Back to basics: how measures of lexical diversity can help discriminate between CEFR levels

This study contributes to ongoing discussions on how measures of lexical diversity (LD) can help discriminate between essays from second language learners of English, whose work has been assessed as belonging to levels B1 to C2 of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). The focus is in particular on how different operationalisations of what constitutes a “different word” (type) impact on the LD measures themselves and on their ability to discriminate between CEFR levels. The results show that basic measures of LD, such as the number of different words, the TTR (Templin 1957) and the Index of Guiraud (Guiraud 1954) explain more variance in the CEFR levels than sophisticated measures, such as D (Malvern et al. 2004), HD-D (McCarthy and Jarvis 2007) and MTLD (McCarthy 2005) provided text length is kept constant across texts. A simple count of different words (defined as lemma’s and not as word families) was the best predictor of CEFR levels and explained 22 percent of the variance in overall scores on the Pearson Test of English Academic in essays written by 176 test takers.

Effect of a symbiotic on the response to seasonal influenza vaccination is strongly influenced by degree of immunosenescence

Background Ageing increases risk of respiratory infections and impairs the response to influenza vaccination. Pre- and probiotics offer an opportunity to modulate anti-viral defenses and the response to vaccination via alteration of the gut microbiota. This study investigated the effect of a novel probiotic, Bifidobacterium longum bv. infantis CCUG 52486, combined with a prebiotic, gluco-oligosaccharide (B. longum + Gl-OS), on the response to seasonal influenza vaccination in young and older subjects in a double-blind, randomized controlled trial, taking into account the influence of immunosenescence markers at baseline. Results Vaccination resulted in a significant increase in total antibody titres, vaccine-specific IgA, IgM and IgG and seroprotection to all three subunits of the vaccine in both young and older subjects, and in general, the increases in young subjects were greater. There was little effect of the synbiotic, although it tended to reduce seroconversion to the Brisbane subunit of the vaccine and the vaccine-specific IgG response in older subjects. Immunological characterization revealed that older subjects randomized to the synbiotic had a significantly higher number of senescent (CD28-CD57+) helper T cells at baseline compared with those randomized to the placebo, and they also had significantly higher plasma levels of anti-CMV IgG and a greater tendency for CMV seropositivity. Moreover, higher numbers of CD28-CD57+ helper T cells were associated with failure to seroconvert to Brisbane, strongly suggesting that the subjects randomized to the synbiotic were already at a significant disadvantage in terms of likely ability to respond to the vaccine compared with those randomized to the placebo. Conclusions Ageing was associated with marked impairment of the antibody response to influenza vaccination in older subjects and the synbiotic failed to reverse this impairment. However, the older subjects randomized to the synbiotic were at a significant disadvantage due to a greater degree of immunosenscence at baseline compared with those randomized to the placebo. Thus, baseline differences in immunosenescence between the randomized groups are likely to have influenced the outcome of the intervention, highlighting the need for detailed immunological characterization of subjects prior to interventions.

