dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
The checklist includes the following 12 items: 1. Identify the report as a systematic review 2. Provide an explicit statement of the main objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses 3. Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review 4. Specify the information sources (such as databases, registers) used to identify studies and the date when each was last searched 5. Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies 6. Specify the methods used to present and synthesise results 7. Give the total number of included studies and participants and summarise relevant characteristics of studies 8. Present results for main outcomes, preferably indicating the number of included studies and participants for each. If meta-analysis was done, report the summary estimate and confidence/credible interval.
Background: Evidence on the effectiveness of psychological interventions for women with common mental disorders (CMDs) who also experience intimate partner violence is scarce. We aimed to test our hypothesis that exposure to intimate partner violence would reduce intervention effectiveness for CMDs in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, CINAHL, LILACS, ScieELO, Cochrane, PubMed databases, trials registries, 3ie, Google Scholar, and forward and backward citations for studies published between database inception and Aug 16, 2019. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological interventions for CMDs in LMICs which measured intimate partner violence were included, without language or date restrictions.
Additional elements • Consider providing rationales for any notable restrictions to study eligibility. For example, authors might explain that the review was restricted to studies published from 2000 onward because that was the year the device was first available. Information sources Item 6. Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists, and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted Explanation: Authors should provide a detailed description of the information sources, such as bibliographic databases, registers and reference lists that were searched or consulted, including the dates when each source was last searched, to allow readers to assess the completeness and currency of the systematic review, and facilitate updating.
[51] [52]  Essential elements for systematic reviews regardless of the selection processes used Essential elements for systematic reviews using automation tools in the selection process Search strategy development process: Five known relevant studies were used to identify records within databases. Candidate search terms were identified by looking at words in the titles, abstracts and subject indexing of those records. A draft search strategy was developed using those terms and additional search terms were identified from the results of that strategy. Search terms were also identified and checked using the PubMed PubReMiner word frequency analysis tool. The MEDLINE strategy makes use of the Cochrane RCT filter reported in the Cochrane Handbook v5. 2. As per the eligibility criteria the strategy was limited to English language studies.
• If datasets of already-screened records were used to eliminate records retrieved by the search from further consideration, briefly describe the derivation of these datasets. For example, if prior work has already determined that a given record does not meet the eligibility criteria, it can be removed without manual checking. This is the case for Cochrane's Screen4Me service, in which an increasingly large dataset of records that are known not to represent randomised trials can be used to eliminate any matching records from further consideration.
Subgroup analyses, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses Extensions to meta-analysis, including subgroup analysis and meta-regression, are available to explore causes of variation of results across studies (that is, statistical heterogeneity). 103 Subgroup analyses involve splitting studies or participant data into subgroups and comparing the effects of the subgroups. Meta-regression is an extension of subgroup analysis that allows for the effect of continuous and categorical variables to be investigated. 109 Authors might use either type of analysis to explore, for example, whether the intervention effect estimate varied with different participant characteristics (such as mild versus severe disease) or intervention characteristics (such as high versus low dose of a drug). Sensitivity analyses are undertaken to examine the robustness of findings to decisions made during the review process.
Study selection Item 16a. Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram (see fig  1 ) Explanation: Review authors should report, ideally with a flow diagram (see fig  1 ), the results of the search and selection process so that readers can understand the flow of retrieved records through to inclusion in the review. Such information is useful for future systematic review teams seeking to estimate resource requirements and for information specialists in evaluating their searches. 133 134 Specifying the number of records yielded per database will make it easier for others to assess whether they have successfully replicated a search. The flow diagram in figure  1  provides a template of the flow of records through the review separated by source, although other layouts may be preferable depending on the information sources consulted.
40 135 At a minimum, a list of studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria but which were excluded, with citation and a reason for exclusion, should be reported. This would include studies meeting most inclusion criteria (such as those with appropriate intervention and population but an ineligible control or study design). It is also useful to list studies that were potentially relevant but for which the full text or data Example of item 15 of PRISMA 2020 checklist "Two people (AM, JS) independently assessed the certainty of the evidence. We used the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the certainty of the body of evidence as it related to the studies that contributed data to the meta-analyses for the prespecified outcomes.
