bikenaga

Cited article: "Recent Observations of Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica Are Consistent With High Rates of Loss in Next 50 Years" - https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025GL11...

Cited article: "Smartphone Use During School Hours and Association With Cognitive Control in Youths Aged 11 to 18 Years" - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

[delayed]

Cited article: "Cognitive and Neuropsychiatric Function in Former American Football Players" - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

"Results. The study sample included 3970 male former American football players (mean [SD] age, 55.93 [10.00] years) enrolled in HITSS. Two substudies were performed: (1) all 3970 football players and (2) 943 players and controls (mean [SD] age, 58.46 [10.37] years), including 661 football players and 282 Brain Health Registry controls. Overall, all study participants were highly educated (561 [85%] had a ≥4-year degree). Compared with controls, players had worse scores on PALFAMS (B = −0.64; 95% CI, −1.23 to 0.05; β = −0.15; P = .03), PALTEA (B = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.07-0.54; β = 0.18; P = .01), ECog (B = 0.11; 95% CI, 0.07-0.15; β = 0.38; P < .001), and GDS-15 (B = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.86; β = 0.37; P < .001). Among the 3970 total players (mean [SD] years of education, 16.11 [2.20]), professional players had worse scores than college and high school or youth players. Years of play was associated with higher ECog (B = 0.006; 95% CI, 0.003-0.009; adjusted P < .001), MI (B = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.02-0.32; adjusted P = .04), BRI (B = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16-0.37; adjusted P < .001), GDS-15 (B = 0.03; 95% CI, 0.009-0.04; adjusted P = .003), and PALTEA (B = 0.03; 95% CI, 0.004-0.06; adjusted P = .04) scores.

Conclusions and Relevance. In this cross-sectional study of former American football players, prior American football participation was associated with worse later-life cognitive and neuropsychiatric function. These findings support a dose-response association with years and level of play, providing context to help clinicians and researchers assess the risk of symptoms among former players."

"Abstract. The impacts of sea-level rise and other hazards on the coasts of the world are determined by coastal sea-level height and land elevation. Correct integration of both aspects is fundamental for reliable sea-level rise and coastal hazard impact assessments, but is often not carefully considered or properly performed. Here we show that more than 99% of the evaluated impact assessments handled sea-level and land elevation data inadequately, thereby misjudging sea level relative to coastal elevation. Based on our literature evaluation, 90% of the hazard assessments assume coastal sea levels based on geoid models, rather than using actual sea-level measurements. Our meta-analyses on global scale show that measured coastal sea level is higher than assumed in most hazard assessments (mean offsets [standard deviation] of 0.27 m [0.76 m] and 0.24 m [0.52 m] for two commonly-used geoids). Regionally, predominantly in the Global South, measured mean sea level can be more than 1 m above global geoids, with the largest differences in the Indo-Pacific. Compared with geoid-based assumptions of coastal sea level, the measured values suggest that with a hypothetical 1 m of relative sea-level rise, 31–37% more land and 48–68% more people (increasing estimates to 77–132 million) would fall below sea level. Our results highlight the need for re-evaluation of existing coastal impact assessments and improvement of research community standards, with possible implications for policymakers, climate finance and coastal adaptation."

(Wikipedia) The geoid is the shape that the ocean surface would take under the influence of the gravity of Earth, including gravitational attraction and Earth's rotation, if other influences such as winds and tides were absent.

"Abstract. As humans, we store and share information. This allows us to distribute knowledge necessary for survival and to coordinate large groups. Our hominin ancestors harnessed the surfaces of mobile artifacts and cave walls as information carriers since the Paleolithic time period. Theories abound as to the meaning and function of these Paleolithic signs. However, very little is known about their basic, measurable properties. We here analyze a corpus of more than 200 mobile objects of a 43,000 to 34,000 y old Aurignacian culture—associated with the first modern humans to settle in Central Europe. These objects are adorned with several thousand geometric signs. We apply classification algorithms and statistical models to capture their quantitative properties. First, our analyses illustrate that these sign sequences are clearly distinguishable from modern day writing. Second, however, their statistical properties are comparable to sign sequences on the earliest protocuneiform tablets. Third, Paleolithic signs were systematically applied to yield higher information density on certain types of objects, e.g. ivory figurines compared to tools. These results cannot be taken to strictly prove that Aurignacian sign sequences encoded numero-ideographic information as in the case of protocuneiform. However, they prove that the first hunter-gatherers arriving in Europe already applied sign sequences of comparable complexity in a deliberate, systematic, and conventional manner—several ten thousand years before the advent of genuine writing."