CGIAR research program on grain legumes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background and context The Grain Legumes CRP was established to bring all research and development work on grain legumes within the CGIAR system under one umbrella. It was set up to provide public goods outcomes to serve the needs of the sustainable production and consumption of grain legumes in the developing world, capitalising upon their properties that enhance the natural resource base upon which production so unequivocally depends. The choice of species and research foci were finalised following extensive consultation with all stakeholders (though perhaps fewer end users), and cover all disciplines that contribute to long-lasting solutions to the issues of developing country production and consumption. ICRISAT leads Grain Legumes and is partnered by the CGIAR centers ICARDA, IITA and CIAT and a number of other important partners, both public and private, and of course farmers in the developed and developing world. Originally in mid-2012 Grain Legumes was structured around eight Product Lines (PL) (i.e. technological innovations) intersecting five Strategic Components (SC) (i.e. arranged as components along the value chain). However, in 2015, it was restructured along a more R4D output model leading to Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs). Thus five Flagship Projects (FP) more closely reflecting a systematic pipeline of progression from fundamental science, implementation of interventions and the development of capacity and partnerships to promote and adopt impactful outcomes: FP1) Managing Productivity through crop interactions with biotic and abiotic constraints; FP2) Determination of traits that address production constraints and opportunities; FP3) Trait Deployment of those traits through breeding; FP4) Seed Systems, post-harvest processing and nutrition; FP5) Capacity-Building and Partnerships. Another three cross-cutting FPs analyse the broader environment surrounding the adoption of outputs, the capitalising of investments in genomics research, and a focus on the Management and Governance of Grain Legumes: FP6) Knowledge, impacts, priorities and gender organisation; FP7) Tools and platforms for high throughput genotyping and bioinformatics; and FP8) Management and Governance. Five FPs focus on R4D; FPs 5 and 6 are considered cross-cutting; FP 7 has a technical focus and FP 8 has an overarching objective. Over the three year period since its inception in July 1012, Grain Legumes has had a total budget of $140 million, with $62M originally to come from W1/W2 and the remaining $78M to come from W3/bilateral. In actuality only $45M came from W1/W2 but $106M from W3/bilateral corresponding to 106% of expectation. Purpose, scope and objectives of the external evaluation Principally, the evaluation of Grain Legumes is to ensure that the program is progressing in an effective manner towards addressing the system-level outcomes of the CGIAR as they relate to grain legumes. In essence, the evaluation aims to provide essential evaluative information for decision-making by Program Management and its funders on issues such as extension, expansion and structuring of the program and adjustments in relevant parts of the program. Subsequent to the formal signing of the agreed terms of reference, the evaluation team was also invited to comment upon the mooted options for merging and/or disaggregating of Grain Legumes. The audiences are therefore manifold, from the CGIAR Fund Council and Consortium, the Boards of Trustees of the four component CGIAR centres, the Grain Legumes Steering, Management and Independent Advisory Committees, to the researchers and others involved in the delivery of R4D outcomes and their partner organisations. The evaluation was not only summative in measuring results from Grain Legumes at arm’s length; it was also formative in promoting learning and improvements, and developmental in nurturing adaption to transformational change with time. The evaluation report was written in a manner that allows for engagement of key partners and funders in a dialogue as to how to increase ownership and a common understanding of how the goals are to be achieved. We reviewed research undertaken before the CRPs but leading to impacts during Grain Legumes, and research commenced over the past 2.5 years. For related activities pre- and post-commencement of Grain Legumes, we reviewed the relevance of activities and their relation to CGIAR and the Grain Legumes goals, whether they were likely to lead to the outcomes and impacts as documented in the Grain Legumes proposal, and the quality of the science underpinning the likelihood to deliver outcomes. Throughout, we were cognisant of the extent of the reach of CGIAR centres’ activities, and those of stakeholders upon which the impact of CGIAR R4D depends. Within our remit we evaluated the original and modified management and governance structures, and all the processes/responsibilities managed within those structures. Besides the evaluation of the technical and managerial issues of Grain Legumes, we addressed cross-cutting issues of gender sensitivity, capacity building and the creation and nurturing of partnerships. The evaluation also has the objective to provide information relating to the development of full proposals for the new CRP funding cycle. The evaluation addressed six overarching questions developed from the TOR questions (listed in the Inception Report, 2015 [http://1drv.ms/1POQSZh] and others including cross-cutting issues, phrasing them within the context of traditional evaluation criteria: 1. Relevance: Global development, urbanisation and technological innovation are progressing rapidly, are the aims and focus of Grain Legumes coherent, robust, fit for purpose and relevant to the global community? 2. Efficiency: Is the structure and effectiveness of leadership across Grain Legumes developing efficient partnership management and project management across PLs? 3. Quality of science: Is Grain Legumes utilising a wide range of technologies in a way that will increase our fundamental understanding of the biology that underpins several PLs; and are collected data used in the most effective way? 4. Effectiveness: Are Product Lines strategic contributors to the overarching aims and vision for Grain Legumes? 5. Impact: Are the impact pathways that underlie each PL well defined, measureable and achievable; and are they sufficiently defined in terms of beneficiaries? Does progress towards achieving outputs and outcomes from the major research areas indicate a lasting benefit for CGIAR and the communities it serves? 6. Sustainability: Is Grain Legumes managing the increasing level of restricted funding in terms of program quality and effectiveness, including attracting and retaining quality staff? Questions for the evaluation of governance and management focused on accountability, transparency, the effectiveness and success of program execution, change management processes and communication methods, taking account of the effects of CGIAR reform. The three crosscutting issues were considered as follows: i) gender balance in program delivery, e.g. whether each PL is able to contribute to the increased income, food security, nutrition, environmental and resource conservation for resource-poor women and men existing in rural livelihoods; ii) are internal and external capacity gaps identified/met, is capacity effectively developed within each product line, and are staff at all levels engaged in contributing ideas towards capacity building; and iii) is there effective involvement of partners in research and activity programming, what are the criteria for developing partnerships, how they are formalised and how is communication between partners and within Grain Legumes managed? It was not in remit to search for output, outcomes or impact, however as highlighted later, much of our time was spent on searching for information to support claims of impact, since Grain Legumes had no effective dedicated M&E in place at the time of undertaking the review. Approach and methodology The evaluation was conducted when Grain Legumes had been operational for approximately 3 years. The approach and methodology followed that outlined in the Inception Report [http://1drv.ms/1POQSZh]. The CCEE Team based its findings, conclusions and recommendations on data collection from several sources:  review of program documents, communications with the CO, minutes and presentations from all management and governance committee meetings  review of previous assessments and evaluations  sampling of Grain Legume projects in 7 countries1  more than 66 face to face interviews, a further 133 persons in groups and 4 phone/Skype conversations: ICRISAT, ICARDA, CIAT and IITA staff, partners and stakeholders. Meetings with one Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC) member.  meetings with over 100 people in 16 external groups, such as farmers’ groups  online survey completed by 126 (33.4%) scientists who contribute to Grain Legumes and a number of non-CGIAR partners and Management representatives  bibliometric review of 10 publications within each PL to qualitatively assess the design, conduct, analysis and presentation of results  quantitative and qualitative self-assessment of the contributions of each of the PLs to the six criteria and 3 cross-cutting issues of evaluation mentioned above completed by PLCs (see below). We reviewed the Logical Framework that underpins the desired Goals, or Impacts of Grain Legumes, and the links between the outputs and inputs as they related to the organisational units of Grain Legumes. The logical framework approach to planning and management of Grain Legumes activities implies a linear process, leading from activities, outputs, outcomes, to impacts, but within such an approach there may be room for a more systems dynamics approach allowing for feedback at every step and within every step, in order to refine and improve upon the respective activities as new results, ideas, and directions come to light. We then developed a matrix that summarised quantitatively and qualitatively the contributions of each of the PLs to the six criteria and 3 cross-cutting issues of evaluation mentioned above. Main findings and conclusions Grain legume production and consumption remain of great importance to the food security of not inconsiderable populations in the developing world, and merit sustained research investment. We conclude that Grain Legumes continues to contribute significant returns to research investments by the CGIAR, and such investment should continue. The global research community looks to the CGIAR for leadership in Grain legumes, but needs to be assured of value adding when bringing CGIAR centres under the expected umbrella of synergy. However, there is considerable scope for improving the efficiency with which outcomes are achieved. We note that an absence of an effective M&E has hampered the assessment of the effectiveness of proposed impact pathways. Likewise progress has been hampered by the limited numbers of research partnerships with Advanced Institutes and by budgetary constraints (lamented for their stifling effects on continuation of ongoing exciting research). The unworkable management structure constrains the CRP Director’s leadership role; responsibility without authority will never lead to effective outcomes. Good fortune is responsible for many of the successes of Grain Legumes, underpinned by a devoted work force across the participating CGIAR centres and partners. The quality of the science is not uniformly high, and we believe that mentoring of scientists should be given priority where quality is poor. Simplified yet informative reporting is an imperative to this. World class science underpins the identification of, and molecular basis for, traits important for yield improvement and this expertise should be extended to all grain legume species, capitalising upon the germplasm collections. The linking of Grain Legumes with regional research and development consortia has been very successful, with outcomes aligning with those of Grain Legumes. We see that with declining funding consolidation of research effort based on likely successes will be necessary, and welcome the move afoot to incorporate grain legumes into an agri-food system focused on successful