排序方式: 共有5条查询结果,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1
1.
2.
3.
Dorn Lorah D. Dahl Ronald E. Williamson Douglas E. Birmaher Boris Axelson David Perel James Stull Stacy D. Ryan Neal D. 《Journal of youth and adolescence》2003,32(5):315-324
There is inconsistency in the outcome measures of biological and psychosocial studies using measures of puberty as a predictor. For example, some studies show that maturational timing may have differential influences (positive, negative, or no effect) depending on the specific disorder, dimension of measure, and gender. Other studies have suggested that some effects may be more directly linked to pubertal stage or hormone concentrations rather than timing per se. This study outlines several conceptual and methodological issues that may be relevant to addressing these inconsistencies, in the context of examining data from a study of maturational hormones obtained from a unique longitudinal cohort of 24 girls (age 10.0 ± 1.6 years) and 36 boys (age 10.4 ± 1.6 years) in the early part of puberty, where the developmental trajectory of these hormones were tracked annually in 65% of the sample. We explored the contributions of measures of pubertal growth and sociodemographic factors on hormone concentrations. In brief, it appears that no single measure best captures the maturational processes during puberty and suggests that multiple processes are occurring in parallel. Several conceptual and methodological implications are discussed that may guide investigators in interpreting existing studies of pubertal timing and behavior as well as in conducting future studies. 相似文献
4.
5.
Charles Weiss 《International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics》2003,3(2):137-166
The debate between advocates of the "Precautionary Principle" and those of "science-based regulation" hinges in large part on the standard of proof to be applied to the scientific evidence that a given action poses a danger of serious and irreversible environmental harm. We propose an intermediate approach, which we term "science-based precaution," intended to facilitate adaptive management of environmental issues – that is, learning through experience and experimentation.We propose that evidence justifying precautionary action must be sufficient to create a "reasonable belief" of serious and irreversible environmental danger. In other cases, in which the proponents of an action bear the burden of proof that the actions they propose will not cause environmental harm, we propose that they must make a "clear showing"to that effect. Both of these standards of proof are derived from a scale constructed from the standards of proof used in various branches of US law.The "reasonableness" standard of proof for the application of the Precautionary Principle is more cautious than the record of international efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone layer and to deal with climate change. It is analogous to the standard of proof imposed by US administrative law, and is also consistent with the position of the European Union and the holdings of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in the beef hormones case. We further propose a Reasonableness Principle: that scientific research and technological innovations promising major benefits not be unreasonably blocked before their full implications are understood. 相似文献
1