Littérature scientifique sur le sujet « Transferability analysis »

This book publishes the results of the inter-regional project on "Evolutionary dynamics of agricultural enterprises and multifunctionality". Starting from the identification of a shared theoretical framework of the concept of multifunctionality, the study has developed a method for zoning the territory aimed at defining the different roles played by agriculture. The development of case studies, and meetings with stakeholders and focus groups, have made it possible to identify the weak and strong points within and outside the enterprises, with particular reference to the multifunctional components and the degree of repeatability and transferability of the experiences analysed. The result is to bring to light needs in terms of policies, tools for the valorisation of multifunctionality and strategies that enable the agricultural enterprises to commercially valorise functions not traditionally pertinent to the market.

Grounded design is a particular design-research approach applied in case studies. The approach aims to investigate social practices with the purpose of identifying and unveiling problematic aspects of that practice. In research contexts, design case studies are conducted by applying established research methods such as ethnographic field studies, participatory design, and action research. As a research approach, grounded design claims to contribute to scientific knowledge by creating a collection of documented cases that is accessible for a further comprehensive and overarching analysis. This chapter provides an example of such a study through a comparison of two design case studies in the field of civil security research, in the context of firefighting: the Landmarke project and the Koordinator project. In addition, this chapter addresses the transferability of design case studies.

This chapter uses two pioneering databases to analyse the implications of the global economic crisis on international migration. The first details inflows of migrant workers of 185 nationalities to ten OECD destinations, disaggregated by skill level between 2000 and 2012. The second comprises immigration policies implemented by nineteen OECD countries between 2000 and 2012. It distinguishes between six skill-selective admission policies, six post-entry policy instruments, and three bilateral agreements. The preliminary analysis is presented against the backdrop of the crisis, which negatively affected annual inflows of highly and other skilled migrants between 2007 and 2009, although these resumed an upward trend thereafter. The starkest trends in policy terms include: the diffusion of student jobseeker visas, the relative stability in the prevalence of skill-selective policies in the wake of the crisis, a greater use of financial incentives to attract high-skilled workers, and increased employer transferability for migrants at destination.

Relatively few studies have investigated the strategies, policies, programmes, and projects concerning rural NEETs (namely, young people living in rural areas neither in employment nor in education or training). This special issue of Quality of Life Jour- nal is dedicated to fulfilling this gap in the literature. It contributes case studies from European Union (EU) member states. The primary purpose of this special issue is to approach and discuss the various strategies, policies, programmes, and projects appli- cable to youth rural NEETs. This special issue edition has sought to gather research papers (or critical, theoretical analysis on selected topics) covering NEETs strategies, policies, measures, programmes, and projects. These highlight the success factors and scope for transferability of good (or, how to avoid bad) practices. To that end, they examine pertinent labour market and NEET situations which can help to explain the context, reasons, and baseline for the various strategies and policy measures being implemented. They also cover assessment of NEET strategies by focusing on formal education, training and skills development, and active employment policies, in particular the role of Youth Guarantee in local/rural employment. Various other relevant factors are considered/examined, including: assessment of the NEET policy measures and results; objectives, target groups, geographical and sectoral scope in different economic activities, financial, legal and institutional frameworks; results and lessons learned, including adaptations due to crisis; domestic and international programmes, as well as numerous projects and instruments; difficulties and constraints; and, finally, assessment of the success factors and transferability of projects and strategies thereof

AbstractThis chapter presents the results of a study that analyzed the conditions in which it is possible to scale-up to the Urban Living Lab (ULL) approach, which was developed in large-scale social housing neighbourhoods, characterized by phenomena of social and spatial marginalization. Specifically, the aim of the study is to provide indications and tools, but also indicate challenges and critical issues to those public institutions interested in promoting and adopting, in such contexts, the ULL approach for programmes of social and/or urban regeneration. The study is based on a comparative analysis of local experimentations produced both by launching or consolidating the ULL, promoted by universities within the SoHoLab project in three European cities and by a public programme developed in the Lombardy region from 2014, which has features in common with the ULL. The study analyzed the documentation produced and thirty interviews with different stakeholders (public institutions, NGOs, social housing companies). Considering some specific topics and the important lessons learned from the local projects, the chapter deals with the theme of the transferability of labs, from a local level to a regional or national level, by an institutional lever.

This chapter exposes readers to the strategies of handling trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. The first section contains information related to the methods of promoting credibility of qualitative research projects and instruments. The computation of coefficient of credibility (CC) is demonstrated in this section. The second section addresses the strategies of promoting transferability of qualitative projects and outputs. There is a discussion on whether the qualitative research outputs and completed projects should be generalized to other contexts. The strategies of enhancing dependability are handled in Section 3, and Section 4 contains the methods of handling conformability in qualitative research projects. The chapter is concluded by a question and answer section.

