Institution
University of York
Education•York, York, United Kingdom•
About: University of York is a education organization based out in York, York, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 22089 authors who have published 56925 publications receiving 2458285 citations. The organization is also known as: York University & Ebor..
Topics: Population, Health care, Context (language use), Randomized controlled trial, Cost effectiveness
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: This paper used a managerial learning framework to build and test a model of the decision-making process that drives decisions to strategically reorient an organization, and found that poor past performance, environmental awareness, top management team heterogeneity, and CEO turnover increased the likelihood of reorientation.
Abstract: This study uses a managerial learning framework to build and test a model of the decisionmaking process that drives decisions to strategically reorient an organization. The model examines the effects of past performance, managerial interpretations, and top management team characteristics on the likelihood of strategic reorientation in two distinct environmental contexts. The results indicate that poor past performance, environmental awareness, top management team heterogeneity, and CEO turnover increased the likelihood of reorientation. There are some differences in the ways in which these variables affect reorientation across the two environmental contexts. Poor past performance was more strongly associated with reorientation in the stable environment than in the turbulent environment. The tendency to make external attributions for poor performance outcomes decreased the likelihood of reorientation in the turbulent environment, but not in the stable environment.
897 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigated the impact that the choice of model can have on predictions, identify key reasons why model output may differ and discuss the implications that model uncertainty has for policy-guiding applications.
Abstract: Aim Many attempts to predict the potential range of species rely on environmental niche (or 'bioclimate envelope') modelling, yet the effects of using different niche-based methodologies require further investigation. Here we investigate the impact that the choice of model can have on predictions, identify key reasons why model output may differ and discuss the implications that model uncertainty has for policy-guiding applications. Location The Western Cape of South Africa. Methods We applied nine of the most widely used modelling techniques to model potential distributions under current and predicted future climate for four species (including two subspecies) of Proteaceae. Each model was built using an identical set of five input variables and distribution data for 3996 sampled sites. We compare model predictions by testing agreement between observed and simulated distributions for the present day (using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and kappa statistics) and by assessing consistency in predictions of range size changes under future climate (using cluster analysis). Results Our analyses show significant differences between predictions from different models, with predicted changes in range size by 2030 differing in both magnitude and direction (e.g. from 92% loss to 322% gain). We explain differences with reference to two characteristics of the modelling techniques: data input requirements (presence/absence vs. presence-only approaches) and assumptions made by each algorithm when extrapolating beyond the range of data used to build the model. The effects of these factors should be carefully considered when using this modelling approach to predict species ranges. Main Conclusions We highlight an important source of uncertainty in assessments of the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and emphasize that model predictions should be interpreted in policy-guiding applications along with a full appreciation of uncertainty.
895 citations
••
TL;DR: Although the economics of the pharmaceutical industry continue to restrict investment in novel biomedical responses, action must be taken to avoid the conjunction of factors that promote evolution and spread of antibiotic resistance.
Abstract: During the past 10 years, multidrug-resistant Gram-negative Enterobacteriaceae have become a substantial challenge to infection control. It has been suggested by clinicians that the effectiveness of antibiotics is in such rapid decline that, depending on the pathogen concerned, their future utility can be measured in decades or even years. Unless the rise in antibiotic resistance can be reversed, we can expect to see a substantial rise in incurable infection and fatality in both developed and developing regions. Antibiotic resistance develops through complex interactions, with resistance arising by de-novo mutation under clinical antibiotic selection or frequently by acquisition of mobile genes that have evolved over time in bacteria in the environment. The reservoir of resistance genes in the environment is due to a mix of naturally occurring resistance and those present in animal and human waste and the selective effects of pollutants, which can co-select for mobile genetic elements carrying multiple resistant genes. Less attention has been given to how anthropogenic activity might be causing evolution of antibiotic resistance in the environment. Although the economics of the pharmaceutical industry continue to restrict investment in novel biomedical responses, action must be taken to avoid the conjunction of factors that promote evolution and spread of antibiotic resistance.
