Thirty-six participants were given three social discounting surveys, and each survey was preceded by one of three contrived hypothetical scenarios. In each scenario, the participant was asked to consider situations in which either the participant (SELF), a hypothetical other (OTHER), or both the participant and the hypothetical other (BOTH) were experiencing economic hardship (i.e., needed money to avoid a negative outcome). Results replicate previous research suggesting that the probability of participants foregoing the money decreased across social distance in the BOTH and OTHER conditions; however, no discounting was observed for median responses in the SELF condition. In addition, the highest area under the curve and lowest s values were associated with the OTHER condition, and the inverse results were observed for the SELF condition. Taken together, these results suggest that relative economic hardship may act as a motivating operation affecting social discounting with the potential for further translational utility.
The research questions guiding this paper are: What is the role of collaboration in schools implementing data-driven decision making? What evidence do we see of collaborative cultures versus contrived collegiality?
Thus, these findings suggest that good things might happen when teachers collaborate around data use in schools and districts with high capacity. They do not inform us about what might happen in schools and districts with lower capacity. Hargreaves (1994) may predict that contrived collegiality would be more likely to result in schools where there is distrust among teachers and between administrators and the teaching staff. Such schools often have tremendous need for building instructional and organizational capacity, a problem which would not be solved simply by introducing data use (Hatch 2011).
During the early months of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinical specimens were not readily available to developers of IVDs to detect SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, the FDA authorized IVDs based on available data from contrived samples generated from a range of SARS-CoV-2 material sources (for example, gene specific RNA, synthetic RNA, or whole genome viral RNA) for analytical and clinical performance evaluation. While validation using these contrived specimens provided a measure of confidence in test performance at the beginning of the pandemic, it is not feasible to precisely compare the performance of various tests that used contrived specimens because each test validated performance using samples derived from different gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid sources.
From February through the middle of May, the FDA issued a total of 59 EUAs for IVDs for the qualitative detection of nucleic acid from SARS-CoV-2 based on validation data using contrived specimens derived from SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA. As the pandemic progressed and more patient specimens became available, on May 11, 2020, the FDA recommended in the Policy for Coronavirus Disease-2019 Tests that developers obtain and use patient specimens to validate their tests.
The FDA SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel was first provided to all developers of authorized IVD EUAs that used contrived samples to validate their assay and is provided to all developers who request an EUA for SARS-CoV-2 NAATs. In general, FDA's EUAs require developers to evaluate and submit the analytical limit of detection and assess traceability of their product with any FDA-recommended reference material as a condition of the authorization. As explained above, assessment of assay performance using the FDA SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel allows for a consistent determination of the relative sensitivity of these tests and cross-reactivity with MERS-CoV virus.
This essay explores the complex history of contrived photographs of Native American Indians created by non-Native photographers around the turn of the twentieth century. Based on research and surveys this essay overviews issues associated with contrived photographs, colonial narratives of history, and offers perspectives and survey feedback on practices that could improve archival description of controversial historical photographs of American Indians found in archives around the world.
Too many contrived coincidences may result in One Degree of Separation. For a more grandiose or plot-wrapping version, see Deus ex Machina. A person who is a Weirdness Magnet tends to be a walking contrived coincidence. Often, these can disguise a Gambit Roulette as The Plan. If the story's premise is this trope or relies on it, it's It Began with a Twist of Fate instead. Framing the Guilty Party invokes this trope when the one doing the framing didn't know that party was already guilty.
This publication is available at -24-employment-allowance-avoidance-scheme-contrived-arrangements-caught-by-existing-rules/spotlight-24-employment-allowance-avoidance-scheme-contrived-arrangements-caught-by-existing-rules
This scheme sounds too good to be true and it is. There is a targeted anti-avoidance rule included within the EA. Therefore, attempted avoidance schemes like this, which seek to use artificial and contrived arrangements to get an unintended advantage, do not work.
My reason for considering using this type of 'contrived' key is:The information in the concatenated column is most likely sufficient to be able to identify the record without the need to extract all the primary key fields (would this be better for performance or no different compared to using all the 4 primary key fields?)
Of course if this feels like a 'natural' or 'artificial' key discussion feel free to say so. My feeling is that this 'contrived' key would proffer the advantages of a both. Has anyone used this idea in a real world solution?
In my own experience every time I've run into one of these contrived keys, while it might look like a good idea on paper, they've always caused problems. Essentially it's a form of denormalisation if Family Changes ie some one get's married or divorced, now you either change it in both, or you you lose how it was contrived. Unless I'm held at gun point I always choose data integrity over performance.
Do you remember the scenes with Rey and Kylo Ren? They were contrived as hell, Rian Johnson wanted them to share scenes together rather than continue the story naturally (from what you have) like any writer would.
This Article provides a simple principle for resolving this puzzle. It begins, in Part I, by resolving the underlying confusion in contract law about duress and contract modifications. I submit that this confusion can be resolved with the following simple principle: a threat to engage in otherwise-lawful action that induces contract modification is unlawfully coercive only when the threat is contrived, meaning that the threatened action would not have occurred if no threat could have been made.
The essence of the normative justification can easily be summarized. When a threat is not contrived, any legal prohibition that prevented the party from communicating the threat would, by definition, result in the threatened action. Moreover, because the threat, if made, would have induced the contract modification, both sides must, by definition, have thought that they were better off with the contract modification than with the threatened action. Deterring these threats would harm both parties. In such cases, communicating the planned action is less a threat than an uncontrived warning of what is coming, which gives the parties an opportunity to agree on an alternative that makes them both better off.
In contrast, when the threat is contrived, preventing the threat would not result in the threatened action, and the parties would stick to the initial contract. Preventing such a contrived threat would clearly leave the threat recipient better off because he prefers the preexisting contract. Ex post, preventing the contrived threat would leave the threatener worse off because she prefers the modification that the threat could have induced. But if the modification raises total value for both parties, a threat is unnecessary to achieve that modification because it could be achieved with a bonus that shares the joint gain. If, in contrast, the modification would reduce total value, then the prospect of such welfare-reducing threats would (if they were allowed) be priced into the contract and reduce reliance on the contract in a way that would harm both parties. Moreover, sometimes a contrived threat will not succeed in inducing contract modification and will then be carried out, which will leave both parties worse off than if the preexisting contract had continued. An ability to make such threats might also result in the other side making welfare-reducing threats of its own. Thus, ex ante, both parties would be better off preventing contrived threats.
A contrived threat is thus not the same as a bluff, because contrived threats are often credible. Nor are contrived threats harmless when they are bluffs. Bluffs can be very effective in coercing agreements when the victim is mistaken or even just unsure about the credibility of the threat. Indeed, if the bluff induced the victim to accept an adverse modification, it must have appeared credible enough to the victim. Nor is harm avoided when the victim rejects a modification. If a victim does so because he wrongly perceived that the threat was not credible, the threat will be carried out, harming both parties. If a victim does so because he correctly perceived that the threat was not credible, the threat will not be carried out but will still have created unnecessary conflict and negotiation costs. It is thus always better to deter a contrived threat from being made (by eliminating any possible gain from it), regardless of how credible the threat might have been or seemed.
Legally, an important benefit of using a contrived-threat test is not only that it is normatively desirable but also that, as Part I shows, the contrived-threat test descriptively explains many features and conclusions of contract law, whereas scholars who advocate a credibility test acknowledge that their test bears no relationship to existing contract law. Under contract law, a modification without mutual consideration is unenforceable if induced by a contrived threat, and a modification with mutual consideration is unenforceable if induced by a contrived threat to take action that would leave the victim significantly worse off.