| 1. |
- Kanai, M, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2023
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Clear, A., et al.
(författare)
-
Designing Computer Science Competency Statements : A Process and Curriculum Model for the 21st Century
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE 2020. - New York, NY, USA : Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). ; , s. 211-246
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The broadly influential document Computing Curricula 2005 (CC2005) is in the process of being updated through a project called Computing Curricula 2020 (CC2020). CC2020 provides a vision for the future of computing education, including a comprehensive report that contrasts curricular guidelines, and contextualizing those guidelines within the broader landscape of computing education. In the process, a framework of competency-based educational principles has been developed which is closely aligned with other skills and qualifications frameworks. This working group report demonstrates one way in which the transition from current learning-outcomes-based practices to the competency-based practices can be approached. Further, the paper discusses the challenges and insights that have emerged as the learning outcomes for various Knowledge Areas in the CS2013 report were re-expressed in terms of competencies.
|
|
| 4. |
- Clear, Alison, et al.
(författare)
-
Developing Competency Statements for Computer Science Curricula : The Way Ahead
- 2020
-
Ingår i: ITiCSE '20: Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE. - New York, NY, USA : Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). ; , s. 515-516
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- This Working Group aims to take the current approved Computer Science curricula document, CS2013, and redevelop it into competency statements. The CC2020 project has designed and built a prototype of a visualization tool to compare and contrast current computing curricula. Three basic approaches were taken to portray the base data that will be used for the tool: the first being expert-defined competencies, the second based on mining, and the third based on expert-defined knowledge areas. The visualization tool takes competency statements from each of the current approved computing curricula and visually represents them. Using competency to frame curricula and describe educational outcomes in computing is not new. Since the CC2005 report was published several additional curricula have appeared and the information technology, information systems, and software engineering communities have developed three approaches to defining computing competency in the context of developing their curricula reports. In future the CC2020 report advocates that all new curricula will be written as competency statements. Currently the CS2013 curricula is expressed in learning outcomes rather than the competency statements, so it is essential to be able to demonstrate Computer Science curricula in these new terms to accommodate the new direction and demonstrate Computer Science in the new visualization tool.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Crous, P. W., et al.
(författare)
-
Fusarium : more than a node or a foot-shaped basal cell
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Studies in mycology. - : CENTRAALBUREAU SCHIMMELCULTURE. - 0166-0616 .- 1872-9797. ; :98
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Recent publications have argued that there are potentially serious consequences for researchers in recognising distinct genera in the terminal fusarioid clade of the family Nectriaceae. Thus, an alternate hypothesis, namely a very broad concept of the genus Fusarium was proposed. In doing so, however, a significant body of data that supports distinct genera in Nectriaceae based on morphology, biology, and phylogeny is disregarded. A DNA phylogeny based on 19 orthologous protein-coding genes was presented to support a very broad concept of Fusarium at the F1 node in Nectriaceae. Here, we demonstrate that re-analyses of this dataset show that all 19 genes support the F3 node that represents Fusarium sensu stricto as defined by F. sambucinum (sexual morph synonym Gibberella pulicaris). The backbone of the phylogeny is resolved by the concatenated alignment, but only six of the 19 genes fully support the F1 node, representing the broad circumscription of Fusarium. Furthermore, a re-analysis of the concatenated dataset revealed alternate topologies in different phylogenetic algorithms, highlighting the deep divergence and unresolved placement of various Nectriaceae lineages proposed as members of Fusarium. Species of Fusarium s. str. are characterised by Gibberella sexual morphs, asexual morphs with thin- or thick-walled macroconidia that have variously shaped apical and basal cells, and trichothecene mycotoxin production, which separates them from other fusarioid genera. Here we show that the Wollenweber concept of Fusarium presently accounts for 20 segregate genera with clear-cut synapomorphic traits, and that fusarioid macroconidia represent a character that has been gained or lost multiple times throughout Nectriaceae. Thus, the very broad circumscription of Fusarium is blurry and without apparent synapomorphies, and does not include all