value chains that deliver sustainable outcomes. Relevance and Strategy Grain Legumes has geographic and disciplinary relevance, addressing the major supply chain issues of variety development seed system and agronomy, with some attention to quality and postharvest marketing systems. The CRP has provided the opportunity to cut ongoing and to initiate new research. Research funded by the Gates Foundation (Anon, 2014) suggests that the need for improvement is greatest in Africa and advocates reducing the number of crop by country combinations when resources are sparse. The lesser research investment in Latin America, however, is not in line with the regions’ dependency on legumes. In spite of the fact that there is no evidence of strong inter-partner CGIAR centre or internal synergy, the program is still moving ahead on most fronts in line with the overall project logframe. This is in spite of continual pushing and pulling by in particular donors and the CO. However, to quantify real impact, we believe Grain Legumes must have access to reliable baseline data on production and consumption, and this is missing. Similarly, there is little evidence of the proposed ‘Inclusive Market Oriented Development’ (IMOD) framework being used to assist with priority setting. The product lines, eight of which cover most of the historical programmes in place in the partner CGIAR centres at the commencement of the Grain Legumes, do not cover all the constraints for formal constraints analysis was not undertaken at the inception of the Grain Legumes, and some of this additionally identified research is undertaken under the umbrella of the FPs; this needs to be rationalised. We found the PLs to be isolated in activity, even with minimally-integrated activities within each PL, with little evidence of synergy between PLs. Even though the SCs should ensure a systems approach, as with the new FPs, we did not get a feel that this is so. The underplaying of agronomy, and production practices may be one reason for this. We believe that treating legume crops as if they were horticultural crops will increase farmer returns from investment. The choice of Flagship Projects makes sense, with the flow of activity firstly around crop management and agronomy followed by the logical sequence of trait discovery, incorporation into improved varieties, dissemination of those varieties through appropriate seed chains leading to market impacts, and the capacity building required at all steps. One obvious omission, however, is the lack of a central and strategic policy on the role of transgenics in Grain Legumes. We found four notable comparative advantages for Grain Legumes: the access to germplasm of component species, the use of the phenotyping facility at ICRISAT, the approach for village level industry for IPM, and the emphasis on hybrid pigeonpea. Efficiency Each centre has strong control of, and emphasis on, their ‘species’ domains, and ownership of the same detracts from possible synergy. Without synergy or value add, the Grain Legumes brings with it no comparative advantage over each centre continuing their own pre-CRP research agendas. We found little evidence of integration of programmes between centres and almost no cross-centre authorship of publications, such as could have occurred with the integrated cross-centre approaches to stress tolerance including crop modelling: the one publication (Gaur et al., 2015) on heat tolerance by ICRISAT, CIAT and ICARDA does not provide any keys to inter-centre collaboration. The integration of each centre with NARS and university research programmes is good, but the cross-centre links with NARS are poor. A better coordinated integration with Grain Legumes, , rather than through the individual centres, may reduce transactions costs for NARS, Monitoring and evaluation is, as noted throughout our report, one area of Grain Legumes research management that has not been given the attention it should have received. If it had have received proper attention, some of the issues of poor efficiency might have been nipped in the bud. A strong monitoring and evaluation system would have provided the baseline data and set the milestones that would have allowed both efficiency and effectiveness to be better appraised. We found no attempt to define comparative advantages of the CGIAR centres and their R4D activities, although practice showed the better grasp of CIAT in developing innovative seed distribution systems. During field visits and interviews, the CCEE Team observed shortcomings in the communication processes within Grain Legumes and with the broader scientific community and the public. For example, the public face of the program on the internet is out of date. Survey findings, however, suggest that information is shared freely and routinely within the PL within which scientists work. Some external issues, such as those with funding, low W1/W2 and poor sustainability of funding (especially if funding is top heavy with a few agencies), undermine research investment and confidence of partners in the system (e.g. as voiced by researchers working on crops and countries not included in TL III and the cessation of ongoing competitively-funded projects especially in India), but other issues attributable to the governance and management of the Grain Legumes, such as opaque integration of W3/bilaterals with W1/W2 funding require attention. Offsetting this, the existence of the Grain Legumes did mobilise additional funding [that it would not have if Grain Legumes did not exist]. We were concerned that Grain Legumes is simply not recognised outside of the CRP, with a limited www presence and centres promote themselves, rather than Grain Legumes (with exception in IITA). This is not a good move if one wishes to increase investment in the Grain Legumes. Although funding agencies require cost:benefit ratios, for example for each PL we faced difficulty in determining comparative value for money between investment in different types of research, and in being able to clearly attribute research and development outcomes to financial investment. There was also a time CCEE frame issue too. There is poor interaction with the private sector, notably in areas where they have a comparative financial advantage. We questioned in particular the apparent lack of interaction with the major agro-chemical companies, with respect to the development of herbicide tolerant (HT) grain legumes and the lack of evidence that the regulatory and trade aspects related to herbicide tolerant crops had been considered. Quality of science The quality of the science is highly variable across Grain Legumes, with pockets of real excellence that are linked to good levels of productivity, whereas other PLs are struggling to deliver quality publications, and outputs and outcomes that are based on these. There is much evidence of gradualism in terms of research output and outcomes, i.e. essentially the same activities that were ongoing at the time of the launch of Grain Legumes are still in place. However, there are examples of game changers including those from valuable investments in genomics, phenotyping, and bio-control. We were pleased to see large proportions of collaboration on publications with non-CGIAR centres, reflecting cooperation with partners in developed and developing countries. The value of collaboration when ensuring quality of science cannot be stressed highly enough both within the CRP, and with other global and national partners. PLs should be given incentives to collaborate with other CRPs and external institutions. There is little cohesion between PLs and with other CRPs as evidenced by publications, although there are some exceptions. We suspect the reasons for this are driven by funding. Productivity from the different PLs is also highly variable and it is not clear what other activities staff are engaged in since, in some PLs, they do not appear to lead to quality publications. Effectiveness Grain Legumes has been very effective in addressing component issues of research, but not the continuum from variety development to legumes on someone’s dinner plate. Our overall assessment of the effectiveness of Grain Legumes in stimulating synergy, innovation and impact indicate that gradualism is more prevalent than innovation. It also shows, as do publications, that there is little integration of disciplines or a focus on ‘systems’. The absence of socio-economists from research teams is evident in the general lack of an end user focus. However, research on genomics, plant breeding and seed systems have made great strides forward, on the brink of delivering impact. Agronomy has been a poor sister, but some of the competitive grants within Grain Legumes have unearthed some potential game changers, such as objective use of transplanting as an agronomic practice. As mentioned earlier, the lack of effective M&E (however, this was part of some major projects such as TL II/TL III), and therefore the ability to monitor impact pathways and achievement of impact, implies no systematic management of data. This creates difficulty when attempting to evaluate the achievement of the Grain Legumes objectives. One might have expected at least one attempt to try to develop publications between centres arguing for similar biologies/research approaches, bringing species together under one umbrella, but we did not find any evidence for this. It is most unfortunate that, due to budgetary cuts, the new ‘schemes’, e.g. competitive grants and scholarships, were cut off before gaining a foothold. With 8 species addressed by Grain Legumes, it is not unexpected that there will be little evidence of shared protocols across centres/species. One rare example was that hosted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on shared methods for phenotyping of legume germplasm. Researchers from CIAT, IITA, ICRISAT and three USDA stations attended, focusing in simple canopy temperature and root morphology measurements. It is our belief that as a set of research centres, the CGIAR centres should be focusing on the research for which they have a comparative advantage. While imposing the restructure to FPs, which is fine for development objectives and outcomes (funded through W3/bilateral), it is less so for a research institute, and the structure should not detract from the more basic work expected of an international CGIAR centre (or set of centres as in a CRP). Impact It is well known that research does not always lead to scientific breakthroughs. Also, activities such as plant breeding are long term; making impacts difficult to assess. We believe that sufficient progress with genomics and associated research has been made to warrant impact, but we are unable to quantify the levels of impact, or the timeframe for the same. Work in Grain Legumes has enormous potential for real impact in scientific research, commercial, farming, smallholder and household communities, much of which is being realised. However, the PLs need to become more adept at providing convincing cases that are strongly evidenced for these impacts, as this is likely to be a key factor in leveraging future funding. Claimed gains must be referenced against baseline data, and these are not always readily available. The CCEE Team realises that such impact evaluation represents a significant drain on resources, and Grain Legumes should determine whether the balance of costs to benefits favours such investment. Interviews conducted by the CCEE during site visits showed that PLs are quantifying the area of adoption of varieties, but in most cases they are not measuring the impact on environment, health/nutrition. Since the health and nutritional benefits and the environmental gains from growing legumes are major arguments for supporting grain legume research, the community is currently missing substantial opportunities to strengthen its own case for continued support. Whilst there are some impressive examples of considering the whole value chain, e.g. white beans from production through to export; in the main, the pipeline to end user is somewhat piece-meal, with no clear definition of the end user nor differential responsibility of Grain Legumes and of partners. The lack of robust time-defined impact pathways is highlighted in Section 7.4, and even though developed for PL5, timeframes are essential for measuring progress against