Social Media Communication Among Military Spouses: Review of Research and Recommendations for Moving Forward
In: Military behavioral health, Band 4, Heft 4, S. 325-333
ISSN: 2163-5803
45 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Military behavioral health, Band 4, Heft 4, S. 325-333
ISSN: 2163-5803
In: Psychological services, Band 11, Heft 2, S. 235-242
ISSN: 1939-148X
In: Wildlife research, Band 48, Heft 4, S. 361-365
ISSN: 1448-5494, 1035-3712
Abstract Context Capture, measurement, genetic sampling, ringing and flagging of shorebirds on their nests are standard techniques that underpin the study and conservation of these species. However, these techniques may reduce hatching success by compromising parental care or nest crypsis, thereby negatively influencing results, study populations and bird welfare. Only a few studies that examine the effect of capture of shorebirds on subsequent egg hatching success are currently available. Aims To compare the hatching success of masked lapwing (Vanellus miles) nests, at which adult capture and associated techniques (ringing, flagging and bleeding) have occurred, with nests at which these did not occur, on the fox-free Phillip Island, Victoria, Australia. Methods Hatching success of masked lapwings was monitored and compared between nests at which adult capture did, and did not, occur. Clutches were aged and age was included in our models to adjust for exposure of clutches to risks such as predators. Key results There was no difference in egg hatching success between nests at which capture occurred and those at which it did not occur: 138 chicks hatched from 178 eggs attended by adults that were captured (77.5% hatched); and 279 chicks hatched from 442 eggs attended by adults that were not captured (63.1%). Conclusion Trapping incubating lapwings using our existing protocols does not compromise egg hatching success, at least where there are no foxes present. Implications Studies of ground-nesting shorebird hatching success in relation to capture can usefully assess for adverse effects of the methods employed. We suggest that further examination of capture of lapwings at the nest be conducted in environments where foxes are present.
In: Substance use & misuse: an international interdisciplinary forum, Band 56, Heft 1, S. 39-45
ISSN: 1532-2491
In: Journal of gay & lesbian social services: issues in practice, policy & research, Band 32, Heft 4, S. 517-530
ISSN: 1540-4056
In: Military behavioral health, Band 5, Heft 1, S. 51-63
ISSN: 2163-5803
In: Psychological services, Band 13, Heft 4, S. 401-410
ISSN: 1939-148X
A study involving 79 patients who were considered for surgical treatment for craniocerebral gunshot injuries between 1972 and 1978 was carried out to develop criteria for radiographic assessment and surgical operation, as well as to improve operative techniques and preoperative planning. The study focused on differences between military and civilian injuries, as well as criteria for gross prediction of outcome.
BASE
In: Wildlife research, Band 46, Heft 7, S. 622
ISSN: 1448-5494, 1035-3712
Abstract
ContextMonitoring survival of free-living precocial avian young is critical for population management, but difficult to achieve. Perhaps the most promising technique available to track survival is the deployment of devices such as radio-transmitters or data loggers, which allow for tracking of the individuals.
AimsTo understand if the deployment of radio-transmitters or the process of radio-tracking negatively impact chick survival by analysing survival of tagged chicks.
MethodsFifty masked lapwing (Vanellus miles), 42 red-capped plover (Charadrius ruficapillus) and 27 hooded plover (Thinornis cucullatus) chicks were radio-tracked. Mortality between tagged and untagged chicks within broods was compared to examine whether radio-telemetry influenced chick survival.
Key resultsThere was no statistically significant difference in survival between chicks with and without radio-transmitters. Radio-transmitters enabled the determination of cause of death for 0–28% of radio-tagged chicks.
ConclusionThe survival of shorebird chicks does not appear to be affected by attachment of transmitters.
ImplicationsRadio-tracking remains a promising way of studying the movement and survival of shorebird chicks, and is helpful but not reliable for assigning the cause of mortality.
