title: Cross-cultural validation of the stroke riskometer using generalizability theory (vol 11, 19064, 2021)

authors: Medvedev, Oleg N.

subjects: Science & Technology

abstract: The Stroke Riskometer mobile application is a novel, validated way to provide personalized stroke risk assessment for individuals and motivate them to reduce their risks. Although this app is being used worldwide, its reliability across different countries has not yet been rigorously investigated using appropriate methodology. The Generalizability Theory (G-Theory) is an advanced statistical method suitable for examining reliability and generalizability of assessment scores across different samples, cultural and other contexts and for evaluating sources of measurement errors. G-Theory was applied to the Stroke Riskometer data sampled from 1300 participants in 13 countries using two-facet nested observational design (person by item nested in the country). The Stroke Riskometer demonstrated strong reliability in measuring stroke risks across the countries with coefficients G relative and absolute of 0.84, 95%CI [0.79; 0.89] and 0.82, 95%CI [0.76; 0.88] respectively. D-study analyses revealed that the Stroke Riskometer has optimal reliability in its current form in measuring stroke risk for each country and no modifications are required. These results suggest that the Stroke Riskometer’s scores are generalizable across sample population and countries permitting cross-cultural comparisons. Further studies investigating reliability of the Stroke Riskometer over time in longitudinal study design are warranted.

text: Cross-cultural validation of the stroke riskometer using generalizability theory (vol 11, 19064, 2021) The Stroke Riskometer mobile application is a novel, validated way to provide personalized stroke risk assessment for individuals and motivate them to reduce their risks. Although this app is being used worldwide, its reliability across different countries has not yet been rigorously investigated using appropriate methodology. The Generalizability Theory (G-Theory) is an advanced statistical method suitable for examining reliability and generalizability of assessment scores across different samples, cultural and other contexts and for evaluating sources of measurement errors. G-Theory was applied to the Stroke Riskometer data sampled from 1300 participants in 13 countries using two-facet nested observational design (person by item nested in the country). The Stroke Riskometer demonstrated strong reliability in measuring stroke risks across the countries with coefficients G relative and absolute of 0.84, 95%CI [0.79; 0.89] and 0.82, 95%CI [0.76; 0.88] respectively. D-study analyses revealed that the Stroke Riskometer has optimal reliability in its current form in measuring stroke risk for each country and no modifications are required. These results suggest that the Stroke Riskometer’s scores are generalizable across sample population and countries permitting cross-cultural comparisons. Further studies investigating reliability of the Stroke Riskometer over time in longitudinal study design are warranted.

year: 2021-10-11

title: Regulating online hate speech and harmful content in Aotearoa New Zealand - beyond criminalisation and towards a statutory duty of care

authors: Tan, Rachel Sue Yin

abstract: This thesis examines how New Zealand regulates online hate speech and harmful content, and evaluates whether current law provides effective protection in the digital environment. The study considers how social-media platforms shape the spread of harmful expression and assesses whether New Zealand’s existing legal framework is equipped to respond to these risks while maintaining the right to freedom of expression. The central question guiding the research is whether the present approach is adequate, and what reforms may be needed to address harm more effectively.

The thesis adopts an interpretivist and qualitative methodology, drawing on doctrinal, socio-legal, comparative, and political-legal methods. It uses behavioural, regulatory, and normative theories, including the Online Disinhibition Effect, modalities of regulation, and dignity- and equality-based approaches to free expression. These perspectives help explain why harmful content escalates so quickly online and why traditional legal tools struggle to respond.

The analysis proceeds in three stages. First, it examines the operation of digital platforms, focusing on algorithmic amplification, design choices, and the limits of automated moderation. Second, it reviews New Zealand’s legal framework, including the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, the Human Rights Act 1993, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This review shows that the current system is reactive, fragmented, and heavily dependent on voluntary platform policies. Third, the thesis draws comparative insights from the United Kingdom, Australia, France, Germany, and the European Union, where more proactive models, particularly statutory duties of care and transparency obligations, have begun to address platform-level risks.

