Search results

High levels of child obesity alongside rising stunting and the absence of a coherent food policy have deemed UK’s food system to be broken. The National Food Strategy (NFS) was debated intensely in media, with discussions on how and who should fix the food system.

Using a mixed methods approach, the authors conduct framing analysis on traditional media and sentiment analysis of twitter reactions to the NFS to identify frames used to shape food system policy interventions.

The study finds evidence that the media coverage of the NFS often utilised the tropes of “culture wars” shaping the debate of who is responsible to fix the food system – the government, the public or the industry. NFS recommendations were portrayed as issues of free choice to shift the debate away from government action correcting for market failure. In contrast, the industry was showcased as equipped to intervene on its own accord. Dietary recommendations made by the NFS were depicted as hurting the poor, painting a picture of helplessness and loss of control, while their voices were omitted and not represented in traditional media.

British media’s alignment with free market economic thinking has implications for food systems reform, as it deters the government from acting and relies on the invisible hand of the market to fix the system. Media firms should move beyond tropes of culture wars to discuss interventions that reform the structural causes of the UK’s broken food systems.

As traditional media coverage struggles to capture the diversity of public perception; the authors supplement framing analysis with sentiment analysis of Twitter data. To the best of our knowledge, no such media (and social media) analysis of the NFS has been conducted. The paper is also original as it extends our understanding of how media alignment with free market economic thinking has implications for food systems reform, as it deters the government from acting and relies on the invisible hand of the market to fix the system.

The competition in the academe has always been tough, but today, the academe seems to be more like an industry than an academic community as academics are evaluated through quantified and economic means.

This article leans on Heidegger’s thoughts on the essence of technology and his ontological view on being to show the dangers that lie in this quantification of researchers and research.

Despite the benefits that information systems (ISs) offer to people and research, it seems that technology has made it possible to objectify researchers and research. This has a negative impact on the academe and should thus be looked into especially by the IS field, which should note the problems that exist in its core. This phenomenon of quantified academics is clearly visible at academic quantification sites, where academics are evaluated using metrics that count their output. It seems that the essence of technology has disturbed the way research is valued by emphasising its quantifiable aspects. The study claims that it is important to look for other ways to evaluate researchers rather than trying to maximise research production, which has led to the flooding of articles that few have the time or interest to read.

This paper offers new insights into the current phenomenon of quantification of academics and underlines the need for critical changes if in order to achieve the academic culture that is desirable for future academics.

The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically affected the fire service: stay-at-home orders and potential exposure hazards disrupted standard fire service operations and incident patterns. The ability to predict incident volume during such disruptions is crucial for dynamic and efficient staff allocation planning. This work proposes a model to quantify the relationship between the increase in “residential mobility” (i.e. time spent at home) due to COVID-19 and fire and emergency medical services (EMS) call volume at the onset of the pandemic (February – May 2020). Understanding this relationship is beneficial should mobility disruptions of this scale occur again.

The analysis was run on 56 fire departments that subscribe to the National Fire Operations Reporting System (NFORS). This platform enables fire departments to report and visualize operational data. The model consists of a Bayesian hierarchical model. Text comments reported by first responders were also analyzed to provide additional context for the types of incidents that drive the model’s results.

Overall, a 1% increase in residential mobility (i.e. time spent at home) was associated with a 1.43% and 0.46% drop in EMS and fire call volume, respectively. Around 89% and 21% of departments had a significant decrease in EMS and fire call volume, respectively, as time spent at home increased.

A few papers have investigated the impact of COVID-19 on fire incidents in a few locations, but none have covered an extensive number of fire departments. Additionally, no studies have investigated the relationship between mobility and fire department call volumes.