This chapter examines how “open science” is a practical problem for scientists, focusing on what is central to it: the extended access to research data. It considers how researchers evaluate the social and moral accountabilities of the open access to data and the tensions that result from them. In astronomy, most large scientific datasets are made by collaborations. This chapter considers two collaborations, including the MUWAGS team discussed in Chapter 6. As these teams’ members prepared datasets for public release, they became both inquirers into, and actors in, what many astronomers refer to as their discipline’s “culture of open data access.” Both teams can be described as groups of practical methodologists who used “inner dialogues” to explore the normative expectations and tensions of this domain ethnographically, seeking to inhabit proper statuses in it. The chapter argues that examining scientists’ understanding of statuses and their achievement offers resources for a refined critique of “open science” that is considerate of the context sensitivity of data production and use. Along the way, it examines some methods by which scientists, as members, are “doing ethnography.”

The theory of status effects illustrates one important manner in which theories can develop. Regularities in groups faced with tasks requiring group interaction were observed over a wide variety of tasks. Status inequality in particular was obvious. Some group members had more influence and were given more opportunities to interact than others, even when expertise did not differentiate among individuals. Further such inequality seemed reciprocal: group members permitted the inequality and allowed it to stabilize. Researchers developed abstract concepts and propositions to account for these regularities and concluded that inequality arises because the task interaction causes individuals to form performance expectations for themselves and others, and once those expectations form, they affect the distribution of all behavioral components of interaction.

Status epilepticus is defined as one seizure persisting for greater than 5 minutes, or two seizures within a 5-minute period without interval return to baseline. This condition is characterized by intractable seizure and represents a true medical emergency, as it poses a severe threat of anoxic brain injury that increases with duration of seizure. Status epilepticus has widely varied causes, including but not limited to hypoglycemia, electrolyte abnormalities, substance withdrawal, medications/toxins, new-onset primary seizure disorders, malignancy, and trauma. Following the classic primary survey, management should focus on cessation of seizure activity through administration of benzodiazepines, with progression to phenytoin/fosphenytoin and even barbiturates should seizures remain refractory. Airway protection should be actively maintained given the often-high doses of these medications. Work-up should include basic laboratory panels, including CBC, BMP, LFTs, coags, UA, serum tox, ABG, and ECG; imaging should include CXR and CT head. A thorough history should be obtained from patient/family/bystanders if possible following stabilization, and neurology consult should be considered.

Status comparisons are constantly made in many societies today, leading to an inferiority complex. Income inequality is linked to diverse health and social outcomes in the world, including violence, lack of trust, prevalence of heart failure, environmental degradation, and poor oral health. Chronic stress, induced by inequality, leads to many of the chronic diseases we face. Economic inequality influences power distribution, which is now captured by big corporations in the US. Middle-aged White American men, especially those without college degrees, have seen their mortality increase though drugs, alcohol, and suicides, termed deaths of despair, as their livelihoods have declined because their jobs have migrated to poor countries. Ranking countries by life expectancy situates the US tied with Cuba for longevity

Chapter 1 examines the law’s role in defining status – free and unfree, male and female, citizen and non-citizen, including the acquisition, proof, and nature of citizenship, the position of Latins, the rights and responsibilities of citizens. Important routes to citizenship were grants by the emperor to individuals including soldiers in the auxiliary regiments, and groups or communities, and by manumission of slaves. This was a long-standing trend until Caracalla granted universal citizenship. The main social groups were senators and equites, but their status was hedged in by legal restrictions since Augustus placed great emphasis on social responsibility and the integrity of the upper classes. Outside this group the plebs and ex-slaves had a role to play, and the latter had a complicated position within the social hierarchy; often wealthy and successful (especially imperial freedmen) they were resented by the freeborn.

In contemporary discourse hubris is usually adduced as a dangerous state of mind, a form of pride or over-confidence which leads to downfall. This has its origins in the view once conventional among classicists that for ancient Greeks hybris was an arrogant disposition, offending the gods by exceeding mortal limits. This did not accommodate the fact that in many Greek states hybris was the term for a serious criminal offence, usually involving violence or sexual abuse. My Hybris (1992) successfully located the concept within the category of ‘honour’, and it is now widely agreed that hybris involved both arrogance and dishonouring behaviour towards others. Disagreement, however, persists over the balance to be struck between the two. This chapter reviews the debate, partially revises my earlier account (which underplayed the dispositional element) and insists that other-directed behaviour is equally essential to the concept. Using case studies from Sophocles and Herodotus, it concludes by restating the crucial distinction between hybris and related, but not necessarily pejorative, expressions such as pride or ‘thinking big/unmortal’ thoughts.

