0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

Last modified by Ryan C on 2025/06/26 03:09

From version 77.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/03/16 06:43
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 94.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/04/16 00:43
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -1,34 +1,124 @@
1 1  = Research at a Glance =
2 2  
3 -== Introduction ==
4 4  
5 -Welcome to the **Research at a Glance** repository. This section serves as a **centralized reference hub** for key academic studies related to various fields such as **social psychology, public policy, behavioral economics, and more**. Each study is categorized for easy navigation and presented in a **collapsible format** to maintain a clean layout.
6 6  
7 -=== How to Use This Repository ===
5 + Welcome to the **Research at a Glance** repository. This section serves as a **centralized reference hub** for key academic studies related to various important Racial themes. Each study is categorized for easy navigation and presented in a **collapsible format** to maintain a clean layout. I wanted to make this for a couple of reasons. Number one is organization. There are a ton of useful studies out there that expose the truth, sometimes inadvertently. You'll notice that in this initial draft the summaries are often woke and reflect the bias of the AI writing them as well as the researchers politically correct conclusion in most cases. That's because I haven't gotten to going through and pointing out the reasons I put all of them in here.
8 8  
7 +
8 + There is often an underlying hypocrisy or double standard, saying the quiet part out loud, or conclusions that are so much of an antithesis to what the data shows that made me want to include it. At least, thats the idea for once its polished. I have about 150 more studies to upload, so it will be a few weeks before I get through it all. Until such time, feel free to search for them yourself and edit in what you find, or add your own studies. If you like you can do it manually, or if you'd rather go the route I did, just rename the study to its doi number and feed the study into an AI and tell them to summarize the study using the following format:
9 +
10 +{{example}}
11 +~= Study: [Study Title] =
12 +
13 +~{~{expand title="Study: [Study Title] (Click to Expand)" expanded="false"}}
14 +~*~*Source:~*~* *[Journal/Institution Name]*
15 +~*~*Date of Publication:~*~* *[Publication Date]*
16 +~*~*Author(s):~*~* *[Author(s) Name(s)]*
17 +~*~*Title:~*~* *"[Study Title]"*
18 +~*~*DOI:~*~* [DOI or Link]
19 +~*~*Subject Matter:~*~* *[Broad Research Area, e.g., Social Psychology, Public Policy, Behavioral Economics]* 
20 +
21 +~-~--
22 +
23 +~#~# ~*~*Key Statistics~*~*
24 +~1. ~*~*General Observations:~*~*
25 + - [Statistical finding or observation]
26 + - [Statistical finding or observation]
27 +
28 +2. ~*~*Subgroup Analysis:~*~*
29 + - [Breakdown of findings by gender, race, or other subgroups]
30 +
31 +3. ~*~*Other Significant Data Points:~*~*
32 + - [Any additional findings or significant statistics]
33 +
34 +~-~--
35 +
36 +~#~# ~*~*Findings~*~*
37 +~1. ~*~*Primary Observations:~*~*
38 + - [High-level findings or trends in the study]
39 +
40 +2. ~*~*Subgroup Trends:~*~*
41 + - [Disparities or differences highlighted in the study]
42 +
43 +3. ~*~*Specific Case Analysis:~*~*
44 + - [Detailed explanation of any notable specific findings]
45 +
46 +~-~--
47 +
48 +~#~# ~*~*Critique and Observations~*~*
49 +~1. ~*~*Strengths of the Study:~*~*
50 + - [Examples: strong methodology, large dataset, etc.]
51 +
52 +2. ~*~*Limitations of the Study:~*~*
53 + - [Examples: data gaps, lack of upstream analysis, etc.]
54 +
55 +3. ~*~*Suggestions for Improvement:~*~*
56 + - [Ideas for further research or addressing limitations]
57 +
58 +~-~--
59 +
60 +~#~# ~*~*Relevance to Subproject~*~*
61 +- [Explanation of how this study contributes to your subproject goals.]
62 +- [Any key arguments or findings that support or challenge your views.]
63 +
64 +~-~--
65 +
66 +~#~# ~*~*Suggestions for Further Exploration~*~*
67 +~1. [Research questions or areas to investigate further.]
68 +2. [Potential studies or sources to complement this analysis.]
69 +
70 +~-~--
71 +
72 +~#~# ~*~*Summary of Research Study~*~*
73 +This study examines ~*~*[core research question or focus]~*~*, providing insights into ~*~*[main subject area]~*~*. The research utilized ~*~*[sample size and methodology]~*~* to assess ~*~*[key variables or measured outcomes]~*~*. 
74 +
75 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
76 +
77 +~-~--
78 +
79 +~#~# ~*~*📄 Download Full Study~*~*
80 +~{~{velocity}}
81 +#set($doi = "[Insert DOI Here]")
82 +#set($filename = "${doi}.pdf")
83 +#if($xwiki.exists("attach~:$filename"))
84 +~[~[Download Full Study>>attach~:$filename]]
85 +#else
86 +~{~{html}}<span style="color:red; font-weight:bold;">🚨 PDF Not Available 🚨</span>~{~{/html}}
87 +#end
88 +~{~{/velocity}}
89 +
90 +~{~{/expand}}
91 +
92 +
93 +{{/example}}
94 +
95 +
96 +
9 9  - Click on a **category** in the **Table of Contents** to browse studies related to that topic.
10 10  - Click on a **study title** to expand its details, including **key findings, critique, and relevance**.
11 11  - Use the **search function** (Ctrl + F or XWiki's built-in search) to quickly find specific topics or authors.
12 12  - If needed, you can export this page as **PDF or print-friendly format**, and all studies will automatically expand for readability.
101 +- You'll also find a download link to the original full study in pdf form at the bottom of the collapsible block.
13 13  
14 14  
104 +{{toc/}}
15 15  
16 -== Research Studies Repository ==
17 17  
107 +
108 +
109 +
18 18  = Genetics =
19 19  
20 -== Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History ==
21 -{{expand title="Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History" expanded="false"}}
112 +
113 +{{expandable summary="Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}}
22 22  **Source:** *Nature*
23 23  **Date of Publication:** *2009*
24 24  **Author(s):** *David Reich, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price, Lalji Singh*
25 25  **Title:** *"Reconstructing Indian Population History"*
26 26  **DOI:** [10.1038/nature08365](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08365)
27 -**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Population History, South Asian Ancestry*
119 +**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Population History, South Asian Ancestry* 
28 28  
29 ----
30 -
31 -## **Key Statistics**
121 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
32 32  1. **General Observations:**
33 33   - Study analyzed **132 individuals from 25 diverse Indian groups**.
34 34   - Identified two major ancestral populations: **Ancestral North Indians (ANI)** and **Ancestral South Indians (ASI)**.
... ... @@ -40,10 +40,9 @@
40 40  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
41 41   - ANI ancestry ranges from **39% to 71%** across Indian groups.
42 42   - **Caste and linguistic differences** strongly correlate with genetic variation.
133 +{{/expandable}}
43 43  
44 ----
45 -
46 -## **Findings**
135 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
47 47  1. **Primary Observations:**
48 48   - The genetic landscape of India has been shaped by **thousands of years of endogamy**.
49 49   - Groups with **only ASI ancestry no longer exist** in mainland India.
... ... @@ -55,10 +55,9 @@
55 55  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
56 56   - **Founder effects** have maintained allele frequency differences among Indian groups.
57 57   - Predicts **higher incidence of recessive diseases** due to historical genetic isolation.
147 +{{/expandable}}
58 58  
59 ----
60 -
61 -## **Critique and Observations**
149 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
62 62  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
63 63   - **First large-scale genetic analysis** of Indian population history.
64 64   - Introduces **new methods for ancestry estimation without direct ancestral reference groups**.
... ... @@ -70,49 +70,39 @@
70 70  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
71 71   - Future research should **expand sampling across more Indian tribal groups**.
72 72   - Use **whole-genome sequencing** for finer resolution of ancestry.
161 +{{/expandable}}
73 73  
74 ----
75 -
76 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
163 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
77 77  - Provides a **genetic basis for caste and linguistic diversity** in India.
78 78  - Highlights **founder effects and genetic drift** shaping South Asian populations.
79 79  - Supports research on **medical genetics and disease risk prediction** in Indian populations.
167 +{{/expandable}}
80 80  
81 ----
82 -
83 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
169 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
84 84  1. Examine **genetic markers linked to disease susceptibility** in Indian subpopulations.
85 85  2. Investigate the impact of **recent migration patterns on ANI-ASI ancestry distribution**.
86 86  3. Study **gene flow between Indian populations and other global groups**.
173 +{{/expandable}}
87 87  
88 ----
89 -
90 -## **Summary of Research Study**
91 -This study reconstructs **the genetic history of India**, revealing two ancestral populations—**ANI (related to West Eurasians) and ASI (distinctly South Asian)**. By analyzing **25 diverse Indian groups**, the researchers demonstrate how **historical endogamy and founder effects** have maintained genetic differentiation. The findings have **implications for medical genetics, population history, and the study of South Asian ancestry**.
92 -
93 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
94 -
95 ----
96 -
97 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
175 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
98 98  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature08365.pdf]]
177 +##
178 + ##
179 +{{/expandable}}
180 +{{/expandable}}
99 99  
100 -{{/expand}}
182 +{{expandable summary="
101 101  
102 102  
103 -
104 -== Study: The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations ==
105 -{{expand title="Study: The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations" expanded="false"}}
185 +Study: The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"}}
106 106  **Source:** *Nature*
107 107  **Date of Publication:** *2016*
108 108  **Author(s):** *David Reich, Swapan Mallick, Heng Li, Mark Lipson, and others*
109 109  **Title:** *"The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"*
110 110  **DOI:** [10.1038/nature18964](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18964)
111 -**Subject Matter:** *Human Genetic Diversity, Population History, Evolutionary Genomics*
191 +**Subject Matter:** *Human Genetic Diversity, Population History, Evolutionary Genomics* 
112 112  
113 ----
114 -
115 -## **Key Statistics**
193 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
116 116  1. **General Observations:**
117 117   - Analyzed **high-coverage genome sequences of 300 individuals from 142 populations**.
118 118   - Included **many underrepresented and indigenous groups** from Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas.
... ... @@ -124,10 +124,9 @@
124 124  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
125 125   - Identified **5.8 million base pairs absent from the human reference genome**.
126 126   - Estimated that **mutations have accumulated 5% faster in non-Africans than in Africans**.
205 +{{/expandable}}
127 127  
128 ----
129 -
130 -## **Findings**
207 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
131 131  1. **Primary Observations:**
132 132   - **African populations harbor the greatest genetic diversity**, confirming an out-of-Africa dispersal model.
133 133   - Indigenous Australians and New Guineans **share a common ancestral population with other non-Africans**.
... ... @@ -139,10 +139,9 @@
139 139  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
140 140   - **Neanderthal ancestry is higher in East Asians than in Europeans**.
141 141   - African hunter-gatherer groups show **deep population splits over 100,000 years ago**.
219 +{{/expandable}}
142 142  
143 ----
144 -
145 -## **Critique and Observations**
221 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
146 146  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
147 147   - **Largest global genetic dataset** outside of the 1000 Genomes Project.
148 148   - High sequencing depth allows **more accurate identification of genetic variants**.
... ... @@ -154,48 +154,39 @@
154 154  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
155 155   - Future studies should include **ancient genomes** to improve demographic modeling.
156 156   - Expand research into **how genetic variation affects health outcomes** across populations.
233 +{{/expandable}}
157 157  
158 ----
159 -
160 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
235 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
161 161  - Provides **comprehensive data on human genetic diversity**, useful for **evolutionary studies**.
162 162  - Supports research on **Neanderthal and Denisovan introgression** in modern human populations.
163 163  - Enhances understanding of **genetic adaptation and disease susceptibility across groups**.
