Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a randomized trial involving previously untreated patients with metastatic intermediate- or poor-risk renal-cell cancer, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with higher response rates, longer overall survival, and greater improvement in quality of life than sunitinib.

Investigation of the social framing of human-shark interactions may provide useful strategies for integrating social, biological, and ecological knowledge into national and international policy discussions about shark conservation. One way to investigate social opinion and forces related to sharks and their conservation is through the media's coverage of sharks. We conducted a content analysis of 300 shark-related articles published in 20 major Australian and U.S. newspapers from 2000 to 2010. Shark attacks were the emphasis of over half the articles analyzed, and shark conservation was the primary topic of 11% of articles. Significantly more Australian articles than U.S. articles treated shark attacks (χ 2 = 3.862; Australian 58% vs. U.S. 47%) and shark conservation issues (χ 2 = 6.856; Australian 15% vs. U.S. 11%) as the primary article topic and used politicians as the primary risk messenger (i.e., primary person or authority sourced in the article) (χ 2 = 7.493; Australian 8% vs. U.S. 1%). However, significantly more U.S. articles than Australian articles discussed sharks as entertainment (e.g., subjects in movies, books, and television; χ 2 = 15.130; U.S. 6% vs. Australian 1%) and used scientists as the primary risk messenger (χ 2 = 5.333; U.S. 25% vs. Australian 15%). Despite evidence that many shark species are at risk of extinction, we found that most media coverage emphasized the risks sharks pose to people. To the extent that media reflects social opinion, our results highlight problems for shark conservation. We suggest that conservation professionals purposefully and frequently engage with the media to highlight the rarity of shark attacks, discuss preventative measures water users can take to reduce their vulnerability to shark encounters, and discuss conservation issues related to local and threatened species of sharks. When integrated with biological and ecological data, social-science data may help generate a more comprehensive perspective and inform conservation practice. La investigacióndel marco social de las interacciones humanos-tiburones puede proporcionar estrategias útiles para la integración de conocimiento social, biológico y ecológico en las discusiones de políticas nacionales e internacionales para la conservación de tiburones. Una manera de investigar la opinión y fuerzas sociales relacionadas con tiburones y su conservación es a través de la cobertura de los medios sobre tiburones. Realizamos un análisis de contenido de 300 artículos relacionados con tiburones publicados de 2000 a 2010 en 20 periódicos australianos y norteamericanos. Los ataques de tiburones fueron el enfásis de más de la mitad de los artículos analizados, y la conservación de tiburones fue el tema primario de 11% de los artículos. Significativamente más artículos australianos que norteamericanos trataron los ataques de tiburón (χ 2 = 3.862; australianos 58% vs. norteamericanos 47%) y temas de conservación de tiburón (χ 2 = 6.856; australianos 15% vs. norteamericanos 11%) como el tema principal del artículo y utilizaron a políticos como el principal mensajero de riesgo (i.e., persona o autoridad primaria fuente del artículo) (χ 2 = 7.493; norteamericanos 8% vs. australianos 1%). Sin embargo, significativamente más artículos norteamericanos que australianos discutieron a los tiburones como entretenimiento (e.g., sujetos en películas, libros y televisión; χ 2 = 15.130; norteamericanos 6% vs. australianos 1%) y usaron a científicos como el principal mensajero de riesgo (χ 2 = 5.333; norteamericanos 25% vs. asutralianos 15%). No obstante la evidencia de muchas especies de tiburón están en riesgo de extinción, encontramos que la mayoría de la cobertura de los medios enfatizó los riesgos que representan los tiburones para humanos. En el sentido en que los medios reflejan la opinión social, nuestros resultados resaltan los problemas para la conservación de tiburones. Sugerimos que profesionales de la conservación se comprometan con los medios, con determinación y frecuencia, para resaltar la rareza de los ataques de tiburones, discutir medidas preventivas que los usuarios pueden tomar para reducir su vulnerabilidad a encuentros con tiburones y discutir temas de conservación relacionados con especies de tiburones locales y amenazadas. Datos de la ciencia social, incorporados a datos biológicos y ecológicos, pueden ayudar a generar una perspectiva integral y proporcionar información a la práctica de la conservación.

