Suchergebnisse

Uses various inconsistencies between Greens to point to some theoretical shortcomings in Inglehart's model of 'new politics'. Because of its psychological assumptions, the model neglects various cultural and historical structures which are essential for any full and consistent explanation of new politics in Austria and Switzerland. (Abstract amended)

From 1946 to 1990 extensive uranium mining was conducted in the southern parts of the former German Democratic Republic. The overall workforce included several 100 000 individuals. A cohort of 59 001 former male employees of the Wismut Company was established, forming a large retrospective uranium miners' cohort for the time period 1946–1998. Mean duration of follow-up was 30.5 years with a total of 1 801 630 person-years. Loss to follow-up was low at 5.3%. Of the workers, 16 598 (28.1%) died during the study period. Based on 2388 lung cancer deaths, the radon-related lung cancer risk is evaluated. The excess relative risk (ERR) per working level month (WLM) was estimated as 0.21% (95% CI: 0.18–0.24). It was dependent on time since exposure and on attained age. The highest ERR/WLM was observed 15–24 years after exposure and in the youngest age group (<55 years of age). While a strong inverse exposure-rate effect was detected for high exposures, no significant association was detected at exposures below 100 WLM. Excess relative risk /WLM was not modified by duration of exposure. The results would indicate the need to re-estimate the effects of risk modifying factors in current risk models as duration of exposure did not modify the ERR/WLM and there was only a modest decline of ERR/WLM with increasing time since exposure.

Enteric methane (CH) production from cattle contributes to global greenhouse gas emissions. Measurement of enteric CH is complex, expensive, and impractical at large scales; therefore, models are commonly used to predict CH production. However, building robust prediction models requires extensive data from animals under different management systems worldwide. The objectives of this study were to (1) collate a global database of enteric CH production from individual lactating dairy cattle; (2) determine the availability of key variables for predicting enteric CH production (g/day per cow), yield [g/kg dry matter intake (DMI)], and intensity (g/kg energy corrected milk) and their respective relationships; (3) develop intercontinental and regional models and cross-validate their performance; and (4) assess the trade-off between availability of on-farm inputs and CH prediction accuracy. The intercontinental database covered Europe (EU), the United States (US), and Australia (AU). A sequential approach was taken by incrementally adding key variables to develop models with increasing complexity. Methane emissions were predicted by fitting linear mixed models. Within model categories, an intercontinental model with the most available independent variables performed best with root mean square prediction error (RMSPE) as a percentage of mean observed value of 16.6%, 14.7%, and 19.8% for intercontinental, EU, and United States regions, respectively. Less complex models requiring only DMI had predictive ability comparable to complex models. Enteric CH production, yield, and intensity prediction models developed on an intercontinental basis had similar performance across regions, however, intercepts and slopes were different with implications for prediction. Revised CH emission conversion factors for specific regions are required to improve CH production estimates in national inventories. In conclusion, information on DMI is required for good prediction, and other factors such as dietary neutral detergent fiber (NDF) concentration, improve the prediction. For enteric CH yield and intensity prediction, information on milk yield and composition is required for better estimation. ; This study is part of the Joint Programming Initiative on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change (FACCE‐JPI)'s "GLOBAL NETWORK" project and the "Feeding and Nutrition Network" (http://animalscience.psu.edu/fnn) of the Livestock Research Group within the Global Research Alliance for Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (www.globalresearchalliance.org). Authors gratefully acknowledge funding for this project from: USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Grant no. 2014‐67003‐21979) University of California, Davis Sesnon Endowed Chair Program, USDA, and Austin Eugene Lyons Fellowship (University of California, Davis); Funding from USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Federal Appropriations under Project PEN 04539 and Accession number 1000803, DSM Nutritional Products (Basel, Switzerland), Pennsylvania Soybean Board (Harrisburg, PA, USA), Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (Burlington, VT, USA), and PMI Nutritional Additives (Shoreview, MN, USA); the Ministry of Economic Affairs (the Netherlands; project BO‐20‐007‐006; Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases), the Product Board Animal Feed (Zoetermeer, the Netherlands) and the Dutch Dairy Board (Zoetermeer, the Netherlands); USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Hatch Multistate NC‐1042 Project Number NH00616‐R; Project Accession Number 1001855) and the New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station (Durham, NH); French National Research Agency through the FACCE‐JPI program (ANR‐13‐JFAC‐0003‐01), Agricultural GHG Research Initiative for Ireland (AGRI‐I), Academy of Finland (No. 281337), Helsinki, Finland; Swiss Federal Office of Agriculture, Berne, Switzerland; the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra; UK); Defra, the Scottish Government, DARD, and the Welsh Government as part of the UK's Agricultural GHG Research Platform projects (www.ghgplatform.org.uk); INIA (Spain, project MIT01‐GLOBALNET‐EEZ); German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMBL) through the Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (BLE); Swedish Infrastructure for Ecosystem Science (SITES) at Röbäcksdalen Research Station; Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica, Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico (Grant Nos. 11110410 and 1151355) and Fondo Regional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (FTG/RF‐1028‐RG); European Commission through SMEthane (FP7‐SME‐262270). The authors are thankful to all colleagues who contributed data to the GLOBAL NETWORK project and especially thank Luis Moraes, Ranga Appuhamy, Henk van Lingen, James Fadel, and Roberto Sainz for their support on data analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. The authors declare that they have no competing interests. ; Peer Reviewed

In recent years, a variety of efforts have been made in political science to enable, encourage, or require scholars to be more open and explicit about the bases of their empirical claims and, in turn, make those claims more readily evaluable by others. While qualitative scholars have long taken an interest in making their research open, reflexive, and systematic, the recent push for overarching transparency norms and requirements has provoked serious concern within qualitative research communities and raised fundamental questions about the meaning, value, costs, and intellectual relevance of transparency for qualitative inquiry. In this Perspectives Reflection, we crystallize the central findings of a three-year deliberative process—the Qualitative Transparency Deliberations (QTD)—involving hundreds of political scientists in a broad discussion of these issues. Following an overview of the process and the key insights that emerged, we present summaries of the QTD Working Groups' final reports. Drawing on a series of public, online conversations that unfolded at www.qualtd.net, the reports unpack transparency's promise, practicalities, risks, and limitations in relation to different qualitative methodologies, forms of evidence, and research contexts. Taken as a whole, these reports—the full versions of which can be found in the Supplementary Materials—offer practical guidance to scholars designing and implementing qualitative research, and to editors, reviewers, and funders seeking to develop criteria of evaluation that are appropriate—as understood by relevant research communities—to the forms of inquiry being assessed. We dedicate this Reflection to the memory of our coauthor and QTD working group leader Kendra Koivu.