prediction. Sustainability In summary, there is general acknowledgement that future funding is likely to become more limited, specifically in W1&2 and there is understandable concern over the support for the staff and basic infrastructure that underpin the Grain Legumes programme. For example, it is reported that staffing in parts of CIAT has been dependent on W1&2 and that this is too unstable to re-establish a critical mass. The present system whereby W3 and bilateral projects do not pay a realistic level of overheads means that such projects are being effectively subsidised by W1&2. This position is not sustainable in the long term as there will be a progressive but definite loss of basic skills and resources in the core centres. The only obvious options to prevent this outcome include a severe reduction in the fixed costs of the centres and/or a refusal to accept W3 and bilateral funding with an inadequate overhead component. In the latter case, there is an obvious danger that funders will move their resources away from the CGIAR system towards other, perhaps less expensive, suppliers of research, and possibly more relevant development expertise. This issue must be addressed. As the Grain Legumes moves into the future, and if sustainable funding cannot be assured, decisions must be made concerning a reduction in activities, keeping some caretaker breeding maintenance, and focus (as has TL III) on fewer species and a reduced geographic focus. Cross cutting issues: Gender, capacity building and partnerships Gender is not mainstreamed, but there is some evidence that this is improving, especially with dedicated gender specialists and the slow integration of gender across CRPs. There is a need to approach gender through the vision of agriculture as a social practice, with recognition of what changes will be acceptable culturally and what not, and capitalising upon the perceived and actual features of production and processing that grain legumes are primarily women-based crops. Gender awareness may be high among Scientists, but it appears to be a predominantly passive attribute with few proactively seeking opportunities for gender equity. It is, however, a sound sensitivity base on which to build. Nevertheless, examples of notable gender initiatives were identified during field visits. For example, in Benin, the development of biocontrol technologies has enthusiastically integrated diversity, engaging with women farmers’ and youths while maintaining cultural norms. Women are gathering and processing, youths are taking the product to market. The implication is that several groups benefit, rather than domination by the majority group. In Malawi, innovative approaches have been developed to improving nutrition for children, such as incorporating nutrient enriched bean flour products into snacks. In India, scientists collaborating with gender scientists and socio-economists are identifying the impact of mechanical harvesting on agricultural labour and the potential displacement of female labourers. In Kenya, a novel initiative is improving the accessibility of certified seed for new varieties. Seed suppliers have introduced small packs of grain legume seed at low unit cost, which are being purchased by young people and women. Capacity building efforts for external partners are not clearly aligned with the research mandate and delivery of Grain Legumes. However, there are a number of training activities that are being undertaken by Grain Legumes, largely through the W3/bilateral project. Gender balance never reaches parity, but it appears that efforts are made to include female participants. Within the evaluation timeframe it was not possible to conduct external surveys to further validate or review external capacity building efforts in Grain Legumes. Training of scientists is significant, with >40 benefiting. Postgraduate training is varied across PLs, and there is some opportunity to increase the numbers being supervised. We consider that support for postgraduates at ICRISAT could be better coordinated, satisfying more of the students’ needs. It is important, however, to follow up investments in capacity building by monitoring effectiveness, career progressions and so on. Training activities appear to be rather centre-specific, not following a coordinated programme managed by, nor at the level of, the Grain Legumes. Numbers of persons trained and their gender are important, but a measure of the effectiveness of the training is more important. Although optimism is expressed by the great majority of Research Managers that partnerships were working well to leverage knowledge and research capacities, scientists have a less favourable view, particularly in terms of their incentives to participate. It seems likely that the activities taking place within Grain Legumes were, in the most part, continuations of previous collaborations. This is not surprising in light of the reduction in the emphasis on partnerships as Grain Legumes evolved to a funded project, and the consequent lack of opportunity and ambition for establishing novel partnerships. Where they exist, partnerships are good on the whole, especially with US. They could be expanded where comparative advantages exist (for example with Canada and Australia for machine harvestable legumes), but some earlier identified partnerships, e.g. with Turkey, have not been capitalised upon. Others experience problems of variety access (the embargo on exports of some sources of materials from India), yet others do have relevance e.g. imported Brazilian varieties in pre-release in Ethiopia (even though two of the three are from CIAT materials). Governance and Management The standard format of committee structure and responsibilities is common to other CRPs, as are the attendant problems. One of the major problems is that the Grain Legumes Director has responsibility but no authority; hence, even with the support of the RMC, the Director is unable to ‘direct’ in the literal sense of the work the activities of Grain Legumes. We also see the same sense of helplessness with the role of the PLCs. They have responsibility but no authority in managing the affairs of their PL, and they have no access to funds with which to promote intellectual collaboration and cooperation. Minutes from governance and management meetings do not reflect the compromised weak position of the Director and the associated difficulties in the management of Grain Legumes. Nor do the minutes reflect concerns about the amount of time spent by scientists in meetings for planning, integration, evaluation and reporting. Many scientists reported significant opportunity costs in participating in the ongoing imposed [by the CO] evolution of Grain Legumes and CRPs in general. The changes brought in by the CO have not helped promote any greater authority and capacity of the Grain Legumes Director to direct. Likewise, they do not address any of the issues with the conflict of interest in having the Lead Centre chair the Steering Committee. Indeed, we believe that the combining of the Steering Committee with the Independent Advisory Committee, besides becoming unwieldy in number, annuls any sense of independence in advice offered to the Grain Legumes management. We have concerns with the declining proportion of W1/W2 funds (as expressed in the section on Sustainability), and believe that when basic financial planning takes place, integration of W1/W2 and W3/bilateral sources must occur, and be linked to anticipated outcomes and impacts. This will ensure a close alignment of collaborators’ and partners’ objectives and contributions to that of the Grain Legumes. We also queried the process for, and the formality, or lack of, surrounding, the approval of annual budgets, and the level of priority setting when budgets are cut. Recommendations for Grain Legumes The CCEE Team makes the following recommendations, critical issues are highlighted in bold, and those that require action by an entity other than the Grain Legumes Research Management Committee or Project Management united are identified in a footnote. Relevance and Strategy Recommendation 1: A period of consistency is necessary to raise confidence, morale and trust across scientists, managers and partners to foster the assembly of enduring Grain Legumes outcomes2.  There needs to be a concerted effort to undertake baseline studies and to implement a robust M&E activity during this period. Without these data the foundation for integrated research in grain legumes is jeopardised.  There is a strong need to link more closely with the private sector, especially where there are financial and other comparative advantages to do so. Recommendation 2: The agronomic and physiological trait targets of Grain Legumes (tolerance to changing climate patterns, to the pests and diseases of today and of the future, incorporation of quality traits and adaptations to intensive production systems [machine-harvestability and herbicide tolerance], and short season high yielding characters) are all worthy of continued investment when selecting for improved varieties.  There needs to be a common strategy, implemented across centres and species, as to how to address these trait targets through conventional and modern breeding approaches, but only if adequate funding is assured and secured and if a consistency and unity of purpose can be achieved across a large-scale. This should take the form of cross-species coordinated research programmes to address these breeding targets that cooperate across centres and make efficient use of facilities and other resources.  The CRP should undertake a detailed strategic review of the role of transgenics across the range of targets in the mandate crops. Efficiency Recommendation 3: The lack of an effective M&E process is a significant omission, not least in terms of more efficient use of resources and the lack of baseline data with which to measure impact, and must be rectified.  Reinforcing Recommendation 1, an effective M&E system initially directed towards baseline studies must be implemented.  Transaction costs may be reduced through bilateral projects, which are seen as more cost effective than W1/W2 where transaction costs are disproportionately higher. Recommendation 4: To improve communication and coordination within the CRP, and with a broader audience:  There is a priority need for a central database containing, names of staff associated with Grain Legumes and their time commitments, their responsibilities, and involvement in CRP activities, their progress and achievements, their publications, plans of training, travel, and other opportunities for interaction.  Regular global meetings of staff involved in managing PLs, the entire CRP management staff and the IAC are essential for effective coordination of all activity within Grain Legumes.  The website must be given a complete overhaul and improvement and then regular maintenance must be provided to keep it current. Quality of Science Recommendation 5: It is essential to continue investment in good science and to institute a change from gradualism in research output and outcomes to an expectation of innovative and concrete achievements that can be attributed clearly to people, centres and core facilities.  A cost:benefit analysis and subsequent strategic planning must be undertaken to justify further investment in the genomics and phenotyping facilities at ICRISAT especially as such technologies advance rapidly. Strategic planning and coordination must also be implemented for capitalising on the investment in crop simulation modelling. (The phenotyping facility of ICRISAT needs to focus on delivering some outcomes, not only outputs.)  PLs should be given incentives to collaborate with other CRPs and external institutions. The CCEE recommends special recognition of high quality collaborative papers, thereby encouraging increased quality of the research programmes and widening the penetration of research impacts.  More importance should be placed on the quality of publication, rather than quantity of outputs and there should be recognition of other types of outputs from Grain Legumes. The CRP Director must be party to this.  