893 citations
••
West Virginia University1, Yale University2, Food and Agriculture Organization3, Landcare Research4, University of Udine5, Max Planck Society6, University of Alaska Fairbanks7, Technische Universität München8, Université du Québec à Montréal9, University of the French West Indies and Guiana10, University of Freiburg Faculty of Biology11, Cornell University12, Wageningen University and Research Centre13, University of Sydney14, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu15, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro16, University of Göttingen17, Russian Academy of Sciences18, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research19, Lakehead University20, University of La Frontera21, Seoul National University22, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg23, University of Cambridge24, Center for International Forestry Research25, James Cook University26, University of Zurich27, University of Yaoundé I28, University of Wisconsin-Madison29, Queensland Government30, Institut national de la recherche agronomique31, Florida International University32, Forest Research Institute33, Polish Academy of Sciences34, University of Minnesota35, Warsaw University of Life Sciences36, Ştefan cel Mare University of Suceava37, University of Florence38, University of Warsaw39, King Juan Carlos University40, Spanish National Research Council41, International Trademark Association42, National University of Austral Patagonia43, National Scientific and Technical Research Council44, Wildlife Conservation Society45, College of African Wildlife Management46, University of York47, Durham University48, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources49, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador50, Centre national de la recherche scientifique51, Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi52, University College London53, University of Leeds54
TL;DR: A consistent positive concave-down effect of biodiversity on forest productivity across the world is revealed, showing that a continued biodiversity loss would result in an accelerating decline in forest productivity worldwide.
Abstract: The biodiversity-productivity relationship (BPR) is foundational to our understanding of the global extinction crisis and its impacts on ecosystem functioning. Understanding BPR is critical for the accurate valuation and effective conservation of biodiversity. Using ground-sourced data from 777,126 permanent plots, spanning 44 countries and most terrestrial biomes, we reveal a globally consistent positive concave-down BPR, showing that continued biodiversity loss would result in an accelerating decline in forest productivity worldwide. The value of biodiversity in maintaining commercial forest productivity alone-US$166 billion to 490 billion per year according to our estimation-is more than twice what it would cost to implement effective global conservation. This highlights the need for a worldwide reassessment of biodiversity values, forest management strategies, and conservation priorities.
889 citations
••
University College London1, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis2, University of Reading3, United Nations University4, University of London5, University of Colorado Boulder6, Umeå University7, Tsinghua University8, World Health Organization9, Cardiff University10, University of Geneva11, University of New England (United States)12, University of Birmingham13, Yale University14, University of Washington15, Northeastern University16, Virginia Tech17, University of Oxford18, University of York19, International Livestock Research Institute20, Cayetano Heredia University21, Harvard University22, Boston University23, University of Sussex24, Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology25, Emory University26, Columbia University27, Autonomous University of Barcelona28, Technische Universität München29, University of Melbourne30, Iran University of Medical Sciences31, University of Exeter32, Imperial College London33, University of Sheffield34, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control35, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu36, University of Santiago de Compostela37
TL;DR: TRANSLATIONS For the Chinese, French, German, and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
886 citations
Authors
Showing all 22432 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Cyrus Cooper | 204 | 1869 | 206782 |
Eric R. Kandel | 184 | 603 | 113560 |
Ian J. Deary | 166 | 1795 | 114161 |
Elio Riboli | 158 | 1136 | 110499 |
Claude Bouchard | 153 | 1076 | 115307 |
Robert Plomin | 151 | 1104 | 88588 |
Kevin J. Gaston | 150 | 750 | 85635 |
John R. Hodges | 149 | 812 | 82709 |
Myrna M. Weissman | 149 | 772 | 108259 |
Jeffrey A. Lieberman | 145 | 706 | 85306 |
Howard L. Weiner | 144 | 1047 | 91424 |
Dan J. Stein | 142 | 1727 | 132718 |
Jedd D. Wolchok | 140 | 713 | 123336 |
Bernard Henrissat | 139 | 593 | 100002 |
Joseph E. LeDoux | 139 | 478 | 91500 |