"Abstract. How nations shape the scientific frontier matters for technological competition, but standard metrics, including publication counts, citations, and disruption indices, look backward and fail to distinguish between fundamentally different leadership strategies. We develop and validate two forward-looking model-based measures and apply them to tens of millions of articles since 1990. The first embeds research pathways within an evolving hypergraph of concepts and scientists to identify leadership in emerging areas--work that anticipates where the scientific crowd is heading. The second embeds evolving samples of ideas and disciplines drawn upon in past research to identify leadership in surprising new directions as unexpected combinations become routine and science reorganizes around them. China became the global leader in emerging areas roughly a decade ago, well before it led in volume, reflecting a capacity to detect and amplify nascent consensus at scale. The United States and Europe show the opposite profile: declining emergence shares but persistent leadership in prescient work, especially research bridging disciplinary boundaries. These patterns replicate across databases, attribution methods, and strategic domains, including AI, biotechnology, energy, and semiconductors. Nations lead science by reading the landscape or by reshaping it, and the institutional requirements for each strategy lie in tension. The distribution of these strategies promises to shape the global structure of technological leadership for decades."

From the article: "These complementary measures reveal that nations do not simply lead or lag in science—they lead differently. China’s dominant strategy has been to identify and amplify nascent consensus: investing massively in areas where convergence is already detectable, and staffing those areas at scale. This is neither trivial nor merely imitative. Anticipating which emerging areas will prove consequential requires sophisticated judgment, and executing at speed demands institutional coordination that few systems can match. The result is that China shapes the trajectory of global science not by redirecting it, but by accelerating it—arriving at the frontier first by reading the landscape most effectively.

The United States and Europe pursue a complementary but distinct form of leadership. Their persistent advantage in prescient work—research that departs from predictable trajectories and prefigures future directions—reflects institutional cultures that reward disciplinary boundary-crossing, tolerate failure, and confer prestige on surprising results. This is particularly visible in context prescience, where drawing on unlikely combinations of intellectual traditions remains a pronounced Western strength. The gap is not explained by volume alone; it persists in per-paper rates, suggesting differences in research culture rather than mere scale."

"In the language of statistical test theory, an emergence policy minimizes Type 1 error such that more of what it proposes will succeed, but an undirected prescience strategy will necessarily more effectively minimize Type 2 error in that more of the best possible directions will be proposed."

Original title: "*The Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale: Development, validation, and associations with workplace outcomes"

Abstract: "From boardrooms and brown bags to emails and earnings calls, business culture often seems overrun by 'corporate bullshit,' a semantically empty and often confusing style of communication in organizational contexts that leverages abstruse corporate buzzwords and jargon in a functionally misleading way. At best, corporate bullshit can sometimes seem harmless. At worst, it can disrupt organizational and employee effectiveness in numerous ways including obstructing clear communication, increasing employee disengagement, tarnishing a company's reputation, and exposing businesses to potential financial and legal risks. Here, results from four studies (total N = 1018) report the construction and validation of the Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale (CBSR), a novel measure of individual differences in susceptibility to corporate bullshit. Results show that corporate bullshit receptivity is distinct from a general affinity for corporate speech, negatively associated with measures of analytic thinking, and positively related with other bullshit-related constructs in theoretically-consistent ways. Importantly, corporate bullshit receptivity is positively associated with several workplace perception variables and is a robust negative predictor of work-related decision-making. Overall, the findings establish the CBSR as a valid and reliable tool to aid researchers and practitioners in examining the causes, correlates, and consequences of receptivity to bullshit in organizations."

PhysOrg article: https://phys.org/news/2026-03-workers-synergizing-paradigms-...

The inequality is C² + D² ≤ 1, where C is the correlation and D is the disturbance. See the article.

Cited article: "Covariant correlation-disturbance relation and its experimental realization with spin-1/2 particles" - https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/abstract/10.1103/llgb-gq...

"Abstract. We formulate a precise trade-off relation between correlation and disturbance for sequential -outcome quantum measurements in Hilbert spaces of arbitrary dimension. This relation highlights key symmetry properties useful for robust estimation and characterization of the measurement parameters against unitary noise, or in scenarios where shared reference frames are unavailable. In addition, we report on the experimental implementation of the proposal for the qubit case, more precisely in a neutron optical experiment, which is particularly valuable for calibrating and optimizing measurement devices, as confirmed by the theoretical results. Finally, we exploit the optimal trade-off relation for direct estimation of the characteristic noise of single-photon detectors, dark counts, and the finite detection efficiency."