genera with fusarium-like macroconidia, which are spread throughout Nectriaceae (e.g., Cosmosporella, Macroconia, Microcera). In this study four new genera are introduced, along with 18 new species and 16 new combinations. These names convey information about relationships, morphology, and ecological preference that would otherwise be lost in a broader definition of Fusarium. To assist users to correctly identify fusarioid genera and species, we introduce a new online identification database, Fusarioid-ID, accessible at www.fusarium.org. The database comprises partial sequences from multiple genes commonly used to identify fusarioid taxa (act1, CaM, his3, rpb1, rpb2, tef1, tub2, ITS, and LSU). In this paper, we also present a nomenclator of names that have been introduced in Fusarium up to January 2021 as well as their current status, types, and diagnostic DNA barcode data. In this study, researchers from 46 countries, representing taxonomists, plant pathologists, medical mycologists, quarantine officials, regulatory agencies, and students, strongly support the application and use of a more precisely delimited Fusarium (= Gibberella) concept to accommodate taxa from the robust monophyletic node F3 on the basis of a well-defined and unique combination of morphological and biochemical features. This F3 node includes, among others, species of the F. fujikuroi, F. incarnatum-equiseti, F. oxysporum, and F. sambucinum species complexes, but not species of Bisifusarium [F. dimerum species complex (SC)], Cyanonectria (F. buxicola SC), Geejayessia (F. staphyleae SC), Neocosmospora (F. solani SC) or Rectifusarium (F. ventricosum SC). The present study represents the first step to generating a new online monograph of Fusarium and allied fusarioid genera (www.fusarium.org).
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Farrow, R., et al.
(författare)
-
GO-GN Conceptual Frameworks Guide
- 2021
-
Bok (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- If you’re a doctoral researcher (in any discipline) or someone who produces research in a professional capacity you’ve perhaps encountered the phrase “conceptual framework”. Sometimes a whole chapter of a Ph.D or Ed.D might be given over to investigating the relevance of different frameworks for an area of inquiry, or to synthesizing several frameworks together to ground the approach taken to answering a specific research question. Alternatively, you might not have heard much mention of conceptual frameworks or how they relate to what you are trying to achieve with your research. A conceptual framework brings together a set of ideas and articulates the different concepts that will be used in a study or research project. Because this is highly contextual - and often specific to a particular research question or approach - there aren’t really any general rules that cover how to do this. In addition, there is a lot of ambiguity and impreciseness in the language used to describe this stuff. Sometimes people talk about theoretical frameworks, or models, or a ‘theory of action’ that guides their research project. But do these mean different things? And are there differences between disciplines? In an empirical project the conceptual framework might be used to determine the kinds of questions to ask in a survey, or which data points to collect and focus on. A conceptual framework might be used to generate a hypothesis that is to be tested, or to facilitate the interpretation of results. On the qualitative side a conceptual framework might be used to provide the right kinds of descriptions at different stages of the research process; to identify or explore categories of analysis; or to guide and refine the conclusions drawn by a study. All of these things can happen in a single project! Given the importance and centrality of these frameworks, it might be surprising to learn that relatively little has been written about using them in research. There’s certainly a lot less published about this than research methods or methodology, for instance. (Though different methods often come with specific conceptual frameworks built in or with a more obvious alignment). So, to start making sense of all this we begin by looking at some of the papers that offer systematic guidance or understanding of the role of conceptual frameworks in research. As this guide progresses we’ll bring in perspectives from GO-GN members on their experiences with developing and using conceptual frameworks.
|
|
| 9. |
- Gaffar, J, et al.
(författare)
-
Diagnosis of Ibuprofen allergy through oral challenge
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology. - : Wiley. - 1365-2222. ; 50:5, s. 636-639
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 10. |
- Asbun, H.J., et al.
(författare)
-
The Miami International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - : Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. - 0003-4932 .- 1528-1140. ; 271:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019).Summary Background Data: MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking. Methods: The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. Results: After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety.Conclusion: The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery. © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