In: Psychological services, Band 12, Heft 3, S. 187-198
ISSN: 1939-148X
As leaders ascend to more powerful positions in their groups, they face ever-increasing demands. As a result, there is a common perception that leaders have higher stress levels than nonleaders. However, if leaders also experience a heightened sense of control—a psychological factor known to have powerful stress-buffering effects—leadership should be associated with reduced stress levels. Using unique samples of real leaders, including military officers and government officials, we found that, compared with nonleaders, leaders had lower levels of the stress hormone cortisol and lower reports of anxiety (study 1). In study 2, leaders holding more powerful positions exhibited lower cortisol levels and less anxiety than leaders holding less powerful positions, a relationship explained significantly by their greater sense of control. Altogether, these findings reveal a clear relationship between leadership and stress, with leadership level being inversely related to stress.
BASE
In: Psychological services, Band 19, Heft Suppl 1, S. 45-61
ISSN: 1939-148X
SSRN
SSRN
ANPCyT, Argentina ; YerPhI, Armenia ; ARC, Australia ; BMWFW, Austria ; FWF, Austria ; ANAS, Azerbaijan ; SSTC, Belarus ; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) ; Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) ; NSERC, Canada ; NRC, Canada ; CFI, Canada ; CERN ; CONICYT, Chile ; CAS, China ; MOST, China ; NSFC, China ; COLCIENCIAS, Colombia ; MSMT CR, Czech Republic ; MPO CR, Czech Republic ; VSC CR, Czech Republic ; DNRF, Denmark ; DNSRC, Denmark ; IN2P3-CNRS, CEA-DRF/IRFU, France ; SRNSFG, Georgia ; BMBF, Germany ; HGF, Germany ; MPG, Germany ; GSRT, Greece ; RGC, Hong Kong SAR, China ; ISF, Israel ; Benoziyo Center, Israel ; INFN, Italy ; MEXT, Japan ; JSPS, Japan ; CNRST, Morocco ; NWO, Netherlands ; RCN, Norway ; MNiSW, Poland ; NCN, Poland ; FCT, Portugal ; MNE/IFA, Romania ; MES of Russia, Russian Federation ; NRC KI, Russian Federation ; JINR ; MESTD, Serbia ; MSSR, Slovakia ; ARRS, Slovenia ; MIZS, Slovenia ; DST/NRF, South Africa ; MINECO, Spain ; SRC, Sweden ; Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden ; SERI, Switzerland ; SNSF, Switzerland ; Canton of Bern, Switzerland ; MOST, Taiwan ; TAEK, Turkey ; STFC, United Kingdom ; DOE, United States of America ; NSF, United States of America ; BCKDF, Canada ; CANARIE, Canada ; CRC, Canada ; Compute Canada, Canada ; COST, European Union ; ERC, European Union ; ERDF, European Union ; Horizon 2020, European Union ; Marie Sk lodowska-Curie Actions, European Union ; Investissements d' Avenir Labex and Idex, ANR, France ; DFG, Germany ; AvH Foundation, Germany ; Greek NSRF, Greece ; BSF-NSF, Israel ; GIF, Israel ; CERCA Programme Generalitat de Catalunya, Spain ; Royal Society, United Kingdom ; Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom ; BMBWF (Austria) ; FWF (Austria) ; FNRS (Belgium) ; FWO (Belgium) ; Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) ; Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) ; FAPERGS (Brazil) ; MES (Bulgaria) ; CAS (China) ; MoST (China) ; NSFC (China) ; COLCIENCIAS (Colombia) ; MSES (Croatia) ; CSF (Croatia) ; RPF (Cyprus) ; SENESCYT (Ecuador) ; MoER (Estonia) ; ERC IUT (Estonia) ; ERDF (Estonia) ; Academy of Finland (Finland) ; MEC (Finland) ; HIP (Finland) ; CEA (France) ; CNRS/IN2P3 (France) ; BMBF (Germany) ; DFG (Germany) ; HGF (Germany) ; GSRT (Greece) ; NKFIA (Hungary) ; DAE (India) ; DST (India) ; IPM (Iran) ; SFI (Ireland) ; INFN (Italy) ; MSIP (Republic of Korea) ; NRF (Republic of Korea) ; MES (Latvia) ; LAS (Lithuania) ; MOE (Malaysia) ; UM (Malaysia) ; BUAP (Mexico) ; CINVESTAV (Mexico) ; CONACYT (Mexico) ; LNS (Mexico) ; SEP (Mexico) ; UASLP-FAI (Mexico) ; MOS (Montenegro) ; MBIE (New Zealand) ; PAEC (Pakistan) ; MSHE (Poland) ; NSC (Poland) ; FCT (Portugal) ; JINR (Dubna) ; MON (Russia) ; RosAtom (Russia) ; RAS (Russia) ; RFBR (Russia) ; NRC