Organizational assessment in paediatric primary care:Development and initial validation of the primary care organizational questionnaire

Primary care in the United States is undergoing many changes. Reliable and valid instruments are needed to assess the effects of these changes. The Primary Care Organizational Questionnaire (PCOQ), a 56-item 5-point Likert scale survey that evaluates interactions among members of the clinic/practice and job-related attributes, was administered to clinicians and staff in 36 primary care practices serving paediatric populations in Connecticut. A priori scales were reliable (Cronbach alpha =0.7). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed greater heterogeneity across clinics than within clinics for 13 of 15 a priori scales, which were then included in a principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation. Eigenvalue analysis showed nine significant factors, largely similar to the a priori scales, indicating concurrent construct validity. Further research will ascertain the utility of the PCOQ in predicting the effectiveness of primary care practices in implementing disease management programmes. © 2006 Royal Society of Medicine Press.

Minority Rights and Minority Protection in Europe

In order to gain access to the EU, nations must be seen to implement formal instruments that protect the rights of minorities. This book examines the ways in which these tools have worked in a number of post-communist states, and explores the interaction of domestic and international structures that determine the application of these policies.

What is the Point of Copyright History?:Reflections on Copyright at Common law in 1774 by H. Tomás Gómez-Arostegui

Copyright history has long been a subject of intense and contested enquiry. Historical narratives about the early development of copyright were first prominently mobilised in eighteenth century British legal discourse, during the so-called Battle of the Booksellers between Scottish and London publishers. The two landmark copyright decisions of that time – Millar v. Taylor (1769) and Donaldson v. Becket (1774) – continue to provoke debate today. The orthodox reading of Millar and Donaldson presents copyright as a natural proprietary right at common law inherent in authors. Revisionist accounts dispute that traditional analysis. These conflicting perspectives have, once again, become the subject of critical scrutiny with the publication of Copyright at Common Law in 1774 by Prof Tomas Gomez-Arostegui in 2014, in the Connecticut Law Review ((2014) 47 Conn. L. Rev. 1) and as a CREATe Working Paper (No. 2014/16, 3 November 2014).

Taking Prof Gomez-Arostegui’s extraordinary work in this area as a point of departure, Dr Elena Cooper and Professor Ronan Deazley (then both academics at CREATe) organised an event, held at the University of Glasgow on 26th and 27th March 2015, to consider the interplay between copyright history and contemporary copyright policy. Is Donaldson still relevant, and, if so, why? What justificatory goals are served by historical investigation, and what might be learned from the history of the history of copyright? Does the study of copyright history still have any currency within an evidence-based policy context that is increasingly preoccupied with economic impact analysis?

This paper provides a lasting record of these discussions, including an editorial introduction, written comments by each of the panelists and Prof. Gomez-Arostegui and an edited transcript of the Symposium debate.

What is the Point of Copyright History?

Copyright history has long been a subject of intense and contested enquiry, and has once again become the subject of critical scrutiny with the publication of "Copyright at Common Law in 1774" by Prof Tomas Gomez-Arostegui in the Connecticut Law Review ((2014) 47 Conn. L. Rev. 1).
This online resource documents two events organised to explore the impact of "Copyright at Common Law in 1774". It incorporates a public lecture by Prof Gomez-Arostegui, and the full record of a one-day symposium of international experts debating the implications of Gomez-Arostegui's scholarship in this domain.

Whose Corruption? Which Law? Law’s Authority and Social Power

This paper focuses on the concept of ‘legal but corrupt’ from a pluralist perspective. I argue that the naming and ‘discovery’ of corruption relies on an authority to scrutinise and investigate institutional conduct. The plurality of state and non-state laws under which we are governed sets limits however on any institutional capacity to name and so discover misconduct. The paper focuses on the scandals involving the Catholic Church both in Ireland and in the United States and from there I examine how the state’s power to intervene in alternate institutions is conceived.

A Machine Learning Analysis of Twitter Sentiment to the Sandy Hook Shootings

Gun related violence is a complex issue and accounts for a large proportion of violent incidents. In the research reported in this paper, we set out to investigate the pro-gun and anti-gun sentiments expressed on a social media platform, namely Twitter, in response to the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut, USA. Machine learning techniques are applied to classify a data corpus of over 700,000 tweets. The sentiments are captured using a public sentiment score that considers the volume of tweets as well as population. A web-based interactive tool is developed to visualise the sentiments and is available at this http://www.gunsontwitter.com. The key findings from this research are: (i) There are elevated rates of both pro-gun and anti-gun sentiments on the day of the shooting. Surprisingly, the pro-gun sentiment remains high for a number of days following the event but the anti-gun sentiment quickly falls to pre-event levels. (ii) There is a different public response from each state, with the highest pro-gun sentiment not coming from those with highest gun ownership levels but rather from California, Texas and New York.