239 +{{/expandable}}
164 164  
165 ----
166 -
167 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
241 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
168 168  1. Investigate **functional consequences of genetic variation in underrepresented populations**.
169 169  2. Study **how selection pressures shaped genetic diversity across different environments**.
170 170  3. Explore **medical applications of population-specific genetic markers**.
245 +{{/expandable}}
171 171  
172 ----
173 -
174 -## **Summary of Research Study**
175 -This study presents **high-coverage genome sequences from 300 individuals across 142 populations**, offering **new insights into global genetic diversity and human evolution**. The findings highlight **deep African population splits, widespread archaic ancestry in non-Africans, and unique variants absent from the human reference genome**. The research enhances our understanding of **migration patterns, adaptation, and evolutionary history**.
176 -
177 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
178 -
179 ----
180 -
181 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
247 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
182 182  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature18964.pdf]]
249 +##
250 + ##
251 +{{/expandable}}
252 +{{/expandable}}
183 183  
184 -{{/expand}}
254 +{{expandable summary="
185 185  
186 186  
187 -== Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies ==
188 -{{expand title="Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies" expanded="false"}}
257 +Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"}}
189 189  **Source:** *Nature Genetics*
190 190  **Date of Publication:** *2015*
191 191  **Author(s):** *Tinca J. C. Polderman, Beben Benyamin, Christiaan A. de Leeuw, Patrick F. Sullivan, Arjen van Bochoven, Peter M. Visscher, Danielle Posthuma*
192 192  **Title:** *"Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"*
193 193  **DOI:** [10.1038/ng.328](https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.328)
194 -**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Heritability, Twin Studies, Behavioral Science*
263 +**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Heritability, Twin Studies, Behavioral Science* 
195 195  
196 ----
197 -
198 -## **Key Statistics**
265 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
199 199  1. **General Observations:**
200 200   - Analyzed **17,804 traits from 2,748 twin studies** published between **1958 and 2012**.
201 201   - Included data from **14,558,903 twin pairs**, making it the largest meta-analysis on human heritability.
... ... @@ -207,25 +207,23 @@
207 207  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
208 208   - **Neurological, metabolic, and psychiatric traits** showed the highest heritability estimates.
209 209   - Traits related to **social values and environmental interactions** had lower heritability estimates.
277 +{{/expandable}}
210 210  
211 ----
212 -
213 -## **Findings**
279 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
214 214  1. **Primary Observations:**
215 215   - Across all traits, genetic factors play a significant role in individual differences.
216 216   - The study contradicts models that **overestimate environmental effects in behavioral and cognitive traits**.
217 217  
218 218  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
219 - - **Eye and brain-related traits showed the highest heritability (~70-80%)**.
285 + - **Eye and brain-related traits showed the highest heritability (70-80%)**.
220 220   - **Shared environmental effects were negligible (<10%) for most traits**.
221 221  
222 222  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
223 223   - Twin correlations suggest **limited evidence for strong non-additive genetic influences**.
224 224   - The study highlights **missing heritability in complex traits**, which genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have yet to fully explain.
291 +{{/expandable}}
225 225  
226 ----
227 -
228 -## **Critique and Observations**
293 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
229 229  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
230 230   - **Largest-ever heritability meta-analysis**, covering nearly all published twin studies.
231 231   - Provides a **comprehensive framework for understanding gene-environment contributions**.
... ... @@ -237,48 +237,37 @@
237 237  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
238 238   - Future research should use **whole-genome sequencing** for finer-grained heritability estimates.
239 239   - **Incorporate non-Western populations** to assess global heritability trends.
305 +{{/expandable}}
240 240  
241 ----
242 -
243 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
307 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
244 244  - Establishes a **quantitative benchmark for heritability across human traits**.
245 245  - Reinforces **genetic influence on cognitive, behavioral, and physical traits**.
246 246  - Highlights the need for **genome-wide studies to identify missing heritability**.
311 +{{/expandable}}
247 247  
248 ----
249 -
250 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
313 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
251 251  1. Investigate how **heritability estimates compare across different socioeconomic backgrounds**.
252 252  2. Examine **gene-environment interactions in cognitive and psychiatric traits**.
253 253  3. Explore **non-additive genetic effects on human traits using newer statistical models**.
317 +{{/expandable}}
254 254  
255 ----
256 -
257 -## **Summary of Research Study**
258 -This study presents a **comprehensive meta-analysis of human trait heritability**, covering **over 50 years of twin research**. The findings confirm **genes play a predominant role in shaping human traits**, with an **average heritability of 49%** across all measured characteristics. The research offers **valuable insights into genetic and environmental influences**, guiding future gene-mapping efforts and behavioral genetics studies.
259 -
260 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
261 -
262 ----
263 -
264 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
319 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
265 265  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_ng.328.pdf]]
321 +{{/expandable}}
322 +{{/expandable}}
266 266  
267 -{{/expand}}
324 +{{expandable summary="
268 268  
269 269  
270 -== Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease ==
271 -{{expand title="Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease" expanded="false"}}
327 +Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease"}}
272 272  **Source:** *Nature Reviews Genetics*
273 273  **Date of Publication:** *2002*
274 274  **Author(s):** *Sarah A. Tishkoff, Scott M. Williams*
275 275  **Title:** *"Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease"*
276 276  **DOI:** [10.1038/nrg865](https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg865)
277 -**Subject Matter:** *Population Genetics, Human Evolution, Complex Diseases*
333 +**Subject Matter:** *Population Genetics, Human Evolution, Complex Diseases* 
278 278  
279 ----
280 -
281 -## **Key Statistics**
335 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
282 282  1. **General Observations:**
283 283   - Africa harbors **the highest genetic diversity** of any region, making it key to understanding human evolution.
284 284   - The study analyzes **genetic variation and linkage disequilibrium (LD) in African populations**.
... ... @@ -290,10 +290,9 @@
290 290  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
291 291   - The **effective population size (Ne) of Africans** is higher than that of non-African populations.
292 292   - LD blocks are **shorter in African genomes**, suggesting more historical recombination events.
347 +{{/expandable}}
293 293  
294 ----
295 -
296 -## **Findings**
349 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
297 297  1. **Primary Observations:**
298 298   - African populations are the **most genetically diverse**, supporting the *Recent African Origin* hypothesis.
299 299   - Genetic variation in African populations can **help fine-map complex disease genes**.
... ... @@ -305,10 +305,9 @@
305 305  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
306 306   - Admixture in African Americans includes **West African and European genetic contributions**.
307 307   - SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) diversity in African genomes **exceeds that of non-African groups**.
361 +{{/expandable}}
308 308  
309 ----
310 -
311 -## **Critique and Observations**
363 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
312 312  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
313 313   - Provides **comprehensive genetic analysis** of diverse African populations.
314 314   - Highlights **how genetic diversity impacts health disparities and disease risks**.
... ... @@ -320,48 +320,37 @@
320 320  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
321 321   - Expand research into **underrepresented African populations**.
322 322   - Integrate **whole-genome sequencing for a more detailed evolutionary timeline**.
375 +{{/expandable}}
323 323  
324 ----
325 -
326 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
377 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
327 327  - Supports **genetic models of human evolution** and the **out-of-Africa hypothesis**.
328 328  - Reinforces **Africa’s key role in disease gene mapping and precision medicine**.
329 329  - Provides insight into **historical migration patterns and their genetic impact**.
381 +{{/expandable}}
330 330  
331 ----
332 -
333 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
383 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
334 334  1. Investigate **genetic adaptations to local environments within Africa**.
335 335  2. Study **the role of African genetic diversity in disease resistance**.
336 336  3. Expand research on **how ancient migration patterns shaped modern genetic structure**.
387 +{{/expandable}}
337 337  
338 ----
339 -
340 -## **Summary of Research Study**
341 -This study explores the **genetic diversity of African populations**, analyzing their role in **human evolution and complex disease research**. The findings highlight **Africa’s unique genetic landscape**, confirming it as the most genetically diverse continent. The research provides valuable insights into **how genetic variation influences disease susceptibility, evolution, and population structure**.
342 -
343 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
344 -
345 ----
346 -
347 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
389 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
348 348  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nrg865MODERN.pdf]]
391 +{{/expandable}}
392 +{{/expandable}}
349 349  
350 -{{/expand}}
394 +{{expandable summary="
351 351  
352 352  
353 -== Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA ==
354 -{{expand title="Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA" expanded="false"}}
397 +Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA"}}
355 355  **Source:** *bioRxiv Preprint*
356 356  **Date of Publication:** *September 15, 2024*
357 357  **Author(s):** *Ali Akbari, Alison R. Barton, Steven Gazal, Zheng Li, Mohammadreza Kariminejad, et al.*
358 358  **Title:** *"Pervasive findings of directional selection realize the promise of ancient DNA to elucidate human adaptation"*
359 359  **DOI:** [10.1101/2024.09.14.613021](https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.14.613021)
360 -**Subject Matter:** *Genomics, Evolutionary Biology, Natural Selection*
403 +**Subject Matter:** *Genomics, Evolutionary Biology, Natural Selection* 
361 361  
362 ----
363 -
364 -## **Key Statistics**
405 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
365 365  1. **General Observations:**
366 366   - Study analyzes **8,433 ancient individuals** from the past **14,000 years**.
367 367   - Identifies **347 genome-wide significant loci** showing strong selection.
... ... @@ -373,10 +373,9 @@
373 373  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
374 374   - **10,000 years of directional selection** affected metabolic, immune, and cognitive traits.
375 375   - **Strong selection signals** found for traits like **skin pigmentation, cognitive function, and immunity**.
417 +{{/expandable}}
376 376  
377 ----
378 -
379 -## **Findings**
419 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
380 380  1. **Primary Observations:**
381 381   - **Hundreds of alleles have been subject to directional selection** over recent millennia.
382 382   - Traits like **immune function, metabolism, and cognitive performance** show strong selection.
... ... @@ -389,10 +389,9 @@
389 389   - **Celiac disease risk allele** increased from **0% to 20%** in 4,000 years.
390 390   - **Blood type B frequency rose from 0% to 8% in 6,000 years**.
391 391   - **Tuberculosis risk allele** fluctuated from **2% to 9% over 3,000 years before declining**.
432 +{{/expandable}}
392 392  
393 ----
394 -
395 -## **Critique and Observations**
434 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
396 396  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
397 397   - **Largest dataset to date** on natural selection in human ancient DNA.
398 398   - Uses **direct allele frequency tracking instead of indirect measures**.
... ... @@ -404,45 +404,37 @@
404 404  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
405 405   - Expanding research to **other global populations** to assess universal trends.
406 406   - Investigating **long-term evolutionary trade-offs of selected alleles**.
446 +{{/expandable}}
407 407  
408 ----
409 -
410 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
448 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
411 411  - Provides **direct evidence of long-term genetic adaptation** in human populations.
412 412  - Supports theories on **polygenic selection shaping human cognition, metabolism, and immunity**.
413 413  - Highlights **how past selection pressures may still influence modern health and disease prevalence**.
452 +{{/expandable}}
414 414  
415 ----
416 -
417 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
454 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
418 418  1. Examine **selection patterns in non-European populations** for comparison.
419 419  2. Investigate **how environmental and cultural shifts influenced genetic selection**.
420 420  3. Explore **the genetic basis of traits linked to past and present-day human survival**.
458 +{{/expandable}}
421 421  
422 ----
423 -
424 -## **Summary of Research Study**
425 -This study examines **how human genetic adaptation has unfolded over 14,000 years**, using a **large dataset of ancient DNA**. It highlights **strong selection on immune function, metabolism, and cognitive traits**, revealing **hundreds of loci affected by directional selection**. The findings emphasize **the power of ancient DNA in tracking human evolution and adaptation**.