This chapter provides an overview of the genesis and development of the digital preservation capability maturity model (DPCMM) which covers a range of governance, operational, and data management functions associated with the management of long-term (10+ years) and permanent digital assets. The model is organized into three domains: infrastructure, repository, and services. In addition to providing a useful framework for analysis and planning among archivists, content owners and records managers, using a capability maturity model (CMM) to convey the requirements associated with preservation and access to long-term digital assets provides a familiar construct for information technology (IT) architects and system administrators. Each of the 15 DPCMM components has five incremental stages of capability called digital preservation performance metrics.

This paper describes an experimental and numerical study to assess the transposability of brittle fracture criteria from specimens of one type of geometry to another. The overall “master curve” approach, the Beremin model and a proposed model using the concept of critical stress were accordingly analysed. The experimental work supporting the analysis was made on 16MND5 reactor vessel steel. This was in the form of CT25 specimens, taken as the reference type, SENT specimens, ring specimens and CTpor specimens, which are CT specimens with a semi-elliptical surface defect. The analysis itself was made in two stages: the models were first calibrated on the basis of CT25 test results, then they were applied to specimens of other geometries. We then demonstrate that, in all cases, the models correctly replicated the variation of toughness (as measured on a CT25 specimen) with temperature. However, they all failed when applied to SENT and ring specimens, where calculation underestimates the probability of fracture. For CTpor specimens, the results are better, the master curve approach and the critical stress criterion give satisfactory results (but it has not yet been possible to apply the Beremin method). This paper concludes with a detailed analysis of the crack tip stress and strain fields, followed by an attempt to explain the differences between the different types of behaviour observed.

Limit load analysis is a well known method to calculate the allowable design pressure of container components. A limit load of a pressurized container is achieved, when the stress of a wall and the flow stress are equal. In the following paper the transferability of limit load analysis from small scale tank containers up to large scale containers (railway tank) are investigated. Finite element calculations are carried out and compared with experimental results. It can be concluded that the limit load analysis works very well. Furthermore, the yield strength of the material should be used as flow stress.

Our project sought to recontextualise a popular evidence portal from the English education system to Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Nigeria. The Teaching and Learning Toolkit is a resource that summarises the global evidence for 30 different pedagogical approaches in plain language so that it can inform the decisions of school leaders in England. This paper shares the evidence synthesis for the project.

United Nations (UN) counter-terrorism (CT) policies are challenged by the emergence and resurgence of different threat profiles on the security horizon because its response framework is focused on one type of terrorism and violent extremism (T/VE) threat. As there is increasing focus on the threat of extreme right-wing T/VE in the current social and political context in the West, for example, the challenges of adaptability and transferability become apparent. This is often due to the lack of flexibility and nuance of the conversation around CT at the UN level. This same lack of consideration for complexity can be exemplified through the case of the UN Security Council’s (UNSC) Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda and the subsequent application of gender mainstreaming strategies. The WPS agenda was introduced with UNSC Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 in 2000 and developed over the next two decades with the adoption of nine follow-on resolutions. The increasing visibility of the impacts of terrorist groups on women and girls, and the articulation by some groups of a strategy that specifically targeted gender equality or utilized narratives promoting the subjugation of women, created greater momentum to push for the integration of the WPS and CT agendas, reflected most significantly in UNSCR 2242. However, even with this necessary focus on the protection and empowerment of women in the peace and security space, there has often been a more limited policy conversation around the wider gender perspective and analysis needed to effectively implement gender mainstreaming strategies. There needs to be increased attention given to understanding how socio-culturally defined gender roles and expectations impact how and why every individual engages with T/VE. Additionally, research is needed on how the wider gender equality goal of gender mainstreaming strategies can be implemented This research brief examines the adaptability and transferability of the last two decades of UN CT legal and policy frameworks and architecture to the evolving threat landscape.

