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.
Does providing information about police shootings influence policing reform preferences? We conducted an online survey experiment in 2021 among approximately 2,600 residents of 10 large US cities. It incorporated original data we collected on police shootings of civilians. After respondents estimated the number of police shootings in their cities in 2020, we randomized subjects into three treatment groups and a control group. Treatments included some form of factual information about the police shootings in respondents’ cities (e.g., the actual total number). Afterward, respondents were asked their opinions about five policing reform proposals. Police shooting statistics did not move policing reform preferences. Support for policing reforms is primarily associated with partisanship and ideology, coupled with race. Our findings illuminate key sources of policing reform preferences among the public and reveal potential limits of information-driven, numeric-based initiatives to influence policing in the US.
When people are given quantified information (e.g., ‘there is a 60% chance of rain’), the format of quantifiers (i.e., numerical: ‘a 60% chance’ vs. verbal: ‘it is likely’) might affect their decisions. Previous studies with indirect cues of judgements and decisions (e.g., response times, decision outcomes) give inconsistent findings that could support either a more intuitive process for verbal than numerical quantifiers or a greater focus on the context (e.g., rain) for verbal than numerical quantifiers. We used two pre-registered eye-tracking experiments (n(1) = 148, n(2) = 133) to investigate decision-making processes with verbal and numerical quantifiers. Participants evaluated multiple verbally or numerically quantified nutrition labels (Experiment 1) and weather forecasts (Experiment 2) with different context valence (positive or negative), and quantities (‘low’, ‘medium’, or ‘high’ in Experiment 1 and ‘possible’, ‘likely’, or ‘very likely’ in Experiment 2) presented in a fully within-subjects design. Participants looked longer at verbal than numerical quantifiers, and longer at the contextual information with verbal quantifiers. Quantifier format also affected judgements and decisions: in Experiment 1, participants judged positive labels to be better in the verbal compared to the equivalent numerical condition (and to be worse for negative labels). In Experiment 2, participants decided on rain protection more for a verbal forecast of rain than the equivalent numerical forecast. The results fit the explanation that verbal quantifiers put more focus on the informational context than do numerical quantifiers, rather than prompting more intuitive decisions.
While Supreme Court cases are generally salient or important, some are many degrees more important than others. A wide range of theoretical and empirical work throughout the study of judicial politics implicates this varying salience. Some work considers salience a variable to be explained, perhaps with judicial behavior the explanatory factor. The currently dominant measure of salience is the existence of newspaper coverage of a decision, but decisions themselves are an act of judicial politics. Because this coverage measure is affected only after a decision is announced, using it limits the types of inferences we can draw about salience. We develop a measure of latent salience, one that builds on existing work, but that also explicitly incorporates and models predecision information. This measure has the potential to ameliorate concerns of causal inference, put research findings on sounder footing, and add to our understanding of judicial behavior.
Answering one question often begets another. We present a decision-theoretic model that describes how this affects the sequencing of decisions over time. Because answering an easy question may raise a more difficult one, a rational judge may delay resolution even if he has perfect information about the correct decision. Furthermore, because otherwise unrelated questions may raise similar follow-ups, he may optimally clump decisions together. Our theory thus generates an endogenous economy of scale in dispute resolution and contributes to the literature on punctuated equilibrium theory. We illustrate the results of our model with a case study from legal history in the United States.
At the intersection of behavioral and institutional studies of policy making lie a series of questions about how elite choices affect mass public opinion. Scholars have considered how judicial decisions—especially US Supreme Court decisions—affect individuals’ support for specific policy positions. These studies yield a series of competing findings. Whereas past research uses opinion surveys to assess how individuals’ opinions are shaped, we believe that modern techniques for analyzing social media provide analytic leverage that traditional approaches do not offer. We present a framework for employing Twitter data to study mass opinion discourse. We find that the Supreme Court’s decisions relating to same-sex marriage in 2013 had significant effects on how the public discussed same-sex marriage and had a polarizing effect on mass opinion. We conclude by connecting these findings and our analyses to larger problems and debates in the area of democratic deliberation and big-data analysis.
COVID-19 can spread rapidly in psychiatric inpatient settings. Previous studies have found that patients have a higher risk of hospitalisation and death than adults in the community. The aim of this project was to improve the care of patients with COVID-19 in psychiatric inpatient settings.