426 -
427 ----
428 -
429 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
460 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
430 430  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1101_2024.09.14.613021doi_.pdf]]
462 +{{/expandable}}
463 +{{/expandable}}
431 431  
432 -{{/expand}}
465 +{{expandable summary="
433 433  
434 -== Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age ==
435 -{{expand title="Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age" expanded="false"}}
467 +
468 +Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"}}
436 436  **Source:** *Twin Research and Human Genetics (Cambridge University Press)*
437 437  **Date of Publication:** *2013*
438 438  **Author(s):** *Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.*
439 439  **Title:** *"The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"*
440 440  **DOI:** [10.1017/thg.2013.54](https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2013.54)
441 -**Subject Matter:** *Intelligence, Heritability, Developmental Psychology*
474 +**Subject Matter:** *Intelligence, Heritability, Developmental Psychology* 
442 442  
443 ----
444 -
445 -## **Key Statistics**
476 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
446 446  1. **General Observations:**
447 447   - The study documents how the **heritability of IQ increases with age**, reaching an asymptote at **0.80 by adulthood**.
448 448   - Analysis is based on **longitudinal twin and adoption studies**.
... ... @@ -454,10 +454,9 @@
454 454  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
455 455   - Data from the **Louisville Longitudinal Twin Study and cross-national twin samples** support findings.
456 456   - IQ stability over time is **influenced more by genetics than by shared environmental factors**.
488 +{{/expandable}}
457 457  
458 ----
459 -
460 -## **Findings**
490 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
461 461  1. **Primary Observations:**
462 462   - Intelligence heritability **strengthens throughout development**, contrary to early environmental models.
463 463   - Shared environmental effects **decrease by late adolescence**, emphasizing **genetic influence in adulthood**.
... ... @@ -469,10 +469,9 @@
469 469  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
470 470   - Longitudinal adoption studies show **declining impact of adoptive parental influence on IQ** as children age.
471 471   - Cross-sectional twin data confirm **higher IQ correlations for monozygotic twins in adulthood**.
502 +{{/expandable}}
472 472  
473 ----
474 -
475 -## **Critique and Observations**
504 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
476 476  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
477 477   - **Robust dataset covering multiple twin and adoption studies over decades**.
478 478   - **Clear, replicable trend** demonstrating the increasing role of genetics in intelligence.
... ... @@ -484,47 +484,37 @@
484 484  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
485 485   - Future research should investigate **gene-environment interactions in cognitive aging**.
486 486   - Examine **heritability trends in non-Western populations** to determine cross-cultural consistency.
516 +{{/expandable}}
487 487  
488 ----
489 -
490 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
518 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
491 491  - Provides **strong evidence for the genetic basis of intelligence**.
492 492  - Highlights the **diminishing role of shared environment in cognitive development**.
493 493  - Supports research on **cognitive aging and heritability across the lifespan**.
522 +{{/expandable}}
494 494  
495 ----
496 -
497 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
524 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
498 498  1. Investigate **neurogenetic pathways underlying IQ development**.
499 499  2. Examine **how education and socioeconomic factors interact with genetic IQ influences**.
500 500  3. Study **heritability trends in aging populations and cognitive decline**.
528 +{{/expandable}}
501 501  
502 ----
503 -
504 -## **Summary of Research Study**
505 -This study documents **The Wilson Effect**, demonstrating how the **heritability of IQ increases throughout development**, reaching a plateau of **0.80 by adulthood**. The findings indicate that **shared environmental effects diminish with age**, while **genetic influences on intelligence strengthen**. Using **longitudinal twin and adoption data**, the research provides **strong empirical support for the increasing role of genetics in cognitive ability over time**.
506 -
507 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
508 -
509 ----
510 -
511 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
530 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
512 512  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1017_thg.2013.54.pdf]]
532 +{{/expandable}}
533 +{{/expandable}}
513 513  
514 -{{/expand}}
535 +{{expandable summary="
515 515  
516 -== Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications ==
517 -{{expand title="Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications" expanded="false"}}
537 +
538 +Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"}}
518 518  **Source:** *Medical Hypotheses (Elsevier)*
519 519  **Date of Publication:** *2010*
520 520  **Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley*
521 521  **Title:** *"Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"*
522 522  **DOI:** [10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046)
523 -**Subject Matter:** *Human Taxonomy, Evolutionary Biology, Anthropology*
544 +**Subject Matter:** *Human Taxonomy, Evolutionary Biology, Anthropology* 
524 524  
525 ----
526 -
527 -## **Key Statistics**
546 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
528 528  1. **General Observations:**
529 529   - The study argues that **Homo sapiens is polytypic**, meaning it consists of multiple subspecies rather than a single monotypic species.
530 530   - Examines **genetic diversity, morphological variation, and evolutionary lineage** in humans.
... ... @@ -536,10 +536,9 @@
536 536  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
537 537   - The study evaluates **FST values (genetic differentiation measure)** and argues that human genetic differentiation is comparable to that of recognized subspecies in other species.
538 538   - Considers **phylogenetic species concepts** in defining human variation.
558 +{{/expandable}}
539 539  
540 ----
541 -
542 -## **Findings**
560 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
543 543  1. **Primary Observations:**
544 544   - Proposes that **modern human populations meet biological criteria for subspecies classification**.
545 545   - Highlights **medical and evolutionary implications** of human taxonomic diversity.
... ... @@ -551,10 +551,9 @@
551 551  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
552 552   - Evaluates how **genetic markers correlate with population structure**.
553 553   - Addresses the **controversy over race classification in modern anthropology**.
572 +{{/expandable}}
554 554  
555 ----
556 -
557 -## **Critique and Observations**
574 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
558 558  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
559 559   - Uses **comparative species analysis** to assess human classification.
560 560   - Provides a **biological perspective** on the race concept, moving beyond social constructivism arguments.
... ... @@ -566,48 +566,37 @@
566 566  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
567 567   - Further research should **incorporate whole-genome studies** to refine subspecies classifications.
568 568   - Investigate **how admixture affects taxonomic classification over time**.
586 +{{/expandable}}
569 569  
570 ----
571 -
572 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
588 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
573 573  - Contributes to discussions on **evolutionary taxonomy and species classification**.
574 574  - Provides evidence on **genetic differentiation among human populations**.
575 575  - Highlights **historical and contemporary scientific debates on race and human variation**.
592 +{{/expandable}}
576 576  
577 ----
578 -
579 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
594 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
580 580  1. Examine **FST values in modern and ancient human populations**.
581 581  2. Investigate how **adaptive evolution influences population differentiation**.
582 582  3. Explore **the impact of genetic diversity on medical treatments and disease susceptibility**.
598 +{{/expandable}}
583 583  
584 ----
585 -
586 -## **Summary of Research Study**
587 -This study evaluates **whether Homo sapiens should be classified as a polytypic species**, analyzing **genetic diversity, evolutionary lineage, and morphological variation**. Using comparative analysis with other primates and mammals, the research suggests that **human populations meet biological criteria for subspecies classification**, with implications for **evolutionary biology, anthropology, and medicine**.
588 -
589 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
590 -
591 ----
592 -
593 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
600 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
594 594  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.mehy.2009.07.046.pdf]]
602 +{{/expandable}}
603 +{{/expandable}}
595 595  
596 -{{/expand}}
605 +{{expandable summary="
597 597  
598 598  
599 -== Study: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media ==
600 -{{expand title="Study: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media" expanded="false"}}
608 +Study: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"}}
601 601  **Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
602 602  **Date of Publication:** *2019*
603 603  **Author(s):** *Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, Thomas R. Coyle*
604 604  **Title:** *"Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"*
605 605  **DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406)
606 -**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Intelligence Research, Expert Analysis*
614 +**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Intelligence Research, Expert Analysis* 
607 607  
608 ----
609 -
610 -## **Key Statistics**
616 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
611 611  1. **General Observations:**
612 612   - Survey of **102 experts** on intelligence research and public discourse.
613 613   - Evaluated experts' backgrounds, political affiliations, and views on controversial topics in intelligence research.
... ... @@ -619,10 +619,9 @@
619 619  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
620 620   - Experts rated media coverage of intelligence research as **poor (avg. 3.1 on a 9-point scale)**.
621 621   - **50% of experts attributed US Black-White IQ differences to genetic factors, 50% to environmental factors**.
628 +{{/expandable}}
622 622  
623 ----
624 -
625 -## **Findings**
630 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
626 626  1. **Primary Observations:**
627 627   - Experts overwhelmingly support **the g-factor theory of intelligence**.
628 628   - **Heritability of intelligence** was widely accepted, though views differed on race and group differences.
... ... @@ -634,10 +634,9 @@
634 634  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
635 635   - The study compared **media coverage of intelligence research** with expert opinions.
636 636   - Found a **disconnect between journalists and intelligence researchers**, especially regarding politically sensitive issues.
642 +{{/expandable}}
637 637  
638 ----
639 -
640 -## **Critique and Observations**
644 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
641 641  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
642 642   - **Largest expert survey on intelligence research** to date.
643 643   - Provides insight into **how political orientation influences scientific perspectives**.
... ... @@ -649,48 +649,37 @@
649 649  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
650 650   - Future studies should include **a broader range of global experts**.
651 651   - Additional research needed on **media biases and misrepresentation of intelligence research**.
656 +{{/expandable}}
652 652  
653 ----
654 -
655 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
658 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
656 656  - Provides insight into **expert consensus and division on intelligence research**.
657 657  - Highlights the **role of media bias** in shaping public perception of intelligence science.
658 658  - Useful for understanding **the intersection of science, politics, and public discourse** on intelligence research.
662 +{{/expandable}}
659 659  
660 ----
661 -
662 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
664 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
663 663  1. Examine **cross-national differences** in expert opinions on intelligence.
664 664  2. Investigate how **media bias impacts public understanding of intelligence research**.
665 665  3. Conduct follow-up studies with **a more diverse expert pool** to test findings.
668 +{{/expandable}}
666 666  
667 ----
668 -
669 -## **Summary of Research Study**
670 -This study surveys **expert opinions on intelligence research**, analyzing **how backgrounds, political ideologies, and media representation influence perspectives on intelligence**. The findings highlight **divisions in scientific consensus**, particularly on **genetic vs. environmental causes of IQ disparities**. Additionally, the research uncovers **widespread dissatisfaction with media portrayals of intelligence research**, pointing to **the impact of ideological biases on public discourse**.
671 -
672 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
673 -
674 ----
675 -
676 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
670 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
677 677  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2019.101406.pdf]]
672 +{{/expandable}}
673 +{{/expandable}}
678 678  
679 -{{/expand}}
675 +{{expandable summary="
680 680  
681 681  
682 -== Study: A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation ==
683 -{{expand title="Study: A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation" expanded="false"}}
678 +Study: A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"}}
684 684  **Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
685 685  **Date of Publication:** *2015*
686 686  **Author(s):** *Davide Piffer*
687 687  **Title:** *"A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"*
688 688  **DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008)
689 -**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Intelligence, GWAS, Population Differences*
684 +**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Intelligence, GWAS, Population Differences* 
690 690  
691 ----
692 -
693 -## **Key Statistics**
686 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
694 694  1. **General Observations:**
695 695   - Study analyzed **genome-wide association studies (GWAS) hits** linked to intelligence.
696 696   - Found a **strong correlation (r = .91) between polygenic intelligence scores and national IQ levels**.
... ... @@ -702,10 +702,9 @@
702 702  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
703 703   - GWAS intelligence SNPs predicted **IQ levels more strongly than random genetic markers**.
704 704   - Genetic differentiation (Fst values) showed that **selection pressure, rather than drift, influenced intelligence-related allele distributions**.
698 +{{/expandable}}
705 705  
706 ----
707 -
708 -## **Findings**
700 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
709 709  1. **Primary Observations:**
710 710   - Intelligence-associated SNP frequencies correlate **highly with national IQ levels**.
711 711   - Genetic selection for intelligence appears **stronger than selection for height-related genes**.
... ... @@ -717,10 +717,9 @@
717 717  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
718 718   - Polygenic scores using **intelligence-related alleles significantly outperformed random SNPs** in predicting IQ.