Different childhood experiences may affect adult health differently. To explore the association of different types of positive childhood experiences(PCEs) and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) with risky behaviours and mental health indicators, andhow PCEs and ACEs are associated with health outcomes in the context of each other. This was an exploratory cross-sectional online survey including 332 university students in Hong Kong. ACEs (abuse and household challenges), PCEs (perceived safety, positive quality of life, and interpersonal support), risky behaviours (smoking, binge drinking, and sexual initiation), and mental health indicators(depression, anxiety, loneliness, self-rated health, multimorbidity, meaning in life, and life satisfaction)were measured. The multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated cumulative effects of PCEs in lowered risks of depression, anxiety, loneliness, as well as better self-rated health, life satisfaction, and meaning in life (p < .05), after adjusting for ACEs. Results also indicated that ACEs had an increasing relationship with poorer mental health indicators, such as anxiety, loneliness, and life satisfaction (p < .05), after adjusting for PCEs. There was also an adverse association between having ≥4 ACEs with smoking and binge drinking. In addition, each type of PCE and ACE was significantly associated with one or more risky behaviours and mental health indicators. Stratified results showed that PCEs had stronger associations with mental health indicators in participants with fewer ACEs. Furthermore, ACEs had stronger associations with mental health indicators in participants with more PCEs than in those with fewer PCEs. In this study, PCE was proven to be an independent protective factor against poor mental health after accounting for ACE. ACE was also proven to be an independent risk factor for poor mental health and risky behaviours. These findings suggest a crucial need for the active promotion of PCEs and the prevention of child maltreatment. The results of subtypes and stratifications can be taken into consideration when developing targeted interventions in the future. PCE is an independent protective factor against poor mental health after accounting for ACE. ACE is an independent risk factor for poor mental health and risky behaviours. PCEs and ACEs have different associations with health outcomes in the context of one another.

Elements of Financial Risk Management offers an introduction to modern risk management.It focuses on implementation, especially recent techniques which facilitate bridging the gap between standard textbooks on risk and real-life risk management systems.It identifies key features of risk asset returns and captures them in tractable statistical.

Decision makers and researchers recognize the need to effectively confront the social dimensions and conflicts inherent to invasive species research and management. Yet, despite numerous contentious situations that have arisen, no systematic evaluation of the literature has examined the commonalities in the patterns and types of these emergent social issues. Using social and ecological keywords, we reviewed trends in the social dimensions of invasive species research and management and the sources and potential solutions to problems and conflicts that arise around invasive species. We integrated components of cognitive hierarchy theory and risk perceptions theory to provide a conceptual framework to identify, distinguish, and provide understanding of the driving factors underlying disputes associated with invasive species. In the ISI Web of Science database, we found 15,915 peer‐reviewed publications on biological invasions, 124 of which included social dimensions of this phenomenon. Of these 124, 28 studies described specific contentious situations. Social approaches to biological invasions have emerged largely in the last decade and have focused on both environmental social sciences and resource management. Despite being distributed in a range of journals, these 124 articles were concentrated mostly in ecology and conservation‐oriented outlets. We found that conflicts surrounding invasive species arose based largely on differences in value systems and to a lesser extent stakeholder and decision maker's risk perceptions. To confront or avoid such situations, we suggest integrating the plurality of environmental values into invasive species research and management via structured decision making techniques, which enhance effective risk communication that promotes trust and confidence between stakeholders and decision makers.