As artistic research work in various disciplines and national contexts continues to develop, the diversity of approaches to the field becomes ever more apparent. This is to be welcomed, because it keeps alive ideas of plurality and complexity at a particular time in history when the gross oversimplifications and obfuscations of political discourses are compromising the nature of language itself, leading to what several commentators have already called ‘a post-truth’ world. In this brutal environment where ‘information’ is uncoupled from reality and validated only by how loudly and often it is voiced, the artist researcher has a responsibility that goes beyond the confines of our discipline to articulate the truth-content of his or her artistic practice. To do this, they must embrace daring and risk-taking, finding ways of communicating that flow against the current norms. In artistic research, the empathic communication of information and experience – and not merely the ‘verbally empathic’ – is a sign of research transferability, a marker for research content. But this, in some circles, is still a heretical point of view. Research, in its more traditional manifestations mistrusts empathy and individually-incarnated human experience; the researcher, although a sentient being in the world, is expected to behave dispassionately in their professional discourse, and with a distrust for insights that come primarily from instinct. For the construction of empathic systems in which to study and research, our structures still need to change. So, we need to work toward a new world (one that is still not our idea), a world that is symptomatic of what we might like artistic research to be. Risk is one of the elements that helps us to make the conceptual twist that turns subjective, reflexive experience into transpersonal, empathic communication and/or scientifically-viable modes of exchange. It gives us something to work with in engaging with debates because it means that something is at stake. To propose a space where such risks may be taken, I shall revisit Gillian Rose’s metaphor of ‘the fold’ that I analysed in the first Symposium presented by the Arne Nordheim Centre for Artistic Research (NordART) at the Norwegian Academy of Music in November 2015. I shall deepen the exploration of the process of ‘unfolding’, elaborating on my belief in its appropriateness for artistic research work; I shall further suggest that Rose’s metaphor provides a way to bridge some of the gaps of understanding that have already developed between those undertaking artistic research and those working in the more established music disciplines.