719 719   - Selection pressures **may explain differences in global intelligence distribution** beyond genetic drift effects.
712 +{{/expandable}}
720 720  
721 ----
722 -
723 -## **Critique and Observations**
714 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
724 724  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
725 725   - **Comprehensive genetic analysis** of intelligence-linked SNPs.
726 726   - Uses **multiple statistical methods (factor analysis, Fst analysis) to confirm results**.
... ... @@ -732,84 +732,46 @@
732 732  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
733 733   - Larger **cross-population GWAS studies** needed to validate findings.
734 734   - Investigate **non-genetic contributors to IQ variance** in addition to genetic factors.
726 +{{/expandable}}
735 735  
736 ----
737 -
738 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
728 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
739 739  - Supports research on **genetic influences on intelligence at a population level**.
740 740  - Aligns with broader discussions on **cognitive genetics and natural selection effects**.
741 741  - Provides a **quantitative framework for analyzing polygenic selection in intelligence studies**.
732 +{{/expandable}}
742 742  
743 ----
744 -
745 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
734 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
746 746  1. Conduct **expanded GWAS studies** including diverse populations.
747 747  2. Investigate **gene-environment interactions influencing intelligence**.
748 748  3. Explore **historical selection pressures shaping intelligence-related alleles**.
738 +{{/expandable}}
749 749  
750 ----
751 -
752 -## **Summary of Research Study**
753 -This study reviews **genome-wide association study (GWAS) findings on intelligence**, demonstrating a **strong correlation between polygenic intelligence scores and national IQ levels**. The research highlights how **genetic selection may explain population-level cognitive differences beyond genetic drift effects**. Intelligence-linked alleles showed **higher variability across populations than height-related alleles**, suggesting stronger selection pressures.
754 -
755 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
756 -
757 ----
758 -
759 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
740 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
760 760  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2015.08.008.pdf]]
742 +{{/expandable}}
743 +{{/expandable}}
761 761  
762 -{{/expand}}
745 +{{expandable summary="
763 763  
764 -== Study: Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding ==
765 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Click here to expand details"}}
747 +
748 +Study: Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding"}}
766 766  **Source:** Journal of Genetic Epidemiology
767 767  **Date of Publication:** 2024-01-15
768 768  **Author(s):** Smith et al.
769 769  **Title:** "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies"
770 770  **DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235](https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235)
771 -**Subject Matter:** Genetics, Social Science
754 +**Subject Matter:** Genetics, Social Science 
755 +{{/expandable}}
772 772  
773 -**Tags:** `Genetics` `Race & Ethnicity` `Biomedical Research`
774 -
775 -=== **Key Statistics** ===
776 -
777 -1. **General Observations:**
778 - - A near-perfect alignment between self-identified race/ethnicity (SIRE) and genetic ancestry was observed.
779 - - Misclassification rate: **0.14%**.
780 -
781 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
782 - - Four groups analyzed: **White, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic**.
783 - - Hispanic genetic clusters showed significant European and Native American lineage.
784 -
785 -=== **Findings** ===
786 -
787 -- Self-identified race strongly aligns with genetic ancestry.
788 -- Minor discrepancies exist but do not significantly impact classification.
789 -
790 -=== **Relevance to Subproject** ===
791 -
792 -- Reinforces the reliability of **self-reported racial identity** in genetic research.
793 -- Highlights **policy considerations** in biomedical studies.
794 -{{/expand}}
795 -
796 -
797 ----
798 -
799 -= Dating and Interpersonal Relationships =
800 -
801 -== Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018 ==
802 -{{expand title="Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018" expanded="false"}}
757 +{{expandable summary="Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"}}
803 803  **Source:** *JAMA Network Open*
804 804  **Date of Publication:** *2020*
805 805  **Author(s):** *Ueda P, Mercer CH, Ghaznavi C, Herbenick D.*
806 806  **Title:** *"Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"*
807 807  **DOI:** [10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833)
808 -**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Sexual Behavior, Demography*
763 +**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Sexual Behavior, Demography* 
809 809  
810 ----
811 -
812 -## **Key Statistics**
765 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
813 813  1. **General Observations:**
814 814   - Study analyzed **General Social Survey (2000-2018)** data.
815 815   - Found **declining trends in sexual activity** among young adults.
... ... @@ -821,10 +821,9 @@
821 821  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
822 822   - Frequency of sexual activity decreased by **8-10%** over the studied period.
823 823   - Number of sexual partners remained **relatively stable** despite declining activity rates.
777 +{{/expandable}}
824 824  
825 ----
826 -
827 -## **Findings**
779 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
828 828  1. **Primary Observations:**
829 829   - A significant decline in sexual frequency, especially among **younger men**.
830 830   - Shifts in relationship dynamics and economic stressors may contribute to the trend.
... ... @@ -836,10 +836,9 @@
836 836  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
837 837   - **Mental health and employment status** were correlated with decreased activity.
838 838   - Social factors such as **screen time and digital entertainment consumption** are potential contributors.
791 +{{/expandable}}
839 839  
840 ----
841 -
842 -## **Critique and Observations**
793 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
843 843  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
844 844   - **Large sample size** from a nationally representative dataset.
845 845   - **Longitudinal design** enables trend analysis over time.
... ... @@ -851,30 +851,21 @@
851 851  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
852 852   - Further studies should incorporate **qualitative data** on behavioral shifts.
853 853   - Additional factors such as **economic shifts and social media usage** need exploration.
805 +{{/expandable}}
854 854  
855 ----
856 -
857 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
807 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
858 858  - Provides evidence on **changing demographic behaviors** in relation to relationships and social interactions.
859 859  - Highlights the role of **mental health, employment, and societal changes** in personal behaviors.
810 +{{/expandable}}
860 860  
861 ----
862 -
863 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
812 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
864 864  1. Investigate the **impact of digital media consumption** on relationship dynamics.
865 865  2. Examine **regional and cultural differences** in sexual activity trends.
815 +{{/expandable}}
866 866  
867 ----
868 -
869 -## **Summary of Research Study**
870 -This study examines **trends in sexual frequency and number of partners among U.S. adults (2000-2018)**, highlighting significant **declines in sexual activity, particularly among young men**. The research utilized **General Social Survey data** to analyze the impact of **sociodemographic factors, employment status, and mental well-being** on sexual behavior.
871 -
872 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study's contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
873 -
874 ----
875 -
876 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
877 -{{velocity}}
817 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
818 +{{velocity}}
819 +
878 878  #set($doi = "10.1001_jamanetworkopen.2020.3833")
879 879  #set($filename = "${doi}.pdf")
880 880  #if($xwiki.exists("attach:$filename"))
... ... @@ -883,22 +883,21 @@
883 883  {{html}}<span style="color: red; font-weight: bold;">🚨 PDF Not Available 🚨</span>{{/html}}
884 884  #end
885 885  {{/velocity}}
828 +{{/expandable}}
829 +{{/expandable}}
886 886  
887 -{{/expand}}
831 +{{expandable summary="
888 888  
889 889  
890 -== Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis ==
891 -{{expand title="Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" expanded="false"}}
834 +Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"}}
892 892  **Source:** *Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica*
893 893  **Date of Publication:** *2012*
894 894  **Author(s):** *Ravisha M. Srinivasjois, Shreya Shah, Prakesh S. Shah, Knowledge Synthesis Group on Determinants of Preterm/LBW Births*
895 895  **Title:** *"Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"*
896 896  **DOI:** [10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x)
897 -**Subject Matter:** *Neonatal Health, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Racial Disparities*
840 +**Subject Matter:** *Neonatal Health, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Racial Disparities* 
898 898  
899 ----
900 -
901 -## **Key Statistics**
842 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
902 902  1. **General Observations:**
903 903   - Meta-analysis of **26,335,596 singleton births** from eight studies.
904 904   - **Higher risk of adverse birth outcomes in biracial couples** than White couples, but lower than Black couples.
... ... @@ -912,10 +912,9 @@
912 912   - **Low birthweight (LBW):** WMBF (1.21), BMWF (1.75), Black mother–Black father (BMBF) (2.08).
913 913   - **Preterm births (PTB):** WMBF (1.17), BMWF (1.37), BMBF (1.78).
914 914   - **Stillbirths:** WMBF (1.43), BMWF (1.51), BMBF (1.85).
856 +{{/expandable}}
915 915  
916 ----
917 -
918 -## **Findings**
858 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
919 919  1. **Primary Observations:**
920 920   - **Biracial couples face a gradient of risk**: higher than White couples but lower than Black couples.
921 921   - **Maternal race plays a more significant role** in pregnancy outcomes.
... ... @@ -927,10 +927,9 @@
927 927  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
928 928   - The **weathering hypothesis** suggests that **long-term stress exposure** contributes to higher adverse birth risks in Black mothers.
929 929   - **Genetic and environmental factors** may interact to influence birth outcomes.
870 +{{/expandable}}
930 930  
931 ----
932 -
933 -## **Critique and Observations**
872 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
934 934  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
935 935   - **Largest meta-analysis** on racial disparities in birth outcomes.
936 936   - Uses **adjusted statistical models** to account for confounding variables.
... ... @@ -942,46 +942,37 @@
942 942  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
943 943   - Future studies should examine **Asian, Hispanic, and Indigenous biracial couples**.
944 944   - Investigate **long-term health effects on infants from biracial pregnancies**.
884 +{{/expandable}}
945 945  
946 ----
947 -
948 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
886 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
949 949  - Provides **critical insights into racial disparities** in maternal and infant health.
950 950  - Supports **research on genetic and environmental influences on neonatal health**.
951 951  - Highlights **how maternal race plays a more significant role than paternal race** in birth outcomes.
890 +{{/expandable}}
952 952  
953 ----
954 -
955 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
892 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
956 956  1. Investigate **the role of prenatal care quality in mitigating racial disparities**.
957 957  2. Examine **how social determinants of health impact biracial pregnancy outcomes**.
958 958  3. Explore **gene-environment interactions influencing birthweight and prematurity risks**.
896 +{{/expandable}}
959 959  
960 ----
961 -
962 -## **Summary of Research Study**
963 -This meta-analysis examines **the impact of biracial parentage on birth outcomes**, showing that **biracial couples face a higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes than White couples but lower than Black couples**. The findings emphasize **maternal race as a key factor in birth risks**, with **Black mothers having the highest rates of preterm birth and low birthweight, regardless of paternal race**.
964 -
965 ----
966 -
967 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
898 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
968 968  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1600-0412.2012.01501.xAbstract.pdf]]
900 +{{/expandable}}
901 +{{/expandable}}
969 969  
970 -{{/expand}}
903 +{{expandable summary="
971 971  
972 972  
973 -== Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness ==
974 -{{expand title="Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness" expanded="false"}}
906 +Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"}}
975 975  **Source:** *Current Psychology*
976 976  **Date of Publication:** *2024*
977 977  **Author(s):** *Brandon Sparks, Alexandra M. Zidenberg, Mark E. Olver*
978 978  **Title:** *"One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"*
979 979  **DOI:** [10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z)
980 -**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Mental Health, Social Isolation*
912 +**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Mental Health, Social Isolation* 
981 981  
982 ----
983 -
984 -## **Key Statistics**
914 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
985 985  1. **General Observations:**
986 986   - Study analyzed **67 self-identified incels** and **103 non-incel men**.
987 987   - Incels reported **higher loneliness and lower social support** compared to non-incels.
... ... @@ -993,10 +993,9 @@
993 993  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
994 994   - 95% of incels in the study reported **having depression**, with 38% receiving a formal diagnosis.
995 995   - **Higher externalization of blame** was linked to stronger incel identification.
926 +{{/expandable}}
996 996  
997 ----
998 -
999 -## **Findings**
928 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1000 1000  1. **Primary Observations:**
1001 1001   - Incels experience **heightened rejection sensitivity and loneliness**.
1002 1002   - Lack of social support correlates with **worse mental health outcomes**.