We assessed the certainty of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low. We considered the following criteria for upgrading the certainty of evidence, if appropriate: large effect, dose-response gradient, and plausible confounding effect. We used the methods and recommendations described in sections 8. 5 and 8. 7, and chapters 11 and 12, of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADEpro GDT software to prepare the 'Summary of findings' tables (GRADEpro GDT 2015). We justified all decisions to down-or up-grade the certainty of studies using footnotes, and we provided comments to aid the reader's understanding of the results where necessary. ".
io/rr/), where it will benefit from external feedback before publication, or deposit a protocol in a general purpose or institutional open access repository (such as Open Science Framework Registries, Zenodo). Example of item 24a of PRISMA 2020 checklist "…this systematic review has been registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number: CRD42019128569"  201  Example of item 24b of PRISMA 2020 checklist likely to lessen unnecessary changes after protocol development. 22 However, it is difficult to anticipate all scenarios that will arise, necessitating some clarifications, modifications, and changes to the protocol (such as data available may not be amenable to the planned meta-analysis). 155 156 For reasons of transparency, authors should report details of any amendments.
Support Item 25. Describe sources of financial or nonfinancial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review Explanation: As with any research report, authors should be transparent about the sources of support received to conduct the review. For example, funders may provide salary to researchers to undertake the review, the services of an information specialist to conduct searches, or access to commercial databases that would otherwise not have been available. Authors may have also obtained support from a translation service to translate articles or in-kind use of software to manage or analyse the study data. In some reviews, the funder or sponsor (that is, the individual or organisation assuming responsibility for the initiation and management of the review) may have contributed to defining the review question, determining eligibility of studies, collecting data, analysing data, interpreting results, or approving the final review report.
164 haring of data, analytic code, and other materials relevant to a systematic review includes making various items publicly available, such as the template data collection forms; all data extracted from included studies; a file indicating necessary data conversions; the clean dataset(s) used for all analyses in a format ready for reuse (such as CSV file); metadata (such as complete descriptions of variable names, README files describing each file shared); analytic code used in software with a command-line or complete descriptions of the steps used in point-and-click software to run all analyses. Other materials might include more detailed information about the intervention delivered in the primary studies that are otherwise not available, such as a video of the specific cognitive behavioural therapy supplied by the study investigators to reviewers.
73 imilarly, other material might include a list of all citations screened and any decisions about eligibility. Because sharing of data, analytic code, and other materials is not yet universal in health and medical research,  164  even interested authors may not know how to make their materials publicly available. Data, analytic code, and other materials can be uploaded to one of several publicly accessible repositories (such as Open Science Framework, Dryad, figshare). The Systematic Review Data Repository (https:// srdr. ahrq. gov/) is another example of a platform for sharing materials specific to the systematic review community. 165 All of these open repositories should be given consideration, particularly if the completed review is to be considered for publication in a paywalled journal.
The Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable (FAIR) data principles are also a useful resource for authors to consult,  166  as they provide guidance on the best way to share information. There are some situations where authors might not be able to share review materials, such as when the review team are custodians rather than owners of individual participant data, or when there are legal or licensing restrictions. For example, records exported directly from bibliographic databases (such as Ovid MEDLINE) typically include copyrighted material; authors should read the licensing terms of the databases they search to see what they can share and to consider the copyright legislation of their countries.
189 mple of item 16a of PRISMA 2020 checklist "We found 1,333 records in databases searching. After duplicates removal, we screened 1,092 records, from which we reviewed 34 full-text documents, and finally included six papers [each cited]. Later, we searched documents that cited any of the initially included studies as well as the references of the initially included studies. However, no extra articles that fulfilled inclusion criteria were found in these searches (a flow diagram is available at https://doi. org/10. 1371/journal. pone. 0233220). "189.
170 evaluate the benefits and harms of down-titration (dose reduction, discontinuation, or disease activity-guided dose tapering) of anti-tumour necrosis factor-blocking agents (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) on disease activity, functioning, costs, safety, and radiographic damage compared with usual care in people with rheumatoid arthritis and low disease activity. "170 Example of item 4 of PRISMA 2020 checklist "Objectives: • Specify the date when each source (such as database, register, website, organisation) was last searched or consulted. • If bibliographic databases were searched, specify for each database its name (such as MEDLINE, CINAHL), the interface or platform through which the database was searched (such as Ovid, EBSCOhost), and the dates of coverage (where this information is provided).
