 13–25(1997).