... ... @@ -1008,10 +1008,9 @@
1008 1008  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1009 1009   - Incels **engaged in fewer positive coping mechanisms** such as emotional support or positive reframing.
1010 1010   - Instead, they relied on **solitary coping strategies**, worsening their isolation.
940 +{{/expandable}}
1011 1011  
1012 ----
1013 -
1014 -## **Critique and Observations**
942 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1015 1015  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1016 1016   - **First quantitative study** on incels’ social isolation and mental health.
1017 1017   - **Robust sample size** and validated psychological measures.
... ... @@ -1023,132 +1023,39 @@
1023 1023  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1024 1024   - Future studies should **compare incel forum users vs. non-users**.
1025 1025   - Investigate **potential intervention strategies** for social integration.
954 +{{/expandable}}
1026 1026  
1027 ----
1028 -
1029 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
956 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1030 1030  - Highlights **mental health vulnerabilities** within the incel community.
1031 1031  - Supports research on **loneliness, attachment styles, and social dominance orientation**.
1032 1032  - Examines how **peer rejection influences self-perceived mate value**.
960 +{{/expandable}}
1033 1033  
1034 ----
1035 -
1036 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
962 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1037 1037  1. Explore how **online community participation** affects incel mental health.
1038 1038  2. Investigate **cognitive biases** influencing self-perceived rejection among incels.
1039 1039  3. Assess **therapeutic interventions** to address incel social isolation.
966 +{{/expandable}}
1040 1040  
1041 ----
1042 -
1043 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1044 -This study examines the **psychological characteristics of self-identified incels**, comparing them with non-incel men in terms of **mental health, loneliness, and coping strategies**. The research found **higher depression, anxiety, and avoidant attachment styles among incels**, as well as **greater reliance on solitary coping mechanisms**. It suggests that **lack of social support plays a critical role in exacerbating incel identity and related mental health concerns**.
1045 -
1046 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1047 -
1048 ----
1049 -
1050 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
968 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1051 1051  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1007_s12144-023-04275-z.pdf]]
970 +{{/expandable}}
1052 1052  
1053 -{{/expand}}
1054 -
1055 -
1056 1056  = Crime and Substance Abuse =
973 +{{/expandable}}
1057 1057  
1058 -== Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys ==
1059 -{{expand title="Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys" expanded="false"}}
1060 -**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1061 -**Date of Publication:** *2003*
1062 -**Author(s):** *Timothy P. Johnson, Phillip J. Bowman*
1063 -**Title:** *"Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"*
1064 -**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120023394](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120023394)
1065 -**Subject Matter:** *Survey Methodology, Racial Disparities, Substance Use Research*
975 +{{expandable summary="
1066 1066  
1067 ----
1068 1068  
1069 -## **Key Statistics**
1070 -1. **General Observations:**
1071 - - Study examined **how racial and cultural factors influence self-reported substance use data**.
1072 - - Analyzed **36 empirical studies from 1977–2003** on survey reliability across racial/ethnic groups.
1073 -
1074 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1075 - - Black and Latino respondents **were more likely to underreport drug use** compared to White respondents.
1076 - - **Cultural stigma and distrust in research institutions** affected self-report accuracy.
1077 -
1078 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1079 - - **Surveys using biological validation (urinalysis, hair tests) revealed underreporting trends**.
1080 - - **Higher recantation rates** (denying past drug use) were observed among minority respondents.
1081 -
1082 ----
1083 -
1084 -## **Findings**
1085 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1086 - - Racial/ethnic disparities in **substance use reporting bias survey-based research**.
1087 - - **Social desirability and cultural norms impact data reliability**.
1088 -
1089 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1090 - - White respondents were **more likely to overreport** substance use.
1091 - - Black and Latino respondents **had higher recantation rates**, particularly in face-to-face interviews.
1092 -
1093 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1094 - - Mode of survey administration **significantly influenced reporting accuracy**.
1095 - - **Self-administered surveys produced more reliable data than interviewer-administered surveys**.
1096 -
1097 ----
1098 -
1099 -## **Critique and Observations**
1100 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1101 - - **Comprehensive review of 36 studies** on measurement error in substance use reporting.
1102 - - Identifies **systemic biases affecting racial/ethnic survey reliability**.
1103 -
1104 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1105 - - Relies on **secondary data analysis**, limiting direct experimental control.
1106 - - Does not explore **how measurement error impacts policy decisions**.
1107 -
1108 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1109 - - Future research should **incorporate mixed-method approaches** (qualitative & quantitative).
1110 - - Investigate **how survey design can reduce racial reporting disparities**.
1111 -
1112 ----
1113 -
1114 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1115 -- Supports research on **racial disparities in self-reported health behaviors**.
1116 -- Highlights **survey methodology issues that impact substance use epidemiology**.
1117 -- Provides insights for **improving data accuracy in public health research**.
1118 -
1119 ----
1120 -
1121 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1122 -1. Investigate **how survey design impacts racial disparities in self-reported health data**.
1123 -2. Study **alternative data collection methods (biometric validation, passive data tracking)**.
1124 -3. Explore **the role of social stigma in self-reported health behaviors**.
1125 -
1126 ----
1127 -
1128 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1129 -This study examines **cross-cultural biases in self-reported substance use surveys**, showing that **racial/ethnic minorities are more likely to underreport drug use** due to **social stigma, research distrust, and survey administration methods**. The findings highlight **critical issues in public health data collection and the need for improved survey design**.
1130 -
1131 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1132 -
1133 ----
1134 -
1135 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1136 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120023394.pdf]]
1137 -
1138 -{{/expand}}
1139 -
1140 -== Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program ==
1141 -{{expand title="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program" expanded="false"}}
978 +Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
1142 1142  **Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1143 1143  **Date of Publication:** *2002*
1144 1144  **Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
1145 1145  **Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
1146 1146  **DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
1147 -**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts*
984 +**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts* 
1148 1148  
1149 ----
1150 -
1151 -## **Key Statistics**
986 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1152 1152  1. **General Observations:**
1153 1153   - Study examined **drug treatment court success rates** among first-time offenders.
1154 1154   - Strongest predictors of **successful completion were employment status and race**.
... ... @@ -1160,10 +1160,9 @@
1160 1160  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1161 1161   - **Education level was positively correlated** with program completion.
1162 1162   - Frequency of **drug use before enrollment affected treatment outcomes**.
998 +{{/expandable}}
1163 1163  
1164 ----
1165 -
1166 -## **Findings**
1000 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1167 1167  1. **Primary Observations:**
1168 1168   - **Social stability factors** (employment, education) were key to treatment success.
1169 1169   - **Race and pre-existing substance use patterns** influenced completion rates.
... ... @@ -1175,10 +1175,9 @@
1175 1175  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1176 1176   - **Individuals with strong social ties were more likely to finish the program**.
1177 1177   - Success rates were **significantly higher for participants with case management support**.
1012 +{{/expandable}}
1178 1178  
1179 ----
1180 -
1181 -## **Critique and Observations**
1014 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1182 1182  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1183 1183   - **First empirical study on drug court program success factors**.
1184 1184   - Uses **longitudinal data** for post-treatment analysis.
... ... @@ -1190,47 +1190,37 @@
1190 1190  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1191 1191   - Future research should examine **racial disparities in drug court outcomes**.
1192 1192   - Study **how community resources impact long-term recovery**.
1026 +{{/expandable}}
1193 1193  
1194 ----
1195 -
1196 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1028 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1197 1197  - Provides insight into **what factors contribute to drug court program success**.
1198 1198  - Highlights **racial disparities in criminal justice-based rehabilitation programs**.
1199 1199  - Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.
1032 +{{/expandable}}
1200 1200  
1201 ----
1202 -
1203 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1034 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1204 1204  1. Investigate **the role of mental health in drug court success rates**.
1205 1205  2. Assess **long-term relapse prevention strategies post-treatment**.
1206 1206  3. Explore **alternative diversion programs beyond traditional drug courts**.
1038 +{{/expandable}}
1207 1207  
1208 ----
1209 -
1210 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1211 -This study examines **factors influencing the completion of drug treatment court programs**, identifying **employment, education, and race as key predictors**. The research underscores **systemic disparities in drug court outcomes**, emphasizing the need for **improved support systems for at-risk populations**.
1212 -
1213 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1214 -
1215 ----
1216 -
1217 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1040 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1218 1218  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]
1042 +{{/expandable}}
1043 +{{/expandable}}
1219 1219  
1220 -{{/expand}}
1045 +{{expandable summary="
1221 1221  
1222 -== Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys ==
1223 -{{expand title="Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys" expanded="false"}}
1047 +
1048 +Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"}}
1224 1224  **Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1225 1225  **Date of Publication:** *2003*
1226 1226  **Author(s):** *Timothy P. Johnson, Phillip J. Bowman*
1227 1227  **Title:** *"Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"*
1228 1228  **DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120023394](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120023394)
1229 -**Subject Matter:** *Survey Methodology, Racial Disparities, Substance Use Research*
1054 +**Subject Matter:** *Survey Methodology, Racial Disparities, Substance Use Research* 
1230 1230  
1231 ----
1232 -
1233 -## **Key Statistics**
1056 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1234 1234  1. **General Observations:**
1235 1235   - Study examined **how racial and cultural factors influence self-reported substance use data**.
1236 1236   - Analyzed **36 empirical studies from 1977–2003** on survey reliability across racial/ethnic groups.
... ... @@ -1242,10 +1242,9 @@
1242 1242  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1243 1243   - **Surveys using biological validation (urinalysis, hair tests) revealed underreporting trends**.
1244 1244   - **Higher recantation rates** (denying past drug use) were observed among minority respondents.
1068 +{{/expandable}}
1245 1245  
1246 ----
1247 -
1248 -## **Findings**
1070 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1249 1249  1. **Primary Observations:**
1250 1250   - Racial/ethnic disparities in **substance use reporting bias survey-based research**.
1251 1251   - **Social desirability and cultural norms impact data reliability**.
... ... @@ -1257,10 +1257,9 @@
1257 1257  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1258 1258   - Mode of survey administration **significantly influenced reporting accuracy**.
1259 1259   - **Self-administered surveys produced more reliable data than interviewer-administered surveys**.
1082 +{{/expandable}}
1260 1260  
1261 ----
1262 -
1263 -## **Critique and Observations**
1084 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1264 1264  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1265 1265   - **Comprehensive review of 36 studies** on measurement error in substance use reporting.
1266 1266   - Identifies **systemic biases affecting racial/ethnic survey reliability**.
... ... @@ -1272,48 +1272,37 @@
1272 1272  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1273 1273   - Future research should **incorporate mixed-method approaches** (qualitative & quantitative).
1274 1274   - Investigate **how survey design can reduce racial reporting disparities**.
1096 +{{/expandable}}
1275 1275  
1276 ----
1277 -
1278 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1098 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1279 1279  - Supports research on **racial disparities in self-reported health behaviors**.
1280 1280  - Highlights **survey methodology issues that impact substance use epidemiology**.
1281 1281  - Provides insights for **improving data accuracy in public health research**.
1102 +{{/expandable}}
1282 1282  
1283 ----
1284 -
1285 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1104 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1286 1286  1. Investigate **how survey design impacts racial disparities in self-reported health data**.
1287 1287  2. Study **alternative data collection methods (biometric validation, passive data tracking)**.
1288 1288  3. Explore **the role of social stigma in self-reported health behaviors**.
1108 +{{/expandable}}
1289 1289  
1290 ----
1291 -
1292 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1293 -This study examines **cross-cultural biases in self-reported substance use surveys**, showing that **racial/ethnic minorities are more likely to underreport drug use** due to **social stigma, research distrust, and survey administration methods**. The findings highlight **critical issues in public health data collection and the need for improved survey design**.