If staff are engaged in activities that relate more to impact than publication then this needs to be monitored and recorded and a clearer understanding developed of what constitutes a pathway to impact and how success of such activities can be evaluated. A system must be devised and incorporated into the M&E to enable recognition of other types of outputs (non- publication based) from Grain Legumes, e.g. varieties for breeders. Effectiveness Recommendation 6: To develop greater synergy, Grain Legumes should review management processes and the direction of research activities. In particular, far more extensive integration of research and knowledge exchange should take place across both African and Asian continents so that the best aspects of both can be shared. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended that considers processing solutions, as well as breeding solutions, to capitalise upon the nutritional benefits of the grain legume crops. We recommend:  A better collaboration with social scientists at the design stage of experiments in order to improve the utility of the work carried out and to understand its reach.  Supporting3 the adoption of best practice electronic data collection, central storage and open access, particularly of genomic data, for public use.  Given the focus on the link between phenotyping and genotyping, we note that there is a lack of congruence between the populations that are being phenotyped and those being genotyped, and therefore these could be better aligned within each species.  Concentrating investment external to Grain Legumes on scaling up production of varieties with the most promising trait profiles to meet the basic seed requirement.  Developing a more holistic approach that coordinates an understanding of the disease pathology and epidemiology, and of new chemicals before they become commercially available, together with agronomic practice such that recommendations can be made for growers. Continuing work to establish whether agronomic factors hold true in different environments and to assess GxE effects within breeding programmes. Such rigorous trial practices should be used to inform the evaluation of breeding lines and to provide phenotype data to associate with markers for traits such as heat, drought and herbicide tolerance.  Considering grain legumes as if they were vegetable crops in terms of the strategy for intensification of production, both from the management perspective and for seed systems, will be a useful development objective into the future. This will bring about more rapid intensification and is likely to increase farmer returns from investment. Recommendation 7: The CGIAR centres should focus in on the research for which they have a comparative advantage. While imposing the restructure to FPs, which is fine for development objectives and outcomes (funded through W3/bilateral) it is less so for a research institute, and should not detract from the more basic work expected of an international CGIAR centre (or set of centres in a CRP).  Collaborative approaches should be explored within Grain Legumes, e.g. similar biologies/research approaches, bringing species together under one umbrella. Similarly better alignment is needed to address the lack of congruence between the populations that are being phenotyped and those being genotyped.  Despite positive impacts from research in genomics, plant breeding and seed systems, the lack of an effective M&E, already mentioned elsewhere, has reduced the ability to monitor impact pathways. This must be addressed.  The absence of socio-economists from research teams is evident in the general lack of an end user focus. Responsibilities of the different actors in the whole value chain must be considered and identified when developing impact targets, and the pathway leading to them, for individual projects. People with socio-economist skills must be part of the team from project inception so that appropriate frameworks are incorporated for measuring and influencing sociological and economic changes brought about by Grain Legumes research. Impact Recommendation 8: PLs need to become more adept at providing convincing cases in which impact is strongly evidenced, as this is likely to be a key factor in leveraging future funding.  Claimed gains must be referenced against baseline data, and these are not always readily available. The CCEE Team realises that such impact evaluation represents a significant drain on resources, and Grain Legumes should determine whether the balance of costs to benefits favours such investment.  It is essential that Grain Legumes provides training to staff on what constitutes impact and how it can be recorded.  Specific, rather than generalised, potential impacts arising from activity within Grain Legumes should be defined at the time of justifying the programme of work and a pathway to impact should form part of the documentation prepared ahead of a piece of research commencing. . In other words, centres should submit work plans to Grain Legumes before they are undertaken using W1/W2 funds Recommendation 9: The reporting activity must be streamlined to a single (brief) format that can be used to report to Grain Legumes, Centres and to donors for special project activities4. Sustainability Recommendation 10: As Grain Legumes moves into the future, and if sustainable funding cannot be assured, decisions must be made concerning a reduction in activities, keeping some caretaker breeding maintenance, and focus (as has TL III) on fewer species and a reduced geographic focus. Zeigler (Director General of IRRI) states “…time and effort would be better spent … making tough decisions about which programs deserve the precious support.”  The present system whereby W3 and bilateral projects do not pay a realistic level of overheads means that such projects are being effectively subsidised by W1&2 and there will be a progressive but definite loss of basic skills and resources in the core centres. To prevent this outcome it is necessary to significantly reduce the fixed costs of the centres and/or refuse to accept W3 and bilateral funding without an adequate overhead component.  In the absence of long term certainty, the scale of the budget allocated to each of the new CRPs should be very conservative, a feature that can only be achieved by restricting/reducing the scope, probably quite significantly. Cross cutting issues: Gender, capacity building and partnerships Recommendation 11: The challenge for Grain Legumes is to achieve pro-active gender mainstreaming, which facilitates opportunities for gender diversity within all activities, from employment processes through research to end users.  Strategic measurable gender indicators need to be embedded in research design, for instance, through specific IDOs for each of the flagships projects. Accurate baseline data are also required to facilitate M&E reviews of progress.  Implementation of the Gender Strategy is the responsibility of everyone, not solely the Gender Team. Thus, ownership could be encouraged by setting personal development for key personnel objectives with specific outcomes, e.g. employment practices or research outcomes.  Recognising the positive gender initiatives in progress or planned, feedback must be communicated and integrated into broader research planning to share opportunities, methods and outcomes.  In addition to promoting gender equity in research, Grain Legumes also needs to ensure that working environments are gender sensitive and that recruitment processes, including promotion opportunities are equitable. Gender imbalance in management should be actively examined to identify further opportunities for developing female leadership. Recommendation 12: It is recommended that a training plan be devised to ensure that capacity building efforts are more clearly aligned with the research mandate, delivery and timeframe of Grain Legumes. Moreover, we recommend that ICRISAT develop a strategy to treat their new cohort of researchers more equitably in the future. Recommendation 13: To develop a more coherent strategic programme designed to eliminate overlap and promote synergy between programmes with common aims, Grain Legumes should hold a meeting with a range of partners. Governance Recommendation 14: Governance processes should be re-assessed and the structure altered to ensure that the Grain Legumes Director has the authority and budget control to drive the execution of strategy.  The ISC should be truly independent and given the power to influence strategic decisions before they become final. We also recommend that PLCs are provided with the authority to manage the direction and finances of their PL; and that ring-fenced funds are provided for the promotion of collaboration, coordination and staff training5. The way ahead In our view, having seen the ineffectiveness of much of the attempts [or lack of attempts] to harness synergies between multiple centres, and of the strength in few or sole centre partnerships, we believe that there is little to justify a full retention of the 8 legume species and 4 CGIAR centres in a CRP. TL I and II and PABRA have shown to be reasonably good cross-centre and single centre integrated programmes, but even they suffer from incomplete value chain approaches to increasing rural incomes while increasing food and nutritional security; they both need multi-faceted solutions which are not immediately forthcoming from Grain Legumes. It is important to embed Grain Legumes research within the agri-food systems these crops serve. Figure ES1 broadly shows the perceived current and potential degrees of synergy between centres, PLs and species, and is discussed more in the text. It is clear that the value chains for individual species from trait determination to nutritional impact have more cohesion than do the individual activities (e.g. trait deployment) across species. For this reason we believe that the future for research in Grain Legumes is best addressed by focusing on each of the species separately, and within an ecosystem framework; any synergy for research across species can be effected through communication and not necessarily through obligatory cooperative research. The ecosystem framework will allow for strengthening of agronomy type systems research, the arguments for benefits of inclusion of grain legumes in cropping systems, which is notable by its absence in much of what Grain Legumes currently undertakes. Figure ES1. Current and potential degrees of synergy between centres, PLs and crop species We therefore agree with the innovation in agri-food systems approach of the CG, and believe that Grain Legumes rightly belongs in the Dryland Cereals and Legumes Agri-food Systems. We believe that the option of combining the crops of dryland cereals and legumes in the cereal-legume-livestock systems of subsistence farming communities for whole-farm productivity is closest to the best way forward. Indeed the inclusion of grain legumes may not warrant even a CRP alone, rather the legume components should fit in with the major crops that determine the production systems. Legumes will always be subservient to the major cereals, as necessary adjuncts to the whole production system, providing both nutritional diversity and environmental services, neither achievable from cereals alone. Figure ES2. Most suitable option for integration of Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals into an Agri-Food Systems CRP Most suitable option for integration of Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals into an Agri-Food Systems CRP, which  Incorporates ex-Dryland Systems, Dryland Cereals, Grain Legumes, some HumidTropics, some ex-Livestock &Fisheries into a new CRP  Will cover full agri-food system VC for all 8 legumes in all ecologies, but must interact (dock) with the relevant AFS-CRPs for the dominant cereal in the relevant ecology  Hence, will need to negotiate with other Agrifood Systems-CRPs on who does what for legumes  In addition, responsible for sorghum and millet in the mixed dryland crop-livestock agro-ecologies For major game changers to be effected, we believe that the game has to change, and there is little evidence of this. The direction of CRPs is the correct route, but the journey has not yet come to its destination. A major change of game [such as the adoption of a Flagship Project approach as exemplified by the Australian CSIRO – where flagships contract services from centres of research excellence] would be painful to implant. The CGIAR system is going down the right pathway but it has not gone far enough.

