Not exact matches
«Unfortunately, what has been
accepted in theory
by the
research community has not been universally reflected in the current content of scientific journal articles,» said Dr. Miller in an interview.
The term has actually been in use in medical
research since the mid-1960s, but wasn't widely recognized or
accepted by the medical
community until a few years ago.
There's a lot to learn from the above study, but making assumptions from one study, ignoring all the other
research, forgetting that learning that is associated with the intellectual or creative problem solving areas are always treated differently to grouping in sport, drama or music, shows that there is a bias towards
accepting the findings of this one study - maybe not
by the author, but
by those in the
community who are jumping on this study.
With these concepts in mind, the Center employs the following three - stage process: • Knowledge Synthesis — a critical analysis of cutting - edge science and program evaluation
research to identify core concepts and evidence - based findings that are broadly
accepted by the scientific
community.
To this end, the Center has developed a three - stage knowledge transfer process: (1) Knowledge Synthesis — a critical analysis of cutting - edge science and program evaluation
research to identify core concepts and evidence - based findings that are broadly
accepted by the scientific
community; (2) Knowledge Translation — the identification of gaps in understanding between scientists and the public, and the development of effective language to communicate accurate scientific information in a way that can inform sound public discourse; and (3) Knowledge Communication — the production and dissemination of a wide variety of publications and educational media via print, the Web, and in - person presentations.
«EPA is relying most heavily on these synthesis reports because they... 3) have been reviewed and formally
accepted by, commissioned
by, or in some cases authored
by, U.S. government agencies and individual government scientists and provide EPA with assurances that this material has been well vetted
by both the climate change
research community and
by the U.S. government; and 4) in many cases, they reflect and convey the consensus conclusions of expert authors.»
Natural variability is now widely
accepted as making a significant contribution and our argument for a lowered climate sensitivity — which would indicate that existing climate models are not reliable tools for projecting future climate trends — is buoyed
by accumulating evidence and is gaining support in the broader climate
research community.
After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused
by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and can not be adjudged a valid,
accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer - reviewed journals, engage in
research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific
community.
Indeed,
research undertaken
by Deloitte uncovered that 70 percent of graduates say a company's commitment to the
community influences their decision to
accept a position.