KI (Russia) ; MESTD (Serbia) ; SEIDI (Spain) ; CPAN (Spain) ; PCTI (Spain) ; FEDER (Spain) ; MOSTR (Sri Lanka) ; MST (Taipei) ; ThEPCenter (Thailand) ; IPST (Thailand) ; STAR (Thailand) ; NSTDA (Thailand) ; TAEK (Turkey) ; NASU (Ukraine) ; SFFR (Ukraine) ; STFC (United Kingdom ; DOE (U.S.A.) ; NSF (U.S.A.) ; Marie-Curie programme ; Horizon 2020 Grant (European Union) ; Leventis Foundation ; A.P. Sloan Foundation ; Alexander von Humboldt Foundation ; Belgian Federal Science Policy Office ; Fonds pour la Formation a la Recherche dans l'Industrie et dans l'Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium) ; Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium) ; F.R.S.-FNRS (Belgium) ; Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission ; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic ; Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Hungary) ; New National Excellence Program UNKP (Hungary) ; Council of Science and Industrial Research, India ; HOMING PLUS programme of the Foundation for Polish Science ; European Union, Regional Development Fund ; Mobility Plus programme of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education ; National Science Center (Poland) ; National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund ; Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigacion Cientfica y Tecnica de Excelencia Maria de Maeztu ; Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de Asturias ; EU-ESF ; Greek NSRF ; Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University (Thailand) ; Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand) ; Welch Foundation ; Weston Havens Foundation (U.S.A.) ; Canton of Geneva, Switzerland ; Herakleitos programme ; Thales programme ; Aristeia programme ; European Research Council (European Union) ; Horizon 2020 Grant (European Union): 675440 ; FWO (Belgium): 30820817 ; Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission: Z181100004218003 ; NKFIA (Hungary): 123842 ; NKFIA (Hungary): 123959 ; NKFIA (Hungary): 124845 ; NKFIA (Hungary): 124850 ; NKFIA (Hungary): 125105 ; National Science Center (Poland): Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428 ; National Science Center (Poland): Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543 ; National Science Center (Poland): 2014/15/B/ST2/03998 ; National Science Center (Poland): 2015/19/B/ST2/02861 ; National Science Center (Poland): Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406 ; Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigacion Cientfica y Tecnica de Excelencia Maria de Maeztu: MDM-2015-0509 ; Welch Foundation: C-1845 ; This paper presents the combinations of single-top-quark production cross-section measurements by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, using data from LHC proton-proton collisions at = 7 and 8 TeV corresponding to integrated luminosities of 1.17 to 5.1 fb(-1) at = 7 TeV and 12.2 to 20.3 fb(-1) at = 8 TeV. These combinations are performed per centre-of-mass energy and for each production mode: t-channel, tW, and s-channel. The combined t-channel cross-sections are 67.5 +/- 5.7 pb and 87.7 +/- 5.8 pb at = 7 and 8 TeV respectively. The combined tW cross-sections are 16.3 +/- 4.1 pb and 23.1 +/- 3.6 pb at = 7 and 8 TeV respectively. For the s-channel cross-section, the combination yields 4.9 +/- 1.4 pb at = 8 TeV. The square of the magnitude of the CKM matrix element V-tb multiplied by a form factor f(LV) is determined for each production mode and centre-of-mass energy, using the ratio of the measured cross-section to its theoretical prediction. It is assumed that the top-quark-related CKM matrix elements obey the relation |V-td|, |V-ts| « |V-tb|. All the |f(LV)V(tb)|(2) determinations, extracted from individual ratios at = 7 and 8 TeV, are combined, resulting in |f(LV)V(tb)| = 1.02 +/- 0.04 (meas.) +/- 0.02 (theo.). All combined measurements are consistent with their corresponding Standard Model predictions.
BASE