• If study registers (such as ClinicalTrials. gov), regulatory databases (such as Drugs@FDA), and other online repositories (such as SIDER Side Effect Resource) were searched, specify the name of each source and any date restrictions that were applied. • If websites, search engines, or other online sources were browsed or searched, specify the name and URL (uniform resource locator) of each source. • If organisations or manufacturers were contacted to identify studies, specify the name of each source.
cation of new studies via databases and registers Identi cation of new studies via other methods essential to inform eligibility were not accessible. This information can be reported in the text or as a list/table in the report or in an online supplement. Potentially contentious exclusions should be clearly stated in the report. Studies included in previous version of review (n= ) Reports of studies included in previous version of review (n= ) Previous studies Records identi ed from*: Databases (n= ) Registers (n= ) Records screened (n= ) Identi Reports sought for retrieval Records excluded † (n= ) Records removed before screening: Duplicate records removed (n= ) Records marked as ineligible by automation tools (n= ) Records removed for other reasons (n= ) Reports not retrieved (n= ) Records identi ed from: Websites (n= ) Organisations (n= ) Citation searching (n= ) etc Reports sought for retrieval Reports not retrieved (n= ) (n= ) (n= ) Reports assessed for Reports excluded: Reports assessed for Reports excluded: eligibility (n= ) Reason 1 (n= ) eligibility (n= ) Reason 1 (n= ) Reason 2 (n= ) Reason 2 (n= ) Reason 3 (n= ) etc Reason 3 (n= ) etc New studies included in review (n= ) Reports of new included studies (n= ) *Consider, if feasible to do so, reporting the number of records identi ed from each database or register searched (rather than the total number across all databases/registers) Total studies included in †If automation tools were used, indicate how many records were excluded by a human and how many were excluded by automation tools review (n= ) Reports of total included studies (n= ) 132 1 | PRISMA 2020 flow diagram template for systematic reviews (adapted from flow diagrams proposed by Boers131and Mayo-Wilson et al.
189 mple of item 16a of PRISMA 2020 checklist "We found 1,333 records in databases searching. After duplicates removal, we screened 1,092 records, from which we reviewed 34 full-text documents, and finally included six papers [each cited]. Later, we searched documents that cited any of the initially included studies as well as the references of the initially included studies. However, no extra articles that fulfilled inclusion criteria were found in these searches (a flow diagram is available at https://doi. org/10. 1371/journal. pone. 0233220). "189 Example of item 16b of PRISMA 2020 checklist "We excluded seven studies from our review (Bosiers 2015; ConSeQuent; DEBATE- ISR; EXCITE ISR; NCT00481780; NCT02832024; RELINE), and we listed reasons for exclusion in the Characteristics of excluded studies tables.
We excluded studies Item 19. For all outcomes, present for each study (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (such as confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots Explanation: Presenting data from individual studies facilitates understanding of each study's contribution because they compared stenting in Bosiers 2015 and RELINE, laser atherectomy in EXCITE ISR, or cutting balloon angioplasty in NCT00481780 versus uncoated balloon angioplasty for in-stent restenosis. The ConSeQuent trial compared DEB versus uncoated balloon angioplasty for native vessel restenosis rather than in-stent restenosis. The DEBATE-ISR study compared a prospective cohort of patients receiving DEB therapy for in-stent restenosis against a historical cohort of diabetic patients.
Participants and procedure All demographic data are presented in Table  1. A total of 446 adults answered the questionnaire: 217 reported that they mainly played games offline, and 229 that they played mainly online. The respondents included 245 males (54. 93%). Ages ranged from 18 to 67 years with an average of 28. 34 (SD = 6. 98) for online gamers and 27. 75 (SD = 6. 93) for offline gamers. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and ethical guidelines of the University of Tours. Participants were recruited on Facebook and video-game forums. Before completing the questionnaire, designed using Sphinx Online, participants were given detailed information about the study (e. g. aims and background) and their rights (e. g. right to withdraw and confidentiality), and were then asked to give their informed consent.
000 (2ª Serie) with shapefiles, IGME; http://info. igme. es/cartografiadigital/geologica/Magna50. aspx) when the contour on the geomorphological map corresponded to the boundaries on the digital geological map (Figure  2 ). When the difference between the two was judged to be too large, we manually retraced the contour of the terrace as drawn on the geomorphological map. In the rare case of disagreement from one map to another for a single valley, we chose to join or instead distinguish between entities. These geomorphological maps cover only ~20% of the basin, but most of the main valleys east of Zaragoza. In the areas not covered, we relied on the geological map and manual contouring of flat areas from the shaded DEM (MDT25 dataset from IGN) and derived slope map (Figure  2 ). The mapping of terraces has been improved by comparison with published works on the terraces of the studied valleys (e.