Conservation outcomes are uncertain. Agencies making decisions about what threat mitigation actions to take to save which species frequently face the dilemma of whether to invest in actions with high probability of success and guaranteed benefits or to choose projects with a greater risk of failure that might provide higher benefits if they succeed. The answer to this dilemma lies in the decision maker's aversion to risk—their unwillingness to accept uncertain outcomes. Little guidance exists on how risk preferences affect conservation investment priorities. Using a prioritization approach based on cost effectiveness, we compared 2 approaches: a conservative probability threshold approach that excludes investment in projects with a risk of management failure greater than a fixed level, and a variance‐discounting heuristic used in economics that explicitly accounts for risk tolerance and the probabilities of management success and failure. We applied both approaches to prioritizing projects for 700 of New Zealand's threatened species across 8303 management actions. Both decision makers’ risk tolerance and our choice of approach to dealing with risk preferences drove the prioritization solution (i.e., the species selected for management). Use of a probability threshold minimized uncertainty, but more expensive projects were selected than with variance discounting, which maximized expected benefits by selecting the management of species with higher extinction risk and higher conservation value. Explicitly incorporating risk preferences within the decision making process reduced the number of species expected to be safe from extinction because lower risk tolerance resulted in more species being excluded from management, but the approach allowed decision makers to choose a level of acceptable risk that fit with their ability to accommodate failure. We argue for transparency in risk tolerance and recommend that decision makers accept risk in an adaptive management framework to maximize benefits and avoid potential extinctions due to inefficient allocation of limited resources.

In recent years, climate change has increasingly come to be seen as one of the principal threats to future global financial stability. This article identifies and critiques the emerging consensus among international financial regulators as to how this threat-the key perceived components of which are also delineated-can best be managed. It shows that the preferred approach mirrors hegemonic postfinancial crisis regulatory practice vis-à-vis financial stability risk more generically: prioritization of market discipline underpinned by risk disclosure. The article characterizes this approach as a quintessentially neoliberal modality of governance. It also argues that insofar as this approach relies on financial market workings and financial institutional behaviors explicitly belied by the financial crisis, it risks precisely the type of \"climate Minsky moment\" regulators aim to avoid.

Meta‐analysis plays a crucial role in syntheses of quantitative evidence in ecology and biodiversity conservation. The reliability of estimates in meta‐analyses strongly depends on unbiased sampling of primary studies. Although earlier studies have explored potential biases in ecological meta‐analyses, biases in reported statistical results and associated study characteristics published in different languages have never been tested in environmental sciences. We address this knowledge gap by systematically searching published meta‐analyses and comparing effect‐size estimates between English‐ and Japanese‐language studies included in existing meta‐analyses. Of the 40 published ecological meta‐analysis articles authored by those affiliated to Japanese institutions, we find that three meta‐analysis articles searched for studies in the two languages and involved sufficient numbers of English‐ and Japanese‐language studies, resulting in four eligible meta‐analyses (i.e., four meta‐analyses conducted in the three meta‐analysis articles). In two of the four, effect sizes differ significantly between the English‐ and Japanese‐language studies included in the meta‐analyses, causing considerable changes in overall mean effect sizes and even their direction when Japanese‐language studies are excluded. The observed differences in effect sizes are likely attributable to systematic differences in reported statistical results and associated study characteristics, particularly taxa and ecosystems, between English‐ and Japanese‐language studies. Despite being based on a small sample size, our findings suggest that ignoring non‐English‐language studies may bias outcomes of ecological meta‐analyses, due to systematic differences in study characteristics and effect‐size estimates between English‐ and non‐English languages. We provide a list of actions that meta‐analysts could take in the future to reduce the risk of language bias. 