The research concludes that New Zealand’s present approach does not adequately respond to systemic and group-based harms. It argues that a statutory duty of care, supported by risk-assessment requirements, algorithmic transparency, and proportionate safeguards for freedom of expression, offers a more effective and balanced framework. The thesis contributes to existing scholarship by integrating behavioural and regulatory theory with comparative legal analysis and by proposing a model of platform accountability tailored to Aotearoa New Zealand’s legal context and human rights commitments.

text: Regulating online hate speech and harmful content in Aotearoa New Zealand - beyond criminalisation and towards a statutory duty of care This thesis examines how New Zealand regulates online hate speech and harmful content, and evaluates whether current law provides effective protection in the digital environment. The study considers how social-media platforms shape the spread of harmful expression and assesses whether New Zealand’s existing legal framework is equipped to respond to these risks while maintaining the right to freedom of expression. The central question guiding the research is whether the present approach is adequate, and what reforms may be needed to address harm more effectively.

The thesis adopts an interpretivist and qualitative methodology, drawing on doctrinal, socio-legal, comparative, and political-legal methods. It uses behavioural, regulatory, and normative theories, including the Online Disinhibition Effect, modalities of regulation, and dignity- and equality-based approaches to free expression. These perspectives help explain why harmful content escalates so quickly online and why traditional legal tools struggle to respond.

The analysis proceeds in three stages. First, it examines the operation of digital platforms, focusing on algorithmic amplification, design choices, and the limits of automated moderation. Second, it reviews New Zealand’s legal framework, including the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, the Human Rights Act 1993, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This review shows that the current system is reactive, fragmented, and heavily dependent on voluntary platform policies. Third, the thesis draws comparative insights from the United Kingdom, Australia, France, Germany, and the European Union, where more proactive models, particularly statutory duties of care and transparency obligations, have begun to address platform-level risks.

The research concludes that New Zealand’s present approach does not adequately respond to systemic and group-based harms. It argues that a statutory duty of care, supported by risk-assessment requirements, algorithmic transparency, and proportionate safeguards for freedom of expression, offers a more effective and balanced framework. The thesis contributes to existing scholarship by integrating behavioural and regulatory theory with comparative legal analysis and by proposing a model of platform accountability tailored to Aotearoa New Zealand’s legal context and human rights commitments.

year: 2025-12

title: From mainstream to manaaki: Indigenising our approach to immigration

authors: Kukutai, Tahu

abstract: In recent years, discontent with migration and migrants in the wealthy global north has manifested in disturbing ways: cue Brexit, xenophobia, border paranoia, far-right nationalism and its bedfellow white supremacy. On the surface, Aotearoa New Zealand appears to have escaped the uglier aspects of this nativism. Despite the grumblings of the New Zealand First Party, no serious popular or political anti-immigration movement has appeared, and racially motivated attacks against migrants are relatively rare. This is despite the fact that Aotearoa has a much higher relative foreign-born population share than the United States or United Kingdom,1 and ‘superdiverse’ Auckland – which comprises at least 40 per cent migrants – now has the ignominious claim to being the fourthleast affordable city in the world, far outstripping London and New York.

text: From mainstream to manaaki: Indigenising our approach to immigration In recent years, discontent with migration and migrants in the wealthy global north has manifested in disturbing ways: cue Brexit, xenophobia, border paranoia, far-right nationalism and its bedfellow white supremacy. On the surface, Aotearoa New Zealand appears to have escaped the uglier aspects of this nativism. Despite the grumblings of the New Zealand First Party, no serious popular or political anti-immigration movement has appeared, and racially motivated attacks against migrants are relatively rare. This is despite the fact that Aotearoa has a much higher relative foreign-born population share than the United States or United Kingdom,1 and ‘superdiverse’ Auckland – which comprises at least 40 per cent migrants – now has the ignominious claim to being the fourthleast affordable city in the world, far outstripping London and New York.

year: 2017