Panama’s most important festivity, the annual Corpus Christi processions, featured the performance of gender and ethnicity. Celebrations involved Congo, Biafara, Bran, and other Black confraternities, as well as a longstanding dispute for precedence between members of the ship-builders’ and the stocking-makers’ guilds, who struggled for proximity to the monstrance. The most dramatic dispute in the Cathedral, however, entailed a battle for precedence between the wives of the city councilors and the spouses of the royal judges. Controversy over seating arrangements enabled the judges and city councilors to submit conflicts over their respective status to the king, who eventually allowed the judges’ wives, and even their mothers, to receive communion in the main chapel.

This chapter examines the distinctive hardheadedness of the Bloomsbury group’s famous devotion to the life of the mind. While Bloomsbury is virtually synonymous with the prizing of aesthetic appreciation, emotional intensity, and intellectual reflection, many of the group’s members were equally concerned with the inextricability of such rarefied states from very material sources of maintenance, support, and security. The chapter foregrounds the inseparable connection between economics and aesthetics in the thought and practice of the Bloomsbury group, identifying a concern with this connection as one of the key preoccupations stemming from the influence of G. E. Moore’s philosophy, and tracing its significance in a range of economic, artistic and literary works.

A company is a legal entity, distinct from its creators, members, directors and managers. Chapter 3 of this book discusses the separate legal status of the company in detail. For the purposes of this current chapter, we emphasise that for a company to come into existence there must be a conferral of that status by the state. Unlike some other forms of association, such as a partnership, it is not legally effective for a group of people to simply declare themselves to be a company. A company is a type of corporation. The corporate status of a company is brought into existence through a process of registration under the Corporations Act. Other types of corporate entities are created by different legislative mechanisms, and we briefly describe some of these later in this chapter.

This chapter describes the range of basic company structures available under the Corporations Act, focusing on three ways in which companies can be categorised: their proprietary or public status; how they structure the liability of their members; and their relationship to other companies. The chapter examines the role of corporate groups, as well as the difference between closely-held, one-person, and widely-held companies.

The Peloponnesian War affected how mass and elite interacted at Athens and how the public sphere worked there. The Athenians themselves thought in terms of two ruptures, one at the death of Perikles, one at the end of the war. But the degree of rupture in both cases has been exaggerated, and it is better to think in terms of how power was exercised. Here we see various ways in which the people’s control of the elite was strengthened during the war, and indeed the use of exile and atimia (disenfranchisement) as penalties fatally weakened Athens by causing factional strife. The Peloponnesian War concentrated the people inside Athens and the Long Walls and increased the number of spaces in which Athenians were mixed up with metics and enslaved people, enhancing the deep politicisation of Athenian culture, which affected the wealthy as well as the poor and promoted the hetaireiai and, eventually, concentration of political factions into particular spaces. War enhanced the Athenians’ emotional investment, and this came out in particular over the Sicilian Expedition. It was because war affected the Athenians in a variety of different ways, each with their own timescale, that the traumatic effects emerged only after fifteen years.

In acts that are properly acts of justice (rather than, say, compassion or generosity), what is good for people is sought under the mediating description what is due them. The virtue of justice is the generalized concern that people get what is due them. Objective justice is the property of states of affairs, actions, institutions, and personal relationships in which people tend to get what is due them. So the virtue of justice is the concern that such objects have that property. When is some good or evil due a person? It is due on at least eight kinds of basis: desert, status, need, current possession, agreement, legality, parity, and freedom. We appeal to these conditions in justifying justice claims. The person who has the virtue of justice is one who is consistently and intelligently concerned that states of affairs, actions, institutions, and personal relationships be objectively just.

Chapter 2.7 explores anticonvulsant drugs. This includes a segment on benzodiazepines commonly used for sedation and anaesthesia, their mechanism of action, uses, side effects and actions in overdose. We then discuss specific antiepileptic agents in detail and the management of status epilepticus.