1294 -
1295 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1296 -
1297 ----
1298 -
1299 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1110 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1300 1300  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120023394.pdf]]
1112 +{{/expandable}}
1113 +{{/expandable}}
1301 1301  
1302 -{{/expand}}
1115 +{{expandable summary="
1303 1303  
1304 1304  
1305 -== Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program ==
1306 -{{expand title="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program" expanded="false"}}
1118 +Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
1307 1307  **Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1308 1308  **Date of Publication:** *2002*
1309 1309  **Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
1310 1310  **Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
1311 1311  **DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
1312 -**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts*
1124 +**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts* 
1313 1313  
1314 ----
1315 -
1316 -## **Key Statistics**
1126 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1317 1317  1. **General Observations:**
1318 1318   - Study examined **drug treatment court success rates** among first-time offenders.
1319 1319   - Strongest predictors of **successful completion were employment status and race**.
... ... @@ -1325,10 +1325,9 @@
1325 1325  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1326 1326   - **Education level was positively correlated** with program completion.
1327 1327   - Frequency of **drug use before enrollment affected treatment outcomes**.
1138 +{{/expandable}}
1328 1328  
1329 ----
1330 -
1331 -## **Findings**
1140 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1332 1332  1. **Primary Observations:**
1333 1333   - **Social stability factors** (employment, education) were key to treatment success.
1334 1334   - **Race and pre-existing substance use patterns** influenced completion rates.
... ... @@ -1340,10 +1340,9 @@
1340 1340  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1341 1341   - **Individuals with strong social ties were more likely to finish the program**.
1342 1342   - Success rates were **significantly higher for participants with case management support**.
1152 +{{/expandable}}
1343 1343  
1344 ----
1345 -
1346 -## **Critique and Observations**
1154 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1347 1347  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1348 1348   - **First empirical study on drug court program success factors**.
1349 1349   - Uses **longitudinal data** for post-treatment analysis.
... ... @@ -1355,113 +1355,41 @@
1355 1355  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1356 1356   - Future research should examine **racial disparities in drug court outcomes**.
1357 1357   - Study **how community resources impact long-term recovery**.
1166 +{{/expandable}}
1358 1358  
1359 ----
1360 -
1361 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1168 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1362 1362  - Provides insight into **what factors contribute to drug court program success**.
1363 1363  - Highlights **racial disparities in criminal justice-based rehabilitation programs**.
1364 1364  - Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.
1172 +{{/expandable}}
1365 1365  
1366 ----
1367 -
1368 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1174 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1369 1369  1. Investigate **the role of mental health in drug court success rates**.
1370 1370  2. Assess **long-term relapse prevention strategies post-treatment**.
1371 1371  3. Explore **alternative diversion programs beyond traditional drug courts**.
1178 +{{/expandable}}
1372 1372  
1373 ----
1374 -
1375 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1376 -This study examines **factors influencing the completion of drug treatment court programs**, identifying **employment, education, and race as key predictors**. The research underscores **systemic disparities in drug court outcomes**, emphasizing the need for **improved support systems for at-risk populations**.
1377 -
1378 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1379 -
1380 ----
1381 -
1382 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1180 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1383 1383  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]
1182 +{{/expandable}}
1183 +{{/expandable}}
1384 1384  
1385 -{{/expand}}
1185 +{{expandable summary="
1386 1386  
1387 -== Study: Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults ==
1388 -{{expand title="Study: Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults" expanded="false"}} Source: Addictive Behaviors
1389 -Date of Publication: 2016
1390 -Author(s): Andrea Hussong, Christy Capron, Gregory T. Smith, Jennifer L. Maggs
1391 -Title: "Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults"
1392 -DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.02.030
1393 -Subject Matter: Substance Use, Mental Health, Adolescent Development
1394 1394  
1395 -Key Statistics
1396 -General Observations:
1188 +Study: Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults"}}
1189 +
1190 +{{/expandable}}
1397 1397  
1398 -Study examined cannabis use trends in young adults over time.
1399 -Found significant correlations between cannabis use and increased depressive symptoms.
1400 -Subgroup Analysis:
1401 -
1402 -Males exhibited higher rates of cannabis use, but females reported stronger mental health impacts.
1403 -Individuals with pre-existing anxiety disorders were more likely to report problematic cannabis use.
1404 -Other Significant Data Points:
1405 -
1406 -Frequent cannabis users showed a 23% higher likelihood of developing anxiety symptoms.
1407 -Co-occurring substance use (e.g., alcohol) exacerbated negative psychological effects.
1408 -Findings
1409 -Primary Observations:
1410 -
1411 -Cannabis use was linked to higher depressive and anxiety symptoms, particularly in frequent users.
1412 -Self-medication patterns emerged among those with pre-existing mental health conditions.
1413 -Subgroup Trends:
1414 -
1415 -Early cannabis initiation (before age 16) was associated with greater mental health risks.
1416 -College-aged users reported more impairments in daily functioning due to cannabis use.
1417 -Specific Case Analysis:
1418 -
1419 -Participants with a history of childhood trauma were twice as likely to develop problematic cannabis use.
1420 -Co-use of cannabis and alcohol significantly increased impulsivity scores in the study sample.
1421 -Critique and Observations
1422 -Strengths of the Study:
1423 -
1424 -Large, longitudinal dataset with a diverse sample of young adults.
1425 -Controlled for confounding variables like socioeconomic status and prior substance use.
1426 -Limitations of the Study:
1427 -
1428 -Self-reported cannabis use may introduce bias in reported frequency and effects.
1429 -Did not assess specific THC potency levels, which could influence mental health outcomes.
1430 -Suggestions for Improvement:
1431 -
1432 -Future research should investigate dose-dependent effects of cannabis on mental health.
1433 -Assess long-term psychological outcomes of early cannabis exposure.
1434 -Relevance to Subproject
1435 -Supports mental health risk assessment models related to substance use.
1436 -Highlights gender differences in substance-related psychological impacts.
1437 -Provides insight into self-medication behaviors among young adults.
1438 -Suggestions for Further Exploration
1439 -Investigate the long-term impact of cannabis use on neurodevelopment.
1440 -Examine the role of genetic predisposition in cannabis-related mental health risks.
1441 -Assess regional differences in cannabis use trends post-legalization.
1442 -Summary of Research Study
1443 -This study examines the relationship between cannabis use and mental health symptoms in young adults, focusing on depressive and anxiety-related outcomes. Using a longitudinal dataset, the researchers found higher risks of anxiety and depression in frequent cannabis users, particularly among those with pre-existing mental health conditions or early cannabis initiation.
1444 -
1445 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1446 -
1447 -📄 Download Full Study
1448 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.addbeh.2016.02.030.pdf]]
1449 -
1450 -{{/expand}}
1451 -
1452 -
1453 -== Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time? ==
1454 -{{expand title="Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?" expanded="false"}}
1192 +{{expandable summary="Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}}
1455 1455  **Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
1456 1456  **Date of Publication:** *2014*
1457 1457  **Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley, Jan te Nijenhuis, Raegan Murphy*
1458 1458  **Title:** *"Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"*
1459 1459  **DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.012)
1460 -**Subject Matter:** *Cognitive Decline, Intelligence, Dysgenics*
1198 +**Subject Matter:** *Cognitive Decline, Intelligence, Dysgenics* 
1461 1461  
1462 ----
1463 -
1464 -## **Key Statistics**
1200 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1465 1465  1. **General Observations:**
1466 1466   - The study examines reaction time data from **13 age-matched studies** spanning **1884–2004**.
1467 1467   - Results suggest an estimated **decline of 13.35 IQ points** over this period.
... ... @@ -1473,10 +1473,9 @@
1473 1473  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1474 1474   - The estimated **dysgenic rate is 1.21 IQ points lost per decade**.
1475 1475   - Meta-regression analysis confirmed a **steady secular trend in slowing reaction time**.
1212 +{{/expandable}}
1476 1476  
1477 ----
1478 -
1479 -## **Findings**
1214 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1480 1480  1. **Primary Observations:**
1481 1481   - Supports the hypothesis of **intelligence decline due to genetic and environmental factors**.
1482 1482   - Reaction time, a **biomarker for cognitive ability**, has slowed significantly over time.
... ... @@ -1488,10 +1488,9 @@
1488 1488  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1489 1489   - Cross-national comparisons indicate a **global trend in slower reaction times**.
1490 1490   - Factors like **modern neurotoxin exposure** and **reduced selective pressure for intelligence** may contribute.
1226 +{{/expandable}}
1491 1491  
1492 ----
1493 -
1494 -## **Critique and Observations**
1228 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1495 1495  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1496 1496   - **Comprehensive meta-analysis** covering over a century of reaction time data.
1497 1497   - **Robust statistical corrections** for measurement variance between historical and modern studies.
... ... @@ -1503,53 +1503,39 @@
1503 1503  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1504 1504   - Future studies should **replicate results with more modern datasets**.
1505 1505   - Investigate **alternative cognitive biomarkers** for intelligence over time.
1240 +{{/expandable}}
1506 1506  
1507 ----
1508 -
1509 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1242 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1510 1510  - Provides evidence for **long-term intelligence trends**, contributing to research on **cognitive evolution**.
1511 1511  - Aligns with broader discussions on **dysgenics, neurophysiology, and cognitive load**.
1512 1512  - Supports the argument that **modern societies may be experiencing intelligence decline**.
1246 +{{/expandable}}
1513 1513  
1514 ----
1515 -
1516 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1248 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1517 1517  1. Investigate **genetic markers associated with reaction time** and intelligence decline.
1518 1518  2. Examine **regional variations in reaction time trends**.
1519 1519  3. Explore **cognitive resilience factors that counteract the decline**.
1252 +{{/expandable}}
1520 1520  
1521 ----
1522 -
1523 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1524 -This study examines **historical reaction time data** as a measure of **cognitive ability and intelligence decline**, analyzing data from **Western populations between 1884 and 2004**. The results suggest a **measurable decline in intelligence, estimated at 13.35 IQ points**, likely due to **dysgenic fertility, neurophysiological factors, and reduced selection pressures**.
1525 -
1526 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1527 -
1528 ----
1529 -
1530 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1254 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1531 1531  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2014.05.012.pdf]]
1256 +{{/expandable}}
1532 1532  
1533 -{{/expand}}
1258 += Whiteness & White Guilt =
1259 +{{/expandable}}
1534 1534  
1261 +{{expandable summary="
1535 1535  
1536 1536  
1537 -
1538 -
1539 -= Whiteness =
1540 -
1541 -== Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports ==
1542 -{{expand title="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports" expanded="false"}}
1264 +Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}}
1543 1543  **Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1544 1544  **Date of Publication:** *2019*
1545 1545  **Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1546 1546  **Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1547 1547  **DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1548 -**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sports, Higher Education, Institutional Racism*
1270 +**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sports, Higher Education, Institutional Racism* 
1549 1549  
1550 ----
1551 -
1552 -## **Key Statistics**
1272 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1553 1553  1. **General Observations:**
1554 1554   - Analyzed **47 college athlete narratives** to explore racial disparities in non-revenue sports.
1555 1555   - Found three interrelated themes: **racial segregation, racial innocence, and racial protection**.
... ... @@ -1561,10 +1561,9 @@
1561 1561  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1562 1562   - White athletes are **socialized to remain unaware of racial privilege** in their athletic careers.
1563 1563   - Media and institutional narratives protect white athletes from discussions on race and systemic inequities.
1284 +{{/expandable}}
1564 1564  
1565 ----
1566 -
1567 -## **Findings**
1286 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1568 1568  1. **Primary Observations:**
1569 1569   - Colleges **actively recruit white athletes** from majority-white communities.
1570 1570   - Institutional policies **uphold whiteness** by failing to challenge racial biases in recruitment and team culture.
... ... @@ -1576,10 +1576,9 @@
1576 1576  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1577 1577   - Examines **how sports serve as a mechanism for maintaining racial privilege** in higher education.
1578 1578   - Discusses the **role of athletics in reinforcing systemic segregation and exclusion**.
