Explore the vast range of titles available.

Decision aids have long been an important source of help in making structured decisions. However, decision support for more complex problems has been much more difficult to create. Decision aids are now being developed for very complex problems, and their effects among low- and high-task-knowledge individuals are still being explored. One such task is credibility assessment, in which message recipients or observers must determine a message's veracity and trustworthiness. Credibility assessment is made difficult by lack of constraints, hidden or incomplete information, and mistaken beliefs of the assessor. The theory of technology dominance (TTD) proposes that technology is most effectively applied in intelligent decision aids when an experienced user is paired with a sophisticated decision aid. This work examines TT D in the complex task of credibility assessment. To assist in credibility assessment, we created a decision aid that augments the capabilities of the user-whether novice or professional. Using hypotheses based on TT D, we tested the decision aid using high-stakes deception in recorded interviews and involved both student (novice) and law enforcement (professional) users. Both professionals and novices improved their assessment accuracy by using the decision aid. Consistent with TTD, novices were more reliant on the decision aid than were professionals. However, contrary to TTD, there was no significant difference in the way novices and professionals interacted with the system, and the decision aid was not more beneficial to professionals. Novices and professionals frequently discounted the aid's recommendations, and in many cases professionals did not view explanations when the decision aid contradicted their assessments. Potential reasons for these findings, as well as limitations and future research opportunities, are discussed.

Love Sex Fear Death.

One of the most striking components of the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) is Article 3-the nonrefoulement provision-which has been adopted into US domestic law. Signatories commit to not removing or extraditing noncitizens to countries where those individuals are likely to be tortured. Article 3 asserts that despite the fact that some applicants may be undocumented and some may have committed terrible crimes, no one deserves to be tortured. The story of Elenilson Ortiz-Franco is instructive here. Ortiz-Franco is a native of El Salvador who entered the United States in 1987 without legal permission. In the early 1990s, he was convicted of various criminal offenses, making him subject to removal. Ortiz-Franco was also a member of MS-13, a prominent Salvadoran gang; while his removal hearings were pending, he spoke with the US government about MS-13's activities. He applied for CAT protection, fearing gang retaliation and torture if removed. Ortiz-Franco may not be the kind of resident that this country would choose, but the CAT commitment places an individual's life and safety above other considerations.

Union with Christ was a key doctrine for second-generation Reformed theologian Girolamo Zanchi. As a Thomist, Zanchi shared similar elements with Thomas Aquinas in his understanding of salvation as , but his understanding of union with Christ differed with regard to the difference between infused and imputed righteousness. Unlike Aquinas’s doctrine of infused righteousness, Zanchi argued for imputed righteousness, which was both the foundation for one’s justification in this life as well as appearing before the divine bar at the final judgment. Zanchi’s doctrine of union with Christ has the utmost significance for personal eschatology and the judgment believers undergo at the great assize, insights that are worth retrieving for a clear understanding of the relationship between justification and the final judgement.

Imagine a typical lawsuit between two parties, plaintiff and defendant. The litigants have reached the final days of pretrial litigation, and like any good defense counsel, the defendant's lawyer hopes to dismiss the case before going to trial. He moves for summary judgment-increasingly common in modern litigation- and raises the possibility of settlement with the plaintiff. Hoping to strong-arm an end to the case, he decides to send the plaintiff a special settlement offer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 called an \"offer of judgment.\" If the plaintiff accepts this offer, the court will automatically enter judgment against the defendant according to the offer's terms. The case will end. But if the plaintiff declines the offer, Rule 68 may make the plaintiff liable for costs that the defendant incurs during subsequent litigation. This risk of increased costs means the plaintiff should think seriously about accepting the offer.

Parties may challenge the validity of issued patents in federal courts and before the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and its administrative tribunal, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases arising under the patent laws, has struggled to manage cases contested in parallel judicial and administrative proceedings. In 'Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc'., the Federal Circuit held that a district court's judgment may be modified by an \"intervening\" judgment arising out of a parallel administrative proceeding unless all issues have been fully adjudicated in the district-court action. This requirement remains controversial. At least five of the court's eleven judges oppose the court's finality rule, and this debate has led to vigorous dissents from panel decisions and denials of petitions for rehearing en banc. Nevertheless, the rule has attracted little academic attention, and commentators that have addressed the rule have analyzed it under formalistic constitutional and preclusion doctrines, ignoring other approaches.

Although the Angoff procedure is among the most widely used standard setting procedures for tests comprising multiple-choice items, research has shown that subject matter experts have considerable difficulty accurately making the required judgments in the absence of examinee performance data. Some authors have viewed the need to provide performance data as a fatal flaw for the procedure; others have considered it appropriate for experts to integrate performance data into their judgments but have been concerned that experts may rely too heavily on the data. There have, however, been relatively few studies examining how experts use the data. This article reports on two studies that examine how experts modify their judgments after reviewing data. In both studies, data for some items were accurate and data for other items had been manipulated. Judges in both studies substantially modified their judgments whether the data were accurate or not.

Memory allows one to make judgements about the past, but one's memory can err in many different ways. Coliva discusses the philosophy of memory and the types of mistakes that may be made.