Method
A baseline audit was conducted of care COVID-19 patients received in wards that experienced outbreaks in January 2021 in a London Mental Health Trust. Clinical notes were reviewed for management plans, including clear documentation of risk of serious illness, frequency of vitals monitoring, and thresholds for escalation to medical teams.
A new protocol was subsequently developed and implemented at one inpatient unit: “COVID-19: Early Identification of Risk and Management”. This included an adjusted 4C mortality score to determine risk of deterioration, and schedules for observation monitoring based on this outcome. Each schedule specified separate frequencies of monitoring of critical observations (oxygen saturations, respiratory rate) and routine observations, thus minimising unnecessary staff exposure. It prompted venous thromboembolism (VTE) assessment and documentation of escalation criteria.
Result
44 patients were identified across three working age (WAA, n = 29) and two older age (OA, n = 15) adult wards. 7.5% of WAA and 33.3% of OA patients were hospitalised. 20% of OA patients died following a positive test. 58% of patients had a documented management plan for COVID-19, but only 56% mentioned observation frequency, 19% escalation criteria, and 9% risk of serious disease. No patient received a repeat VTE assessment following diagnosis. The audit identified inconsistent approaches to COVID-19 management between wards, and found no relationship between risk of deterioration and frequency of observation monitoring. Following implementation of this protocol, 100% (n = 4) of patients had a robust plan for COVID-19 management, and 100% received a VTE assessment.
Conclusion
The audit supported previous findings that psychiatric inpatients are at risk of serious COVID-19 infection. This highlights an urgent clinical and ethical need to optimise COVID-19 care in psychiatric inpatient settings. The results of this audit suggest that risk factors for severe infection and elements of routine care are not widely understood or implemented by clinical staff. Introducing evidence-based protocols to support clinicians in managing the physical healthcare of these patients may be one way of promoting best practice. The improvement in care observed in the pilot study has resulted in this protocol being rolled out across the Trust in an ongoing quality improvement project.
The Spoon-billed Sandpiper Calidris pygmaea is a ‘Critically Endangered’ migratory shorebird. The species faces an array of threats in its non-breeding range, making conservation intervention essential. However, conservation efforts are reliant on identifying the species’ key stopover and wintering sites. Using Maximum Entropy models, we predicted Spoon-billed Sandpiper distribution across the non-breeding range, using data from recent field surveys and satellite tracking. Model outputs suggest only a limited number of stopover sites are suitable for migrating birds, with sites in the Yellow Sea and on the Jiangsu coast in China highlighted as particularly important. All the previously known core wintering sites were identified by the model including the Ganges-Brahmaputra Delta, Nan Thar Island and the Gulf of Mottama. In addition, the model highlighted sites subsequently found to be occupied, and pinpointed potential new sites meriting investigation, notably on Borneo and Sulawesi, and in parts of India and the Philippines. A comparison between the areas identified as most likely to be occupied and protected areas showed that very few locations are covered by conservation designations. Known sites must be managed for conservation as a priority, and potential new sites should be surveyed as soon as is feasible to assess occupancy status. Site protection should take place in concert with conservation interventions including habitat management, discouraging hunting, and fostering alternative livelihoods.
We propose the nasal administration of calcium-enriched physiological salts as a new hygienic intervention with possible therapeutic application as a response to the rapid and tenacious spread of COVID-19. We test the effectiveness of these salts against viral and bacterial pathogens in animals and humans. We find that aerosol administration of these salts to the airways diminishes the exhalation of the small particles that face masks fail to filter and, in the case of an influenza swine model, completely block airborne transmission of disease. In a study of 10 human volunteers (5 less than 65 years and 5 older than 65 years), we show that delivery of a nasal saline comprising calcium and sodium salts quickly (within 15 min) and durably (up to at least 6 h) diminishes exhaled particles from the human airways. Being predominantly smaller than 1 μm, these particles are below the size effectively filtered by conventional masks. The suppression of exhaled droplets by the nasal delivery of calcium-rich saline with aerosol droplet size of around 10 μm suggests the upper airways as a primary source of bioaerosol generation. The suppression effect is especially pronounced (99%) among those who exhale large numbers of particles. In our study, we found this high-particle exhalation group to correlate with advanced age. We argue for a new hygienic practice of nasal cleansing by a calcium-rich saline aerosol, to complement the washing of hands with ordinary soap, use of a face mask, and social distancing.