1298 +{{/expandable}}
1579 1579  
1580 ----
1581 -
1582 -## **Critique and Observations**
1300 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1583 1583  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1584 1584   - **Comprehensive qualitative analysis** of race in college sports.
1585 1585   - Examines **institutional conditions** that sustain racial disparities in athletics.
... ... @@ -1591,53 +1591,37 @@
1591 1591  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1592 1592   - Future research should **compare recruitment policies across different sports and divisions**.
1593 1593   - Investigate **how athletic scholarships contribute to racial inequities in higher education**.
1312 +{{/expandable}}
1594 1594  
1595 ----
1596 -
1597 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1314 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1598 1598  - Provides evidence of **systemic racial biases** in college sports recruitment.
1599 1599  - Highlights **how institutional policies protect whiteness** in non-revenue athletics.
1600 1600  - Supports research on **diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in sports and education**.
1318 +{{/expandable}}
1601 1601  
1602 ----
1603 -
1604 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1320 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1605 1605  1. Investigate how **racial stereotypes influence college athlete recruitment**.
1606 1606  2. Examine **the role of media in shaping public perceptions of race in sports**.
1607 1607  3. Explore **policy reforms to increase racial diversity in non-revenue sports**.
1324 +{{/expandable}}
1608 1608  
1609 ----
1610 -
1611 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1612 -This study explores how **racial segregation, innocence, and protection** sustain whiteness in college sports. By analyzing **47 athlete narratives**, the research reveals **how predominantly white sports programs recruit and retain white athletes** while shielding them from discussions on race. The findings highlight **institutional biases that maintain racial privilege in athletics**, offering critical insight into the **structural inequalities in higher education sports programs**.
1613 -
1614 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1615 -
1616 ----
1617 -
1618 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1326 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1619 1619  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1037_dhe0000140.pdf]]
1328 +{{/expandable}}
1329 +{{/expandable}}
1620 1620  
1621 -{{/expand}}
1331 +{{expandable summary="
1622 1622  
1623 1623  
1624 -
1625 -
1626 -
1627 -= White Guilt =
1628 -
1629 -== Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations ==
1630 -{{expand title="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations" expanded="false"}}
1334 +Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
1631 1631  **Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1632 1632  **Date of Publication:** *2016*
1633 1633  **Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axta, M. Norman Oliver*
1634 1634  **Title:** *"Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs About Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites"*
1635 1635  **DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1636 -**Subject Matter:** *Health Disparities, Racial Bias, Medical Treatment*
1340 +**Subject Matter:** *Health Disparities, Racial Bias, Medical Treatment* 
1637 1637  
1638 ----
1639 -
1640 -## **Key Statistics**
1342 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1641 1641  1. **General Observations:**
1642 1642   - Study analyzed **racial disparities in pain perception and treatment recommendations**.
1643 1643   - Found that **white laypeople and medical students endorsed false beliefs about biological differences** between Black and white individuals.
... ... @@ -1649,10 +1649,9 @@
1649 1649  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1650 1650   - **Black patients were less likely to receive appropriate pain treatment** compared to white patients.
1651 1651   - The study confirmed that **historical misconceptions about racial differences still persist in modern medicine**.
1354 +{{/expandable}}
1652 1652  
1653 ----
1654 -
1655 -## **Findings**
1356 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1656 1656  1. **Primary Observations:**
1657 1657   - False beliefs about biological racial differences **correlate with racial disparities in pain treatment**.
1658 1658   - Medical students and residents who endorsed these beliefs **showed greater racial bias in treatment recommendations**.
... ... @@ -1664,10 +1664,9 @@
1664 1664  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1665 1665   - Study participants **underestimated Black patients' pain and recommended less effective pain treatments**.
1666 1666   - The study suggests that **racial disparities in medical care stem, in part, from these enduring false beliefs**.
1368 +{{/expandable}}
1667 1667  
1668 ----
1669 -
1670 -## **Critique and Observations**
1370 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1671 1671  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1672 1672   - **First empirical study to connect false racial beliefs with medical decision-making**.
1673 1673   - Utilizes a **large sample of medical students and residents** from diverse institutions.
... ... @@ -1679,48 +1679,37 @@
1679 1679  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1680 1680   - Future research should examine **how these biases manifest in real clinical settings**.
1681 1681   - Investigate **whether medical training can correct these biases over time**.
1382 +{{/expandable}}
1682 1682  
1683 ----
1684 -
1685 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1384 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1686 1686  - Highlights **racial disparities in healthcare**, specifically in pain assessment and treatment.
1687 1687  - Supports **research on implicit bias and its impact on medical outcomes**.
1688 1688  - Provides evidence for **the need to address racial bias in medical education**.
1388 +{{/expandable}}
1689 1689  
1690 ----
1691 -
1692 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1390 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1693 1693  1. Investigate **interventions to reduce racial bias in medical decision-making**.
1694 1694  2. Explore **how implicit bias training impacts pain treatment recommendations**.
1695 1695  3. Conduct **real-world observational studies on racial disparities in healthcare settings**.
1394 +{{/expandable}}
1696 1696  
1697 ----
1698 -
1699 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1700 -This study examines **racial bias in pain perception and treatment** among **white laypeople and medical professionals**, demonstrating that **false beliefs about biological differences contribute to disparities in pain management**. The research highlights the **systemic nature of racial bias in medicine** and underscores the **need for improved medical training to counteract these misconceptions**.
1701 -
1702 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1703 -
1704 ----
1705 -
1706 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1396 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1707 1707  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1516047113.pdf]]
1398 +{{/expandable}}
1399 +{{/expandable}}
1708 1708  
1709 -{{/expand}}
1401 +{{expandable summary="
1710 1710  
1711 1711  
1712 -== Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans ==
1713 -{{expand title="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans" expanded="false"}}
1404 +Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
1714 1714  **Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1715 1715  **Date of Publication:** *2015*
1716 1716  **Author(s):** *Anne Case, Angus Deaton*
1717 1717  **Title:** *"Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century"*
1718 1718  **DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1518393112](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518393112)
1719 -**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Mortality, Socioeconomic Factors*
1410 +**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Mortality, Socioeconomic Factors* 
1720 1720  
1721 ----
1722 -
1723 -## **Key Statistics**
1412 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1724 1724  1. **General Observations:**
1725 1725   - Mortality rates among **middle-aged white non-Hispanic Americans (ages 45–54)** increased from 1999 to 2013.
1726 1726   - This reversal in mortality trends is unique to the U.S.; **no other wealthy country experienced a similar rise**.
... ... @@ -1732,10 +1732,9 @@
1732 1732  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1733 1733   - Rising mortality was driven primarily by **suicide, drug and alcohol poisoning, and chronic liver disease**.
1734 1734   - Midlife morbidity increased as well, with more reports of **poor health, pain, and mental distress**.
1424 +{{/expandable}}
1735 1735  
1736 ----
1737 -
1738 -## **Findings**
1426 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1739 1739  1. **Primary Observations:**
1740 1740   - The rise in mortality is attributed to **substance abuse, economic distress, and deteriorating mental health**.
1741 1741   - The increase in **suicides and opioid overdoses parallels broader socioeconomic decline**.
... ... @@ -1747,10 +1747,9 @@
1747 1747  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1748 1748   - **Educational attainment was a major predictor of mortality trends**, with better-educated individuals experiencing lower mortality rates.
1749 1749   - Mortality among **white Americans with a college degree continued to decline**, resembling trends in other wealthy nations.
1438 +{{/expandable}}
1750 1750  
1751 ----
1752 -
1753 -## **Critique and Observations**
1440 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1754 1754  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1755 1755   - **First major study to highlight rising midlife mortality among U.S. whites**.
1756 1756   - Uses **CDC and Census mortality data spanning over a decade**.
... ... @@ -1762,47 +1762,37 @@
1762 1762  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1763 1763   - Future studies should explore **how economic shifts, healthcare access, and mental health treatment contribute to these trends**.
1764 1764   - Further research on **racial and socioeconomic disparities in mortality trends** is needed.
1452 +{{/expandable}}
1765 1765  
1766 ----
1767 -
1768 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1454 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1769 1769  - Highlights **socioeconomic and racial disparities** in health outcomes.
1770 1770  - Supports research on **substance abuse and mental health crises in the U.S.**.
1771 1771  - Provides evidence for **the role of economic instability in public health trends**.
1458 +{{/expandable}}
1772 1772  
1773 ----
1774 -
1775 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1460 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1776 1776  1. Investigate **regional differences in rising midlife mortality**.
1777 1777  2. Examine the **impact of the opioid crisis on long-term health trends**.
1778 1778  3. Study **policy interventions aimed at reversing rising mortality rates**.
1464 +{{/expandable}}
1779 1779  
1780 ----
1781 -
1782 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1783 -This study documents a **reversal in mortality trends among middle-aged white non-Hispanic Americans**, showing an increase in **suicide, drug overdoses, and alcohol-related deaths** from 1999 to 2013. The findings highlight **socioeconomic distress, declining health, and rising morbidity** as key factors. This research underscores the **importance of economic and social policy in shaping public health outcomes**.
1784 -
1785 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1786 -
1787 ----
1788 -
1789 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1466 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1790 1790  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1518393112.pdf]]
1468 +{{/expandable}}
1469 +{{/expandable}}
1791 1791  
1792 -{{/expand}}
1471 +{{expandable summary="
1793 1793  
1794 -== Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities? ==
1795 -{{expand title="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?" expanded="false"}}
1473 +
1474 +Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}}
1796 1796  **Source:** *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*
1797 1797  **Date of Publication:** *2023*
1798 1798  **Author(s):** *Maurice Crul, Frans Lelie, Elif Keskiner, Laure Michon, Ismintha Waldring*
1799 1799  **Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1800 1800  **DOI:** [10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548](https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548)
1801 -**Subject Matter:** *Urban Sociology, Migration Studies, Integration*
1480 +**Subject Matter:** *Urban Sociology, Migration Studies, Integration* 
1802 1802  
1803 ----
1804 -
1805 -## **Key Statistics**
1482 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1806 1806  1. **General Observations:**
1807 1807   - Study examines the role of **people without migration background** in majority-minority cities.
1808 1808   - Analyzes **over 3,000 survey responses and 150 in-depth interviews** from six North-Western European cities.
... ... @@ -1814,10 +1814,9 @@
1814 1814  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1815 1815   - The study introduces the **Becoming a Minority (BaM) project**, a large-scale investigation of urban demographic shifts.
1816 1816   - **People without migration background perceive diversity differently**, with some embracing and others resisting change.
1494 +{{/expandable}}
1817 1817  
1818 ----
1819 -
1820 -## **Findings**
1496 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1821 1821  1. **Primary Observations:**
1822 1822   - The study **challenges traditional integration theories**, arguing that non-migrant groups also undergo adaptation processes.
1823 1823   - Some residents **struggle with demographic changes**, while others see diversity as an asset.
... ... @@ -1829,10 +1829,9 @@
1829 1829  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1830 1830   - Examines how **people without migration background navigate majority-minority settings** in cities like Amsterdam and Vienna.
1831 1831   - Analyzes **whether former ethnic majority groups now perceive themselves as minorities**.
1508 +{{/expandable}}
1832 1832  
1833 ----
1834 -
1835 -## **Critique and Observations**
1510 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1836 1836  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1837 1837   - **Innovative approach** by examining the impact of migration on native populations.
1838 1838   - Uses **both qualitative and quantitative data** for robust analysis.
... ... @@ -1844,51 +1844,39 @@
1844 1844  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1845 1845   - Expand research to **other geographical contexts** to understand migration effects globally.
1846 1846   - Investigate **long-term trends in urban adaptation and community building**.
1522 +{{/expandable}}
1847 1847  
1848 ----
1849 -
1850 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1524 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1851 1851  - Provides a **new perspective on urban integration**, shifting focus from migrants to native-born populations.
1852 1852  - Highlights the **role of social and economic power in shaping urban diversity outcomes**.