Differences in terrace level recognition also occur between our map and one of the published ones, or between two different publications (for example between the maps from  Mensua and Ibañez, 1977 and from Alberto et al. , 1983). Following our terrace mapping workflow, we labeled each terrace level using capital letters, similar to the convention used on geomorphological maps and deliberately different from the labels used in publications, which are different for each river studied. The shapefile is available at doi:10. 5281/zenodo. 4721256.
8-1. 15 Ma and ~120 m/Ma (x3) since then (Figure  10 ). Along the Aragón valley, A and B are 130 m and 90 m above the current river, respectively: the incision rate varies from ~25 m/Ma for the period 2. 8-1. 15 Ma to ~80 m/Ma (x3, for uncertainties see Table  S1 , Supplementary material) for the last 1. 15 Ma (Figure  10 ). We tested the robustness of these observations taking into account various ages and terrace elevation datasets  We note that the incision calculated in the Zaragoza area of 500 m is possibly underestimated if the latest pre-opening sediments have been buried before exhumation  (Garcia-Castellanos and Larasoaña, 2015). Thus the pre-2. 8 Ma period incision is (slightly?) lower than in the southern flank of the Pyrenean Axial Zone for the last 9 Ma deduced from low-temperature thermochronology (700-1600 m, equivalent to an exhumation rate of 130-500 m/Ma,  Fillon et al.
Acknowledgements V. Zavala  and  J. Rat  participated to the field work. We thank  M. Delmas ,  R. Braucher , and  S. Carretier  for fruitful discussions. This work benefited from support and funding by  OROGEN TOTAL-BRGM - CNRS  project. We thank two reviewers,  M. Calvet  and  D. García-Castellanos , and Editor  A. Teixell  for their careful reading and constructive comments.
Data collection and analysis We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature on multinational misbehavior to address these challenges. To do this, we followed the following steps. First, we surveyed publications in social sciences that analyze misbehavior in multinationals. This provided an overview of the primary authors, journals, topics, connections among disciplines and journals, the progression of the literature over time, and a set of keywords for a systematic literature review in international business. Second, we identified the main arguments about multinationals' misbehavior in articles published in management journals. We did this in the tradition of content analysis, including both large samples, case studies, and theoretical essays  (Duriau, Reger & Pfarrer, 2007; Gaur & Kumar, 2018; Luo & Zhang, 2016).
Considering the wide variation that emerged from an initial search of keywords in management journals in the Web of Science Database, we included a large variety of keywords based on (1) manifestations of deviance (crime, criminal, deviance, illegal, illegitimate, immoral, improper, irresponsibility, irresponsible, malfeasance, misbehavior, misconduct, misdemeanor, misdoing/misdeed, transgression, unethical, or wrongdoing); (2) outcomes (breach, fines, penalty, sanction, scandal, stigma, violation, or whistleblowing); (3) environmental problems (environmental damage, pollution); (4) social issues (abuse, bullying, child labor, discrimination, harassment, labor exploitation, slavery); and (5) governance challenges (bribery, cartel, collusion, corruption, cronyism, expropriation, fraud, insider trading/dealing, money laundering, rent-seeking, smuggling, tax avoidance/evasion).
The database contained 188 generic search terms on misbehavior and 147 keywords related to outcomes; papers can have multiple keywords. Our search by keywords related to environmental, social, and governance misbehavior revealed a clear focus on governance misbehavior (360 hits), particularly corruption (161). We found fewer articles on social misbehavior (89), with discrimination as the most frequent keyword, and on environmental misbehavior (62), with pollution as the most frequent keyword. Surprisingly, it is rare for studies to specify a particular theoretical base. Among those that do, there is an overwhelming focus on institutions and institutional theory (46 papers) followed by transaction costs (five) and agency theory (three). Resource dependence theory and the resource-based view of the firm were not featured explicitly in the abstracts except in one literature review on corruption   (Cuervo-Cazurra, 2016).
Governance misbehavior in multinationals Most of the research on governance misbehavior has focused on corruption abroad. Tax evasion is a more recent topic that is gaining traction, while other governance issues like global collusion are less investigated. Corruption in multinationals has a long history of analysis. Waldman (1973)  was an early proponent of the need to study corruption in international business and the importance of following a universal approach (corruption is bad) versus a local one (corruption might not be wrong in certain places). Subsequent studies were preoccupied with identifying corruption abroad  (Beaver, 1994)  and assessing the effectiveness of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that criminalized bribes paid by US firms abroad  (Geo-JaJa & Mangum, 2000). Once datasets measuring corruption at the country level were available in the mid-1990s from the World Bank and Transparency International, there was a rush of studies on the impact of host country corruption on multinationals.