2 resultados para BIASES
em Research Open Access Repository of the University of East London.
Resumo:
Land-use change and intensification threaten bee populations worldwide, imperilling pollination services. Global models are needed to better characterise, project, and mitigate bees' responses to these human impacts. The available data are, however, geographically and taxonomically unrepresentative; most data are from North America and Western Europe, overrepresenting bumblebees and raising concerns that model results may not be generalizable to other regions and taxa. To assess whether the geographic and taxonomic biases of data could undermine effectiveness of models for conservation policy, we have collated from the published literature a global dataset of bee diversity at sites facing land-use change and intensification, and assess whether bee responses to these pressures vary across 11 regions (Western, Northern, Eastern and Southern Europe; North, Central and South America; Australia and New Zealand; South East Asia; Middle and Southern Africa) and between bumblebees and other bees. Our analyses highlight strong regionally-based responses of total abundance, species richness and Simpson's diversity to land use, caused by variation in the sensitivity of species and potentially in the nature of threats. These results suggest that global extrapolation of models based on geographically and taxonomically restricted data may underestimate the true uncertainty, increasing the risk of ecological surprises.
Resumo:
Over the past decade, Mental Health (MH) has increasingly appeared on the ‘school agenda’, both in terms of rising levels of MH difficulties in the student population, and also the expectation that schools have a role to play in supporting good MH. MH is a term fraught with ambiguities leading to uncertainty around the most appropriate ways to provide support. A review of current literature reveals a wide range of definitions and interpretations, sometimes within the same team of supporting professionals. The current study seeks to explore the perspectives held by two professional groups seemingly well placed to support young persons’ (YPs’) MH. Six Clinical Psychologists (CPs) and six Educational Psychologists (EPs) are interviewed, exploring their constructs of MH, and their perceptions of their own role and the roles of others in supporting secondary school aged YPs’ MH. The data are analysed through Thematic Analysis. Findings suggest that there are variations between the two professions’ constructs of MH, and EPs in particular have no unified concept of MH. This is likely due to less experience or training in this area. CPs and EPs hold similar perceptions of the school’s role for promoting good MH, and flagging up concerns to more specialist professionals when necessary. However, there are discrepancies in the EP and CP perceptions of each other’s roles. The conflicting views appear to emerge through incomplete information about the other, and professional defensiveness in a context where resources and funding are scarce. The current study suggests that these challenges can be addressed through: greater reflectivity on professional biases, exploration of MH constructs within other epistemological positions, and greater communication regarding professional roles, leading to clearer collaboration in supporting the MH of YP.