Relational architecture and relational capability: organisational levers to support strategic supplier relationships

The resource based view of strategy suggests that competitiveness in part derives from a firms ability to collaborate with a subset of its supply network to co-create highly valued products and services. This relational capability relies on a foundational intra and inter-organisational architecture, the manifestation of strategic, people, and process decisions facilitating the interface between the firm and its strategic suppliers. Using covariance-based structural equation modelling we examine the relationships between internal and external features of relational architecture, and their relationship with relational capability and relational quality. This is undertaken on data collected by mail survey. We find significant relationships between both internal and external relational architecture and relational capability and between relational capability and relational quality. Novel constructs for internal and external elements of relational architecture are specified to demonstrate their positive influence on relational capability and relationship quality.

A generalised background correction algorithm for a Halo Doppler lidar and its application to data from Finland

Current commercially available Doppler lidars provide an economical and robust solution for measuring vertical and horizontal wind velocities, together with the ability to provide co- and cross-polarised backscatter profiles. The high temporal resolution of these instruments allows turbulent properties to be obtained from studying the variation in radial velocities. However, the instrument specifications mean that certain characteristics, especially the background noise behaviour, become a limiting factor for the instrument sensitivity in regions where the aerosol load is low. Turbulent calculations require an accurate estimate of the contribution from velocity uncertainty estimates, which are directly related to the signal-to-noise ratio. Any bias in the signal-to-noise ratio will propagate through as a bias in turbulent properties. In this paper we present a method to correct for artefacts in the background noise behaviour of commercially available Doppler lidars and reduce the signal-to-noise ratio threshold used to discriminate between noise, and cloud or aerosol signals. We show that, for Doppler lidars operating continuously at a number of locations in Finland, the data availability can be increased by as much as 50 % after performing this background correction and subsequent reduction in the threshold. The reduction in bias also greatly improves subsequent calculations of turbulent properties in weak signal regimes.

Proposal for a unified nomenclature for target site mutations associated with resistance to fungicides

Evolved resistance to fungicides is a major problem limiting our ability to control agricultural, medical and veterinary pathogens and is frequently associated with substitutions in the amino acid sequence of the target protein. The convention for describing amino-acid substitutions is to cite the wild type amino acid, the codon number and the new amino acid, using the one letter amino acid code. It has frequently been observed that orthologous amino acid mutations have been selected in different species by fungicides from the same mode of action class, but the amino acids have different numbers. These differences in numbering arise from the different lengths of the proteins in each species. The purpose of the current paper is to propose a system for unifying the labelling of amino acids in fungicide target proteins. To do this we have produced alignments between fungicide target proteins of relevant species fitted to a well-studied “archetype” species. Orthologous amino acids in all species are then assigned numerical “labels” based on the position of the amino acid in the archetype protein.