摘要 元分析在生态学和生物多样性保护定量证据的合成中起着至关重要的作用。元分析中估计的可靠性在很大程度上取决于对初级研究的公正抽样。虽然早期的研究已经探索了生态元分析的潜在偏差，但以不同语言发表的报告的统计结果和相关研究特征的偏差从未在环境科学中测试过。我们通过系统地搜索已发布的元分析，并比较现有元分析中包含的英语和日语研究之间的效应量估计值，来解决这种知识差距。在由日本研究机构下属机构撰写的40篇已发表的生态元分析文章中，我们发现有三篇元分析文章搜索了这两种语言的研究，涉及足够数量的英语和日语研究，产生了4个合资格的元分析（即三篇元分析文章中进行的四个元分析）。在这四个元分析的两个中，元分析中所包含的英语和日语研究之间的效应量差别很大，在排除日语研究时，导致总体平均效应量甚至其走向发生显著变化。观察到的效应量差异可能归因于英语和日语研究之间报告的统计结果以及相关研究特征，特别是分类和生态系统的系统性差异。尽管基于较小的样本量，我们的发现表明，由于英语和非英语语言之间在研究特征和效应量估计方面存在着系统性差异，因而忽视非英语研究可能会使生态元分析的结果有偏差。我们提供了一份元分析人员将来可能采取的一些行动的列表，以降低语言偏差的风险。 Résumé La méta‐analyse joue un rôle essentiel dans les synthèses de preuves quantitatives en écologie et en conservation de la biodiversité. La fiabilité des estimations dans les méta‐analyses dépend fortement d’un échantillonnage non biaisé des études primaires. Bien que des études antérieures aient examiné les biais potentiels dans les méta‐analyses écologiques, les biais n’ont jamais été mis à l’épreuve dans les sciences de l’environnement lors de publications dans différentes langues de résultats statistiques enregistrés et de caractéristiques des études associées. Nous abordons cette lacune dans les connaissances en recherchant de manière systématique des méta‐analyses publiées et en comparant les estimations d’ampleur de l’effet entre des études en anglais et en japonais figurant dans les méta‐analyses existantes. Sur 40 articles publiés de méta‐analyse écologique dont les auteurs sont affiliés à des institutions japonaises, nous trouvons que trois articles de méta‐analyse ont recherché des études dans les deux langues et ont mis en jeu des nombres suffisants d’études en anglais et en japonais, avec pour résultat quatre méta‐analyses admissibles (c.‐à‐d. quatre méta‐analyses effectuées dans les trois articles de méta‐analyse). Dans deux de ces quatre cas, les ampleurs de l’effet diffèrent de façon significative entre les études en japonais et en anglais comprises dans les méta‐analyses, ce qui provoque des changements considérables dans les ampleurs moyennes globales de l’effet et même dans leur direction lorsque les études en japonais sont exclues. On peut probablement attribuer les différences observées dans les ampleurs de l’effet entre les études en japonais et en anglais, en particulier en ce qui concerne les taxons et les écosystèmes, aux différences systématiques dans les résultats statistiques enregistrés, de même que dans les caractéristiques des études associées. Bien que basés sur un échantillon de petite taille, nos résultats suggèrent que le fait d’ignorer les études non anglophones peut biaiser les résultats de méta‐analyses écologiques en raison des différences systématiques dans les caractéristiques d’étude et les estimations d’ampleur de l’effet entre langue anglaise et langues non anglophones. Nous proposons une liste de mesures qui pourraient être adoptées à l’avenir dans les méta‐analyses pour réduire le risque de biais linguistique. 要旨 メタ分析は、生態学や生物多様性保全における定量的エビデンスの統合において重要な役割を果たしている。メタ分析における推定値の信頼性は、偏りのない一次研究の収集に大きく依存する。生態学におけるメタ分析で生じる様々なバイアスの可能性はこれまでの研究でも検討されてきたが、異なる言語で発表される統計結果や研究の特性にバイアスが存在するかどうかは、環境科学の分野では検証されたことがなかった。そこで本研究では、既存のメタ分析を系統的に検索し、そこで利用されている英語で発表された研究と日本語で発表された研究の間で効果サイズの推定値を比較した。日本の研究機関に所属する研究者が執筆した40の生態学におけるメタ分析論文のうち、3つのメタ分析論文のみが一次研究を2言語で検索し、その結果十分な数の英語研究と日本語研究を解析の対象としていた。そこで本研究では、この3つのメタ分析論文に含まれた4つのメタ分析を対象として用いた。4つのうち2つのメタ分析では、利用された英語研究と日本語研究で効果サイズが大きく異なり、日本語研究を除外した場合には、全体の平均効果サイズやその方向性までもが大きく変化することが明らかになった。このような効果サイズの違いは、英語研究と日本語研究で報告された統計結果や研究の特性（特に分類や生態系）が系統的に異なることに起因している可能性が高い。本研究では多くのメタ分析を対象にすることはできなかったものの、ここで得られた知見は、異なる言語で発表された研究間でその特性や効果サイズの推定値に系統的な違いがあるため、英語以外の研究を除外すると生態学におけるメタ分析の結果にバイアスが生じる可能性があることを示唆している。最後に、このようなメタ分析における言語バイアスのリスクを軽減するために有効であると考えられる対策についても提案を行う。 