Institution
Bowling Green State University
Education•Bowling Green, Ohio, United States•
About: Bowling Green State University is a education organization based out in Bowling Green, Ohio, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 8315 authors who have published 16042 publications receiving 482564 citations. The organization is also known as: BGSU.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: This paper explored the linkages between the five-factor model of personality and Meyer and Allen's (1991) model of organizational commitment using a field sample and found that extraversion was significantly related to affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment.
307 citations
••
TL;DR: A spectroscopic orbit with period P=3.52433+/-0.00027 days for the planetary companion that transits the solar-type star HD 209458 is reported, based on a new analysis of the iron lines in the HIRES template spectrum and also on the absolute magnitude, effective temperature, and color of the star.
Abstract: We report a spectroscopic orbit with period P = 3.52433 ± 0.00027 days for the planetary companion that transits the solar-type star HD 209458. For the metallicity, mass, and radius of the star, we derive [Fe/H] = 0.00 ± 0.02, M* = 1.1 ± 0.1 M☉, and R* = 1.2 ± 0.1 R☉. This is based on a new analysis of the iron lines in our HIRES template spectrum and also on the absolute magnitude, effective temperature, and color of the star, and it uses isochrones from four different sets of stellar evolution models. Using these values for the stellar parameters, we reanalyze the transit data and derive an orbital inclination of i = 861 ± 16. For the planet, we derive a mass of Mp = 0.69 ± 0.05 MJup, a radius of Rp = 1.40 ± 0.17 RJup, and a density of ρ = 0.31 ± 0.07 g cm-3.
306 citations
••
United States Department of Health and Human Services1, Hastings Center2, Veterans Health Administration3, Center for Humans and Nature4, National Quality Forum5, United States Department of Veterans Affairs6, American Medical Association7, Bowling Green State University8, National Committee for Quality Assurance9, Vanderbilt University10, Dartmouth College11, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill12, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality13, Yeshiva University14, Primary Children's Hospital15
TL;DR: This report discusses deliberate efforts of providers to meet their obligations to improve the quality of patient care through clinical and managerial changes in the processes of care, and presents recommendations for developing policy and practices to protect patients from both the harm that QI activities might cause and the harms that quality and safety deficits do cause.
Abstract: Quality improvement (QI) activities can improve health care but must be conducted ethically. The Hastings Center convened leaders and scholars to address ethical requirements for QI and their relationship to regulations protecting human subjects of research. The group defined QI as systematic, data-guided activities designed to bring about immediate improvements in health care delivery in particular settings and concluded that QI is an intrinsic part of normal health care operations. Both clinicians and patients have an ethical responsibility to participate in QI, provided that it complies with specified ethical requirements. Most QI activities are not human subjects research and should not undergo review by an institutional review board; rather, appropriately calibrated supervision of QI activities should be part of professional supervision of clinical practice. The group formulated a framework that would use key characteristics of a project and its context to categorize it as QI, human subjects research, or both, with the potential of a customized institutional review board process for the overlap category. The group recommended a period of innovation and evaluation to refine the framework for ethical conduct of QI and to integrate that framework into clinical practice.
306 citations
••
TL;DR: A review of background influences, current conceptualizations, research methods, and some research findings is provided in CAVANAUGH, JOHN C., and PERLMUTTER, MARION as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: CAVANAUGH, JOHN C., and PERLMUTTER, MARION. Metamemory: A Critical Examination. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1982, 53, 11-28. This paper provides a critical examination of the current status of metamemory. A review of background influences, current conceptualizations, research methods, and some research findings is provided. Several limitations of metamemory are noted. In particular, there is no clear definition of the concept, assessment methods are inadequate, research has not gone beyond a demonstration stage, and a strong relationship between memory and metamemory generally has not been substantiated. Several issues that need to be addressed in a reconceptualization of metamemory are discussed. These issues include new assessment methods, redirection of research, predictions and testable hypotheses about the relationship between metamemory knowledge and memory performance, and the origins of metamemory. Although in its present form metamemory has little utility, a revised analysis of metamemory could have an important influence on conceptualizations of memory.
305 citations
Authors
Showing all 8365 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Eduardo Salas | 129 | 711 | 62259 |
Russell A. Barkley | 119 | 355 | 60109 |
Hong Liu | 100 | 1905 | 57561 |
Jaak Panksepp | 99 | 446 | 40748 |
Kenneth I. Pargament | 96 | 372 | 41752 |
Robert C. Green | 91 | 526 | 40414 |
Robert W. Motl | 85 | 712 | 27961 |
Evert Jan Baerends | 85 | 318 | 52440 |
Hugh Garavan | 84 | 419 | 28773 |
Janet Shibley Hyde | 83 | 227 | 38440 |
Michael L. Gross | 82 | 701 | 27140 |
Jerry Silver | 78 | 201 | 25837 |
Michael E. Robinson | 74 | 366 | 19990 |
Abraham Clearfield | 74 | 513 | 19006 |
Kirk S. Schanze | 73 | 512 | 19118 |