Coda wave attenuation in the Parecis Basin, Amazon Craton, Brazil: sensitivity to basement depth

Small local earthquakes from two aftershock sequences in Porto dos GaA(0)chos, Amazon craton-Brazil, were used to estimate the coda wave attenuation in the frequency band of 1 to 24 Hz. The time-domain coda-decay method of a single backscattering model is employed to estimate frequency dependence of the quality factor (Q (c)) of coda waves modeled usingwhere Q (0) is the coda quality factor at frequency of 1 Hz and eta is the frequency parameter. We also used the independent frequency model approach (Morozov, Geophys J Int, 175:239-252, 2008), based in the temporal attenuation coefficient, chi(f) instead of Q(f), given by the equation for the calculation of the geometrical attenuation (gamma) and effective attenuation Q (c) values have been computed at central frequencies (and band) of 1.5 (1-2), 3.0 (2-4), 6.0 (4-8), 9.0 (6-12), 12 (8-16), and 18 (12-24) Hz for five different datasets selected according to the geotectonic environment as well as the ability to sample shallow or deeper structures, particularly the sediments of the Parecis basin and the crystalline basement of the Amazon craton. For the Parecis basin for the surrounding shield and for the whole region of Porto dos GaA(0)chos Using the independent frequency model, we found: for the cratonic zone, gamma = 0.014 s (-aEuro parts per thousand 1), nu a parts per thousand 1.12; for the basin zone with sediments of similar to 500 m, gamma = 0.031 s (-aEuro parts per thousand 1), nu a parts per thousand 1.27; and for the Parecis basin with sediments of similar to 1,000 m, gamma = 0.047 s (-aEuro parts per thousand 1), nu a parts per thousand 1.42. Analysis of the attenuation factor (Q (c)) for different values of the geometrical spreading parameter (nu) indicated that an increase of nu generally causes an increase in Q (c), both in the basin as well as in the craton. But the differences in the attenuation between different geological environments are maintained for different models of geometrical spreading. It was shown that the energy of coda waves is attenuated more strongly in the sediments, (in the deepest part of the basin), than in the basement, (in the craton). Thus, the coda wave analysis can contribute to studies of geological structures in the upper crust, as the average coda quality factor is dependent on the thickness of sedimentary layer.

Alternative to the stroop color-word test for illiterate individuals

An alternative to the Stroop Color-Word Test (SCWT), denominated the Colored Numbers Test (CNT), was developed to evaluate the selective attention of illiterate individuals. A total of 30 volunteers with basic education (control group) and 30 illiterate volunteers (experimental group) performed the SCWT and the CNT. Volunteers had to name the color of the rectangles in the CNT neutral condition, and in the critical condition they had to either name the color of the numbers or, when the numbers were black, read the numbers. An interference index (II) was calculated for both tests by subtracting the time taken to complete the task in the neutral condition from the time taken to complete the task in the critical condition. The control group showed an II of 14.9s in the SCWT and of 19.1s in the CNT, and the experimental group, which practically presented no interference in the SCWT (II = 0.2s), showed an II of 18.7s in the CNT. These findings suggest that the CNT can he used to evaluate selective attention. Further work should confirm its validity. Its advantage over the SCWT is that it does not depend on the ability to read words, being then suitable for illiterate individuals.

Coordination of nitro-thiosemicarbazones to ruthenium(II) as a strategy for anti-trypanosomal activity improvement

Complexes [RuCl(H4NO(2)Fo4M)(bipy)(dppb)]PF(6) (1), [RuCl(H4NO(2)Fo4M)(Mebipy)(dppb)]PF(6) (2), [RuCl(H4NO(2)Fo4M)(phen)(dppb)]PF(6) (3), [RuCl(H4NO(2)Ac4M)(bipy)(dppb)]PF(6) (4), [RuCl(H4NO(2)Ac4M)(Mebipy)(dppb)]PF(6) (5) and [RuCl(H4NO(2)Ac4M)(phen)(dppb)]PF(6) (6) with N(4)-methyl-4-nitrobenzalde hyde thiosemicarbazone (H4NO(2)Fo4M) and N(4)-methyl-4-nitroacetophenone thiosemicarbazone (H4NO(2) Ac4M) were obtained from [RuCl(2)(bipy)(dppb)], [RuCl(2)(Mebipy)(dppb)], and [RuCl(2)(phen)(dppb)], (dppb = 1,4-bis(diphenylphospine)butane; bipy = 2,2`-bipyridine: Mebipy = 4,4`-dimethyl-2,2`-bipyridine: phen = 1,10-phenanthroline). In all cases the thiosemicarbazone is attached to the metal center through the sulfur atom. Complexes (1-6), together with the corresponding ligands and the Ru precursors were evaluated for their ability to in vitro suppress the growth of Trypanosoma cruzi. All complexes were more active than their corresponding ligands and precursors. Complexes (1-3) and (5) revealed to be the most active among all studied compounds with ID(50) = 0.6-0.8 mu M. In all cases the association of the thiosemicarbazone with ruthenium, dppb and bipyridine or phenanthroline in one same complex proved to be an excellent strategy for activity improvement. (C) 2010 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Expression of human papillomavirus type 16 E7 oncoprotein alters keratinocytes expression profile in response to tumor necrosis factor-alpha

Acute expression of E7 oncogene from human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 or HPV18 is sufficient to overcome tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha cytostatic effect on primary human keratinocytes. In the present study, we investigated the molecular basis of E7-induced TNF resistance through a comparative analysis of the effect of this cytokine on the proliferation and global gene expression of normal and E7-expressing keratinocytes. Using E7 functional mutants, we show that E7-induced TNF resistance correlates with its ability to mediate pRb degradation and cell transformation. On the other hand, this effect does not depend on E7 sequences required to override DNA damage-induced cell cycle arrest or extend keratinocyte life span. Furthermore, we identified a group of 66 genes whose expression pattern differs between normal and E7-expressing cells upon cytokine treatment. These genes are mainly involved in cell cycle regulation suggesting that their altered expression may contribute to sustained cell proliferation even in the presence of a cytostatic stimulus. Differential expression of TCN1 (transcobalamin I), IFI44 (Interferon-induced protein 44), HMGB2 (high-mobility group box 2) and FUS [Fusion (involved in t(12; 16) in malignant liposarcoma)] among other genes were further confirmed by western-blot and/or real-time polymerase chain reaction. Moreover, FUS upregulation was detected in HPV-positive cervical high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions when compared with normal cervical tissue. Further evaluation of the role of such genes in TNF resistance and HPVassociated disease development is warranted.