Background Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer death worldwide.(1) It is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia (12,741 cases diagnosed in 2018) and the leading cause of cancer death.(2) The number of years of potential life lost to lung cancer in Australia is estimated to be 58,450, similar to that of colorectal and breast cancer combined.(3) While tobacco control strategies are most effective for disease prevention in the general population, early detection via low dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening in high-risk populations is a viable option for detecting asymptomatic disease in current (13%) and former (24%) Australian smokers.(4) The purpose of this Evidence Check review is to identify and analyse existing and emerging evidence for LDCT lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals to guide future program and policy planning. Evidence Check questions This review aimed to address the following questions: 1. What is the evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? 2. What is the evidence of potential harms from lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? 3. What are the main components of recent major lung cancer screening programs or trials? 4. What is the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening programs (include studies of cost–utility)? Summary of methods The authors searched the peer-reviewed literature across three databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Embase) for existing systematic reviews and original studies published between 1 January 2009 and 8 August 2019. Fifteen systematic reviews (of which 8 were contemporary) and 64 original publications met the inclusion criteria set across the four questions. Key findings Question 1: What is the evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? There is sufficient evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of combined (pooled) data from screening trials (of high-risk individuals) to indicate that LDCT examination is clinically effective in reducing lung cancer mortality. In 2011, the landmark National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST, a large-scale randomised controlled trial [RCT] conducted in the US) reported a 20% (95% CI 6.8% – 26.7%; P=0.004) relative reduction in mortality among long-term heavy smokers over three rounds of annual screening. High-risk eligibility criteria was defined as people aged 55–74 years with a smoking history of ≥30 pack-years (years in which a smoker has consumed 20-plus cigarettes each day) and, for former smokers, ≥30 pack-years and have quit within the past 15 years.(5) All-cause mortality was reduced by 6.7% (95% CI, 1.2% – 13.6%; P=0.02). Initial data from the second landmark RCT, the NEderlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (known as the NELSON trial), have found an even greater reduction of 26% (95% CI, 9% – 41%) in lung cancer mortality, with full trial results yet to be published.(6, 7) Pooled analyses, including several smaller-scale European LDCT screening trials insufficiently powered in their own right, collectively demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in lung cancer mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73–0.91).(8) Despite the reduction in all-cause mortality found in the NLST, pooled analyses of seven trials found no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90–1.00).(8) However, cancer-specific mortality is currently the most relevant outcome in cancer screening trials. These seven trials demonstrated a significantly greater proportion of early stage cancers in LDCT groups compared with controls (RR 2.08, 95% CI 1.43–3.03). Thus, when considering results across mortality outcomes and early stage cancers diagnosed, LDCT screening is considered to be clinically effective. Question 2: What is the evidence of potential harms from lung cancer screening for higher-risk individuals? The harms of LDCT lung cancer screening include false positive tests and the consequences of unnecessary invasive follow-up procedures for conditions that are eventually diagnosed as benign. While LDCT screening leads to an increased frequency of invasive procedures, it does not result in greater mortality soon after an invasive procedure (in trial settings when compared with the control arm).(8) Overdiagnosis, exposure to radiation, psychological distress and an impact on quality of life are other known harms. Systematic review evidence indicates the benefits of LDCT screening are likely to outweigh the harms. The potential harms are likely to be reduced as refinements are made to LDCT screening protocols through: i) the application of risk predication models (e.g. the PLCOm2012), which enable a more accurate selection of the high-risk population through the use of specific criteria (beyond age and smoking history); ii) the use of nodule management algorithms (e.g. Lung-RADS, PanCan), which assist in the diagnostic evaluation of screen-detected nodules and cancers (e.g. more precise volumetric assessment of nodules); and, iii) more judicious selection of patients for invasive procedures. Recent evidence suggests a positive LDCT result may transiently increase psychological distress but does not have long-term adverse effects on psychological distress or health-related quality of life (HRQoL). With regards to smoking cessation, there is no evidence to suggest screening participation invokes a false sense of assurance in smokers, nor a reduction in motivation to quit. The NELSON and Danish trials found no difference in smoking cessation rates between LDCT screening and control groups. Higher net cessation rates, compared with general population, suggest those who participate in screening trials may already be motivated to quit. Question 3: What are the main components of recent major lung cancer screening programs or trials? There are no systematic reviews that capture the main components of recent major lung cancer screening trials and programs. We extracted evidence from original studies and clinical guidance documents and organised this into key groups to form a concise set of components for potential implementation of a national lung cancer screening program in Australia: 1. Identifying the high-risk population: recruitment, eligibility, selection and referral 2. Educating the public, people at high risk and healthcare providers; this includes creating awareness of lung cancer, the benefits and harms of LDCT screening, and shared decision-making 3. Components necessary for health services to deliver a screening program: a. Planning phase: e.g. human resources to coordinate the program, electronic data systems that integrate medical records information and link to an established national registry b. Implementation phase: e.g. human and technological resources required to conduct LDCT examinations, interpretation of reports and communication of results to participants c. Monitoring and evaluation phase: e.g. monitoring outcomes across patients, radiological reporting, compliance with established standards and a quality assurance program 4. Data reporting and research, e.g. audit and feedback to multidisciplinary teams, reporting outcomes to enhance international research into LDCT screening 5. Incorporation of smoking cessation interventions, e.g. specific programs designed for LDCT screening or referral to existing community or hospital-based services that deliver cessation interventions. Most original studies are single-institution evaluations that contain descriptive data about the processes required to establish and implement a high-risk population-based screening program. Across all studies there is a consistent message as to the challenges and complexities of establishing LDCT screening programs to attract people at high risk who will receive the greatest benefits from participation. With regards to smoking cessation, evidence from one systematic review indicates the optimal strategy for incorporating smoking cessation interventions into a LDCT screening program is unclear. There is widespread agreement that LDCT screening attendance presents a ‘teachable moment’ for cessation advice, especially among those people who receive a positive scan result. Smoking cessation is an area of significant research investment; for instance, eight US-based clinical trials are now underway that aim to address how best to design and deliver cessation programs within large-scale LDCT screening programs.(9) Question 4: What is the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening programs (include studies of cost–utility)? Assessing the value or cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening involves a complex interplay of factors including data on effectiveness and costs, and institutional context. A key input is data about the effectiveness of potential and current screening programs with respect to case detection, and the likely outcomes of treating those cases sooner (in the presence of LDCT screening) as opposed to later (in the absence of LDCT screening). Evidence about the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening programs has been summarised in two systematic reviews. We identified a further 13 studies—five modelling studies, one discrete choice experiment and seven articles—that used a variety of methods to assess cost-effectiveness. Three modelling studies indicated LDCT screening was cost-effective in the settings of the US and Europe. Two studies—one from Australia and one from New Zealand—reported LDCT screening would not be cost-effective using NLST-like protocols. We anticipate that, following the full publication of the NELSON trial, cost-effectiveness studies will likely be updated with new data that reduce uncertainty about factors that influence modelling outcomes, including the findings of indeterminate nodules. Gaps in the evidence There is a large and accessible body of evidence as to the effectiveness (Q1) and harms (Q2) of LDCT screening for lung cancer. Nevertheless, there are significant gaps in the evidence about the program components that are required to implement an effective LDCT screening program (Q3). Questions about LDCT screening acceptability and feasibility were not explicitly included in the scope. However, as the evidence is based primarily on US programs and UK pilot studies, the relevance to the local setting requires careful consideration. The Queensland Lung Cancer Screening Study provides feasibility data about clinical aspects of LDCT screening but little about program design. The International Lung Screening Trial is still in the recruitment phase and findings are not yet available for inclusion in this Evidence Check. The Australian Population Based Screening Framework was developed to “inform decision-makers on the key issues to be considered when assessing potential screening programs in Australia”.(10) As the Framework is specific to population-based, rather than high-risk, screening programs, there is a lack of clarity about transferability of criteria. However, the Framework criteria do stipulate that a screening program must be acceptable to “important subgroups such as target participants who are from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, people from disadvantaged groups and people with a disability”.(10) An extensive search of the literature highlighted that there is very little information about the acceptability of LDCT screening to these population groups in Australia. Yet they are part of the high-risk population.(10) There are also considerable gaps in the evidence about the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening in different settings, including Australia. The evidence base in this area is rapidly evolving and is likely to include new data from the NELSON trial and incorporate data about the costs of targeted- and immuno-therapies as these treatments become more widely available in Australia.