1853 1853  - Challenges existing **assimilation theories by showing bidirectional adaptation in diverse cities**.
1528 +{{/expandable}}
1854 1854  
1855 ----
1856 -
1857 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1530 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1858 1858  1. Study how **local policies shape attitudes toward urban diversity**.
1859 1859  2. Investigate **the role of economic and housing policies in shaping demographic changes**.
1860 1860  3. Explore **how social networks influence perceptions of migration and diversity**.
1534 +{{/expandable}}
1861 1861  
1862 ----
1863 -
1864 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1865 -This study examines how **people without migration background experience demographic change in majority-minority cities**. Using data from the **BaM project**, it challenges traditional **one-way integration models**, showing that **non-migrants also adapt to diverse environments**. The findings highlight **the complexities of social cohesion, identity, and power in rapidly changing urban landscapes**.
1866 -
1867 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1868 -
1869 ----
1870 -
1871 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1536 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1872 1872  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]
1538 +{{/expandable}}
1873 1873  
1874 -{{/expand}}
1540 += Media =
1541 +{{/expandable}}
1875 1875  
1543 +{{expandable summary="
1876 1876  
1877 1877  
1878 -= Media =
1879 -
1880 -== Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic ==
1881 -{{expand title="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict" expanded="false"}}
1546 +Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic"}}
1882 1882  **Source:** *Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication*
1883 1883  **Date of Publication:** *2021*
1884 1884  **Author(s):** *Zeynep Tufekci, Jesse Fox, Andrew Chadwick*
1885 1885  **Title:** *"The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict"*
1886 1886  **DOI:** [10.1093/jcmc/zmab003](https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab003)
1887 -**Subject Matter:** *Online Communication, Social Media, Conflict Studies*
1552 +**Subject Matter:** *Online Communication, Social Media, Conflict Studies* 
1888 1888  
1889 ----
1890 -
1891 -## **Key Statistics**
1554 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1892 1892  1. **General Observations:**
1893 1893   - Analyzed **over 500,000 social media interactions** related to intergroup conflict.
1894 1894   - Found that **computer-mediated communication (CMC) intensifies polarization**.
... ... @@ -1900,10 +1900,9 @@
1900 1900  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1901 1901   - **Misinformation spread 3x faster** in polarized online discussions.
1902 1902   - Users exposed to **conflicting viewpoints were more likely to engage in retaliatory discourse**.
1566 +{{/expandable}}
1903 1903  
1904 ----
1905 -
1906 -## **Findings**
1568 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1907 1907  1. **Primary Observations:**
1908 1908   - **Online interactions amplify intergroup conflict** due to selective exposure and confirmation bias.
1909 1909   - **Algorithmic sorting contributes to ideological segmentation**.
... ... @@ -1915,10 +1915,9 @@
1915 1915  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1916 1916   - **CMC increased political tribalism** in digital spaces.
1917 1917   - **Emotional language spread more widely** than factual content.
1580 +{{/expandable}}
1918 1918  
1919 ----
1920 -
1921 -## **Critique and Observations**
1582 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1922 1922  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1923 1923   - **Largest dataset** to date analyzing **CMC and intergroup conflict**.
1924 1924   - Uses **longitudinal data tracking user behavior over time**.
... ... @@ -1930,46 +1930,37 @@
1930 1930  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1931 1931   - Future studies should **analyze private messaging platforms** in conflict dynamics.
1932 1932   - Investigate **interventions that reduce online polarization**.
1594 +{{/expandable}}
1933 1933  
1934 ----
1935 -
1936 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1596 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1937 1937  - Explores how **digital communication influences social division**.
1938 1938  - Supports research on **social media regulation and conflict mitigation**.
1939 1939  - Provides **data on misinformation and online radicalization trends**.
1600 +{{/expandable}}
1940 1940  
1941 ----
1942 -
1943 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1602 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1944 1944  1. Investigate **how online anonymity affects real-world aggression**.
1945 1945  2. Study **social media interventions that reduce political polarization**.
1946 1946  3. Explore **cross-cultural differences in CMC and intergroup hostility**.
1606 +{{/expandable}}
1947 1947  
1948 ----
1949 -
1950 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1951 -This study examines **how online communication intensifies intergroup conflict**, using a dataset of **500,000+ social media interactions**. It highlights the role of **algorithmic filtering, anonymity, and selective exposure** in **increasing polarization and misinformation spread**. The findings emphasize the **need for policy interventions to mitigate digital conflict escalation**.
1952 -
1953 ----
1954 -
1955 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1608 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1956 1956  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_jcmc_zmab003.pdf]]
1610 +{{/expandable}}
1611 +{{/expandable}}
1957 1957  
1958 -{{/expand}}
1613 +{{expandable summary="
1959 1959  
1960 1960  
1961 -== Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions ==
1962 -{{expand title="Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions" expanded="false"}}
1616 +Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"}}
1963 1963  **Source:** *Politics & Policy*
1964 1964  **Date of Publication:** *2007*
1965 1965  **Author(s):** *Tyler Johnson*
1966 1966  **Title:** *"Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing: Explaining Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"*
1967 1967  **DOI:** [10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x)
1968 -**Subject Matter:** *LGBTQ+ Rights, Public Opinion, Media Influence*
1622 +**Subject Matter:** *LGBTQ+ Rights, Public Opinion, Media Influence* 
1969 1969  
1970 ----
1971 -
1972 -## **Key Statistics**
1624 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1973 1973  1. **General Observations:**
1974 1974   - Examines **media coverage of same-sex marriage and civil unions from 2004 to 2011**.
1975 1975   - Analyzes how **media framing influences public opinion trends** on LGBTQ+ rights.
... ... @@ -1981,10 +1981,9 @@
1981 1981  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1982 1982   - When **equality framing surpasses morality framing**, public opposition declines.
1983 1983   - Media framing **directly affects public attitudes** over time, shaping policy debates.
1636 +{{/expandable}}
1984 1984  
1985 ----
1986 -
1987 -## **Findings**
1638 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1988 1988  1. **Primary Observations:**
1989 1989   - **Media framing plays a critical role in shaping attitudes** toward LGBTQ+ rights.
1990 1990   - **Equality-focused narratives** lead to greater public support for same-sex marriage.
... ... @@ -1996,10 +1996,9 @@
1996 1996  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1997 1997   - **Periods of increased equality framing** saw measurable **declines in opposition to LGBTQ+ rights**.
1998 1998   - **Major political events (elections, Supreme Court cases) influenced framing trends**.
1650 +{{/expandable}}
1999 1999  
2000 ----
2001 -
2002 -## **Critique and Observations**
1652 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2003 2003  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2004 2004   - **Longitudinal dataset spanning multiple election cycles**.
2005 2005   - Provides **quantitative analysis of how media framing shifts public opinion**.
... ... @@ -2011,45 +2011,37 @@
2011 2011  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2012 2012   - Expand the study to **global perspectives on LGBTQ+ rights and media influence**.
2013 2013   - Investigate how **different media platforms (TV vs. digital media) impact opinion shifts**.
1664 +{{/expandable}}
2014 2014  
2015 ----
2016 -
2017 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1666 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2018 2018  - Explores **how media narratives shape policy support and public sentiment**.
2019 2019  - Highlights **the strategic importance of framing in LGBTQ+ advocacy**.
2020 2020  - Reinforces the need for **media literacy in understanding policy debates**.
1670 +{{/expandable}}
2021 2021  
2022 ----
2023 -
2024 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1672 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2025 2025  1. Examine how **social media affects framing of LGBTQ+ issues**.
2026 2026  2. Study **differences in framing across political media outlets**.
2027 2027  3. Investigate **public opinion shifts in states that legalized same-sex marriage earlier**.
1676 +{{/expandable}}
2028 2028  
2029 ----
2030 -
2031 -## **Summary of Research Study**
2032 -This study examines **how media framing influences public attitudes on same-sex marriage and civil unions**, analyzing **news coverage from 2004 to 2011**. It finds that **equality-based narratives reduce opposition, while morality-based narratives increase it**. The research highlights **how media coverage plays a crucial role in shaping policy debates and public sentiment**.
2033 -
2034 ----
2035 -
2036 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1678 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2037 2037  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x_abstract.pdf]]
1680 +{{/expandable}}
1681 +{{/expandable}}
2038 2038  
2039 -{{/expand}}
1683 +{{expandable summary="
2040 2040  
2041 -== Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion ==
2042 -{{expand title="Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion" expanded="false"}}
1685 +
1686 +Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion"}}
2043 2043  **Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2044 2044  **Date of Publication:** *2019*
2045 2045  **Author(s):** *Natalie Stroud, Matthew Barnidge, Shannon McGregor*
2046 2046  **Title:** *"The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion: Evidence from Experimental Studies"*
2047 2047  **DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
2048 -**Subject Matter:** *Media Influence, Political Communication, Persuasion*
1692 +**Subject Matter:** *Media Influence, Political Communication, Persuasion* 
2049 2049  
2050 ----
2051 -
2052 -## **Key Statistics**
1694 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2053 2053  1. **General Observations:**
2054 2054   - Conducted **12 experimental studies** on **digital media's impact on political beliefs**.
2055 2055   - **58% of participants** showed shifts in political opinion based on online content.
... ... @@ -2061,10 +2061,9 @@
2061 2061  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
2062 2062   - **Interactive media (comment sections, polls) increased political engagement**.
2063 2063   - **Exposure to counterarguments reduced partisan bias** by **14% on average**.
1706 +{{/expandable}}
2064 2064  
2065 ----
2066 -
2067 -## **Findings**
1708 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2068 2068  1. **Primary Observations:**
2069 2069   - **Digital media significantly influences political opinions**, with younger audiences being the most impacted.
2070 2070   - **Multimedia content is more persuasive** than traditional text-based arguments.
... ... @@ -2076,10 +2076,9 @@
2076 2076  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2077 2077   - **Highly partisan users became more entrenched in their views**, even when exposed to opposing content.
2078 2078   - **Neutral or apolitical users were more likely to shift opinions**.
1720 +{{/expandable}}
2079 2079  
2080 ----
2081 -
2082 -## **Critique and Observations**
1722 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2083 2083  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2084 2084   - **Large-scale experimental design** allows for controlled comparisons.
2085 2085   - Covers **multiple digital platforms**, ensuring robust findings.
... ... @@ -2091,32 +2091,22 @@
2091 2091  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2092 2092   - Future studies should track **long-term opinion changes** beyond immediate reactions.
2093 2093   - Investigate **the role of digital media literacy in resisting persuasion**.
1734 +{{/expandable}}
2094 2094  
2095 ----
2096 -
2097 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1736 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2098 2098  - Provides insights into **how digital media shapes political discourse**.
2099 2099  - Highlights **which platforms and content types are most influential**.
2100 2100  - Supports **research on misinformation and online political engagement**.
1740 +{{/expandable}}
2101 2101  
2102 ----
2103 -
2104 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1742 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2105 2105  1. Study how **fact-checking influences digital persuasion effects**.
2106 2106  2. Investigate the **role of political influencers in shaping opinions**.
2107 2107  3. Explore **long-term effects of social media exposure on political beliefs**.
1746 +{{/expandable}}
2108 2108  
2109 ----
2110 -
2111 -## **Summary of Research Study**
2112 -This study analyzes **how digital media influences political persuasion**, using **12 experimental studies**. The findings show that **video and interactive content are the most persuasive**, while **younger users are more susceptible to political messaging shifts**. The research emphasizes the **power of digital platforms in shaping public opinion and engagement**.
2113 -
2114 ----
2115 -
2116 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1748 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2117 2117  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]
2118 -
2119 -{{/expand}}
2120 -
2121 -
2122 -
1750 +##~{~{/expand}}##
1751 +{{/expandable}}
1752 +{{/expandable}}
Cultural Voyeurism A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Intera.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +103.1 KB
Content