Implementation and role of device management Solutions to the end users

This research is based on consumer complaints with respect to recently purchased consumer electronics. This research document will investigate the instances of development and device management as a tool used to aid consumer and manage consumer’s mobile products in order to resolve issues in or before the consumers is aware one exists. The problem at the present time is that mobile devices are becoming very advanced pieces of technology, and not all manufacturers and network providers have kept up the support element of End users. As such, the subject of the research is to investigate how device management could possibly be used as a method to promote research and development of mobile devices, and provide a better experience for the consumer. The wireless world is becoming increasingly complex as revenue opportunities are driven by new and innovative data services. We can no longer expect the customer to have the knowledge or ability to configure their own device. Device Management platforms can address the challenges of device configuration and support through new enabling technologies. Leveraging these technologies will allow a network operator to reduce the cost of subscriber ownership, drive increased ARPU (Average Revenue per User) by removing barriers to adoption, reduce churn by improving the customer experience and increase customer loyalty. DM technologies provide a flexible and powerful management method but are managing the same device features that have historically been configured manually through call centers or by the end user making changes directly on the device. For this reason DM technologies must be treated as part of a wider support solution. The traditional requirement for discovery, fault finding, troubleshooting and diagnosis are still as relevant with DM as they are in the current human support environment yet the current generation of solutions do little to address this problem. In the deployment of an effective Device Management solution the network operator must consider the integration of the DM platform, interfacing with many areas of the business, supported by knowledge of the relationship between devices, applications, solutions and services maintained on an ongoing basis. Complementing the DM solution with published device information, setup guides, training material and web based tools will ensure the quality of the customer experience, ensuring that problems are completely resolved, driving data usage by focusing customer education on the use of the wireless service In this way device management becomes a tool used both internally within the network or device vendor and by the customer themselves, with each user empowered to effectively manage the device without any prior knowledge or experience, confident that changes they apply will be relevant, accurate, stable and compatible. The value offered by an effective DM solution with an expert knowledge service will become a significant differentiator for the network operator in an ever competitive wireless market. This research document is intended to highlight some of the issues the industry faces as device management technologies become more prevalent, and offers some potential solutions to simplify the increasingly complex task of managing devices on the network, where device management can be used as a tool to aid customer relations and manage customer’s mobile products in order to resolve issues before the user is aware one exists. The research is broken down into the following, Customer Relationship Management, Device management, the role of knowledge with the DM, Companies that have successfully implemented device management, and the future of device management and CRM. And it also consists of questionnaires aimed at technical support agents and mobile device users. Interview was carried out with CRM managers within support centre to further the evidence gathered. To conclude, the document is to consider the advantages and disadvantages of device management and attempt to determine the influence it will have over customer support centre, and what methods could be used to implement it.

Tapping into Floor Staff: Using the knowledge of floor staff to conduct formative evaluations of exhibits in a Canadian science centre

Most science centres in Canada employ science-educated floor staff to motivate visitorsto have fun while enhancing the educational reach of the exhibits. Although bright andsensitive to visitors’ needs, floor staff are rarely consulted in the planning,implementation, and modification phases of an exhibit. Instead, many developmentteams rely on costly third-party evaluations or skip the front-end and formativeevaluations all together, leading to costly errors that could have been avoided. This studywill seek to reveal a correlation between floor staff’s perception of visitors’ interactionswith an exhibit and visitors’ actual experiences. If a correlation exists, a recommendationcould be made to encourage planning teams to include floor staff in the formative andsummative evaluations of an exhibit. This is especially relevant to science centres withlimited budgets and for whom a divide exists between floor staff and management.In this study, a formative evaluation of one exhibit was conducted, measuring both floorstaff’s perceptions of the visitor experience and visitors’ own perceptions of the exhibit.Floor staff were then trained on visitor evaluation methods. A week later, floor staff andvisitors were surveyed a second time on a different exhibit to determine whether anincrease in accuracy existed.The training session increased the specificity of the motivation and comprehensionresponses and the enthusiasm of the staff, but not their ability to predict observedbehaviours with respect to ergonomics, learning indicators, holding power, and successrates. The results revealed that although floor staff underestimated visitors’ success ratesat the exhibits, staff accurately predicted visitors’ behaviours with respect to holdingpower, ergonomics, learning indicators, motivation and comprehension, both before andafter the staff training.

PokerMapper: : mapping executive functions, poker playing ability and responsible gambling in online environments

Research objectives Poker and responsible gambling both entail the use of the executive functions (EF), which are higher-level cognitive abilities. The main objective of this work was to assess if online poker players of different ability show different performances in their EF and if so, which functions are the most discriminating ones. The secondary objective was to assess if the EF performance can predict the quality of gambling, according to the Gambling Related Cognition Scale (GRCS), the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) and the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). Sample and methods The study design consisted of two stages: 46 Italian active players (41m, 5f; age 32±7,1ys; education 14,8±3ys) fulfilled the PGSI in a secure IT web system and uploaded their own hand history files, which were anonymized and then evaluated by two poker experts. 36 of these players (31m, 5f; age 33±7,3ys; education 15±3ys) accepted to take part in the second stage: the administration of an extensive neuropsychological test battery by a blinded trained professional. To answer the main research question we collected all final and intermediate scores of the EF tests on each player together with the scoring on the playing ability. To answer the secondary research question, we referred to GRCS, PGSI and SOGS scores.  We determined which variables that are good predictors of the playing ability score using statistical techniques able to deal with many regressors and few observations (LASSO, best subset algorithms and CART). In this context information criteria and cross-validation errors play a key role for the selection of the relevant regressors, while significance testing and goodness-of-fit measures can lead to wrong conclusions.   Preliminary findings We found significant predictors of the poker ability score in various tests. In particular, there are good predictors 1) in some Wisconsin Card Sorting Test items that measure flexibility in choosing strategy of problem-solving, strategic planning, modulating impulsive responding, goal setting and self-monitoring, 2) in those Cognitive Estimates Test variables related to deductive reasoning, problem solving, development of an appropriate strategy and self-monitoring, 3) in the Emotional Quotient Inventory Short (EQ-i:S) Stress Management score, composed by the Stress Tolerance and Impulse Control scores, and in the Interpersonal score (Empathy, Social Responsibility, Interpersonal Relationship). As for the quality of gambling, some EQ-i:S scales scores provide the best predictors: General Mood for the PGSI; Intrapersonal (Self-Regard; Emotional Self-Awareness, Assertiveness, Independence, Self-Actualization) and Adaptability  (Reality Testing, Flexibility, Problem Solving) for the SOGS, Adaptability for the GRCS. Implications for the field Through PokerMapper we gathered knowledge and evaluated the feasibility of the construction of short tasks/card games in online poker environments for profiling users’ executive functions. These card games will be part of an IT system able to dynamically profile EF and provide players with a feedback on their expected performance and ability to gamble responsibly in that particular moment. The implementation of such system in existing gambling platforms could lead to an effective proactive tool for supporting responsible gambling. 

Differential Habituation of Male Betta Splendens to Qualitatively Different Stimuli

Habituation is a learning mechanism that functions to decrease the amount of energy and attention focused on a certain stimuli. Male Siamese Fighting Fish, Betta splendens, are territorial animals that defend their territories using a number of aggressive displays. Male Bettas have previously shown the ability to habituate to the presence of a conspecific male when visually exposed to each other. Due to the costly nature of many of the male Betta’s displays, I hypothesized that male Bettas should differentially habituate to qualitatively different stimuli. I presented each of three groups of male Betta splendens with a different stimulus, each presenting a different level of interactivity. I predicted that the Bettas would be more likely to habituate to a less interactive stimulus than a more interactive one. No significant habituation was observed in any of the groups and no significant differences in latency to display or length of display between all three groups were observed. However, overall data trends suggest that habituation was indeed occurring and that the three different stimuli elicited different levels of display. The limited amount of visual exposure to the stimuli in this experiment might account for why results were insignificant.