Resumo A metanálise desempenha um papel crucial na síntese de evidências quantitativas na ecologia e conservação da biodiversidade. A confiabilidade das estimativas nas metanálises depende fortemente da amostragem imparcial de estudos primários. Embora estudos anteriores tenham explorado possíveis vieses em metanálises ecológicas, os vieses nos resultados estatísticos relatados e características de estudos associados publicados em diferentes idiomas nunca foram testados em ciências ambientais. Abordamos essa lacuna de conhecimento pesquisando sistematicamente metanálises publicadas e comparando estimativas de tamanho de efeito entre os estudos em inglês e japonês incluídos nas metanálises existentes. Dos 40 artigos de metanálise ecológica publicados por autores filiados a instituições japonesas, descobrimos que três artigos de metanálise pesquisaram estudos nos dois idiomas e envolveram um número suficiente de estudos em inglês e japonês, resultando em quatro metanálises elegíveis (ou seja, quatro metanálises realizadas nos três artigos de metanálise). Em duas das quatro metanálises, os tamanhos de efeito diferem significativamente entre os estudos em inglês e japonês incluídos nas metanálises, causando mudanças consideráveis nos tamanhos de efeito médios em geral e até mesmo na sua direção quando os estudos em japonês são excluídos. As diferenças observadas nos tamanhos de efeito provavelmente são atribuíveis a diferenças sistemáticas nos resultados estatísticos relatados, bem como às características de estudos associados, particularmente táxons e ecossistemas, entre estudos em inglês e japonês. Embora baseados em um pequeno tamanho amostral, nossos resultados sugerem que ignorar estudos que não sejam em inglês pode influenciar os resultados de metanálises ecológicas, devido a diferenças sistemáticas nas características dos estudos e estimativas de tamanho de efeito entre o idioma inglês e o não‐inglês. Fornecemos uma lista de medidas que metanalistas podem adotar no futuro para reduzir o risco de viés de idioma. Resumen El meta‐análisis juega un papel crucial en la síntesis de evidencia cuantitativa en ecología y conservación de la biodiversidad. La fiabilidad de las estimaciones en los meta‐análisis depende en gran medida del muestreo imparcial de los estudios primarios. A pesar de que estudios previos han explorado posibles sesgos en meta‐análisis ecológicos, sesgos en resultados estadísticos y características asociadas al estudio publicados en diferentes idiomas nunca han sido comprobados en ciencias ambientales. Abordamos esta brecha de conocimiento buscando sistemáticamente los meta‐análisis publicados y comparando las estimaciones del tamaño del efecto entre los estudios en inglés y japonés incluidos en los meta‐análisis existentes. De los 40 artículos de meta‐análisis ecológicos publicados por aquellos afiliados a instituciones japonesas, encontramos que tres artículos de meta‐análisis buscaron estudios en dos idiomas e involucraron un número suficiente de estudios en inglés y japonés, lo que resultó en cuatro meta‐análisis elegibles (i.e., cuatro meta‐análisis realizados en tres artículos de meta‐análisis). En dos de los cuatro, los tamaños de los efectos difieren significativamente entre los estudios en inglés y japonés incluidos en los meta‐análisis, lo que provoca cambios considerables en los tamaños de efectos medios generales e incluso su dirección cuando se excluyen los estudios en japonés. Las diferencias observadas en los tamaños de los efectos son probablemente atribuibles a las diferencias sistemáticas en los resultados estadísticos informados, así como a las características de los estudios asociados, particularmente los taxones y los ecosistemas, entre los estudios en inglés y japonés. A pesar de estar basados ​​en un tamaño de muestra pequeño, nuestros hallazgos sugieren que ignorar los estudios que no están en inglés puede sesgar los resultados de los meta‐análisis ecológicos, debido a las diferencias sistemáticas en las características del estudio y a las estimaciones del tamaño del efecto entre el idioma inglés y el no inglés. Proporcionamos una lista de acciones que los meta‐analistas podrían tomar en el futuro para reducir el riesgo de sesgo lingüístico. Ignoring non‐English‐language literature may bias outcomes of ecological meta‐analyses, due t