Fake news and indifference to truth: Dissecting tweets and State of the Union Addresses by Presidents Obama and Trump

State of the Union Addresses (SOUA) by two recent US Presidents, President Obama (2016) and President Trump (2018), and a series of recent of tweets by President Trump, are analysed by means of the data mining technique, sentiment analysis. The intention is to explore the contents and sentiments of the messages contained, the degree to which they di_er, and their potential implications for the national mood and state of the economy. President Trump's 2018 SOUA and his sample tweets are identi_ed as being more positive in sentiment than President Obama's 2016 SOUA. This is con_rmed by bootstrapped t tests and non-parametric sign tests on components of the respective sentiment scores. The issue of whether overly positive pronouncements amount to self-promotion, rather than intrinsic merit or sentiment, is a topic for future research

Dáil reforms since 2011: Pathway to power for the 'puny' parliament?

We know that the Dáil is dominated by the government. From 2010 to 2016 there was a clamour for change, which ultimately led to significant reforms of the Oireachtas, and specifically the Dáil. In this article we show that the basis for the weakness of the Dáil was the government’s control of the legislative agenda. This article tracks the changes that were made, and we make an early assessment of them. However, firm conclusions are difficult to draw because of the extent to which the strengthening of the Dáil is a function of the weak position of the current minority government

Interactive Democracy: The Social Roots of Global Justice

In this book, Carol Gould tries to envision a future for democracy that is both faithful to what she takes to be its philosophical and normative ground and well-matched to the political challenges of advancing global justice. These challenges arise because the social and institutional world is increasingly complex, with the relevance of state boundaries diminishing significantly in recent decades when it comes to identifying and evaluating agents, acts and effects on the global stage. I begin by reconstructing and summarizing what I take to be her central line of argument

Developing a Research Mentorship Program: The American Society of Pediatric Nephrology's Experience

Background: Most pediatric nephrologists work in academia. Mentor-mentee relationships provide support and guidance for successful research career. Mentorship program implementation is valuable in medical fields for providing research opportunities to young faculty. Methods: The American Society of Pediatric Nephrology (ASPN) established a research mentorship program to (a) assist with matching of appropriate mentor-mentee dyads and (b) establish metrics for desirable mentor-mentee outcomes with two independent components: (1) the grants review workshop, a short-term program providing mentor feedback on grant proposals, and (2) the longitudinal program, establishing long-term mentor-mentee relationships. Regular surveys of both mentors and mentees were reviewed to evaluate and refine the program. Results: Twelve mentees and 17 mentors participated in the grant review workshop and 19 mentees were matched to mentors in the longitudinal program. A review of NIH RePORTER data indicated that since 2014, 13 NIH grants have been awarded. Mentees in the longitudinal program reported that the program helped most with identifying an outside mentor, improving grant research content, and with general career development. Mentors perceived themselves to be most helpful in assisting with overall career plans. Email communications were preferred over phone or face-to-face communications. Mentees endorsed strong interest in staying in touch with their mentors and 100% of mentors expressed their willingness to serve in the future. Conclusion: This mentorship program was initiated and supported by a relatively small medical society and has shown early success in cultivating mentoring relationships for a future generation of clinician-scientists

Measurement of the Charged Multiplicities in b, c and Light Quark Events from Z0 Decays

Average charged multiplicities have been measured separately in $b$, $c$ and light quark ($u,d,s$) events from $Z^0$ decays measured in the SLD experiment. Impact parameters of charged tracks were used to select enriched samples of $b$ and light quark events, and reconstructed charmed mesons were used to select $c$ quark events. We measured the charged multiplicities: $\bar{n}_{uds} = 20.21 \pm 0.10 (\rm{stat.})\pm 0.22(\rm{syst.})$, $\bar{n}_{c} = 21.28 \pm 0.46(\rm{stat.}) ^{+0.41}_{-0.36}(\rm{syst.})$ $\bar{n}_{b} = 23.14 \pm 0.10(\rm{stat.}) ^{+0.38}_{-0.37}(\rm{syst.})$, from which we derived the differences between the total average charged multiplicities of $c$ or $b$ quark events and light quark events: $\Delta \bar{n}_c = 1.07 \pm 0.47(\rm{stat.})^{+0.36}_{-0.30}(\rm{syst.})$ and $\Delta \bar{n}_b = 2.93 \pm 0.14(\rm{stat.})^{+0.30}_{-0.29}(\rm{syst.})$. We compared these measurements with those at lower center-of-mass energies and with perturbative QCD predictions. These combined results are in agreement with the QCD expectations and disfavor the hypothesis of flavor-independent fragmentation.Comment: 19 pages LaTex, 4 EPS figures, to appear in Physics Letters

Evidence for the Rare Decay B -> K*ll and Measurement of the B -> Kll Branching Fraction

We present evidence for the flavor-changing neutral current decay $B\to K^*\ell^+\ell^-$ and a measurement of the branching fraction for the related process $B\to K\ell^+\ell^-$, where $\ell^+\ell^-$ is either an $e^+e^-$ or $\mu^+\mu^-$ pair. These decays are highly suppressed in the Standard Model, and they are sensitive to contributions from new particles in the intermediate state. The data sample comprises $123\times 10^6$ $\Upsilon(4S)\to B\bar{B}$ decays collected with the Babar detector at the PEP-II $e^+e^-$ storage ring. Averaging over $K^{(*)}$ isospin and lepton flavor, we obtain the branching fractions ${\mathcal B}(B\to K\ell^+\ell^-)=(0.65^{+0.14}_{-0.13}\pm 0.04)\times 10^{-6}$ and ${\mathcal B}(B\to K^*\ell^+\ell^-)=(0.88^{+0.33}_{-0.29}\pm 0.10)\times 10^{-6}$, where the uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively. The significance of the $B\to K\ell^+\ell^-$ signal is over $8\sigma$, while for $B\to K^*\ell^+\ell^-$ it is $3.3\sigma$.Comment: 7 pages, 2 postscript figues, submitted to Phys. Rev. Let