https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcms.12829
T.Nowak, edited by T. Perisin S. Rodin
DOI: 10.1111/JCMS.12829
ISBN: 9781509907250
https://www.worldcat.org/title/transformation-or-reconstitution-of-europe-the-critical-legal-studies-perspective-on-the-role-of-the-courts-in-the-european-union/oclc/1225577729&referer=brief_results
I’m the author of “A Critical Review of the Baseline Soldier Physical Readiness Requirements Study.” SMA-PAO (Public Affairs Officer for the Sergeant Major of the Army) recently made a post that contains significant disinformation about my report. SMA-PAO starts with “I will not be discussing the future of the ACFT, but I will not allow for false narratives to set the foundation for whatever that decision is” and then proceeds to construct a false narrative. I would like to correct that narrative.
In 2019, I was selected by the American Statistical Association to serve as a congressional fellow, a position supported by an independent grant to strengthen the use of evidence and data science in federal policymaking. I was placed in the legislative staff of the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In summer 2020, following social media reports of a failure rate as high as 83% among female soldiers on the roll-out of the ACFT, I was asked to investigate the data. What I initially thought would be a quick-turn analysis turned into a deep dive of how compounding errors undermined the predictive model behind the ACFT. I wrote my report as an internal document for Congress: a one-page executive summary for members of Congress, the main matter for congressional staffers, and footnotes with all of the gory mathematical details. I submitted my report to my Senate office in October 2020. Congress subsequently (in the 2021 NDAA) directed the Army to pause the ACFT until an external review of it could be conducted (now by RAND). After receiving external requests for my report, I cleared its release and eventually submitted it to arXiv.org in October 2021.
SMA-PAO states that my analysis “was neither peer reviewed nor scientifically validated.” The statement is false. I communicated with the authors of the University of Iowa's report, particularly because I discovered several things that they missed during their assessment. They subsequently provided their feedback on my draft report. Additionally, my report was reviewed by experts in both exercise physiology and statistics. It was also briefed separately to a panel from the Institute for Defense Analysis and several scientists across several fields of study.
SMA-PAO goes on to say that my analysi
... keep reading on reddit ➡Disclaimer: this is the PAO. I will not be discussing the future of the ACFT, but I will not allow for false narratives to set the foundation for whatever that decision is. Everything discussed is publicly available and I will provide sources where possible.
tl;dr: the ACFT is an incredibly valid predictor of warrior tasks and battle drills performance. There are valid concerns and discussions to be had over the test, but this isn't one of them. The timing of the article is suspicious at best given the Army plans to have a test of record on April 1st. Finally, the independent review of the original study found that a well-qualified team of scientists and military personnel conducted it, has used appropriate and rigorous methodologies, and is technically sound, resulting in valid findings.
First of all, context matters. The previous post cites a 'critical review' of an independent study done by the University of Iowa to find which combination of exercises that can predict a Soldier's ability to perform the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills. The findings of that study can be found here.
The "critical review" was done by Mr. Kyle Novak - a retired Air Force LTC that specializes in data and math - who happened to work in the office of one of the congressional leaders who led the pause in implementation of the test. It was neither peer reviewed nor scientifically validated. His findings were later reviewed and debunked by a second team of researchers from the University of Iowa. It turns out, when you call academia to the carpet, they take it personal...
That review team did not include anyone on the original study and had four PhD’s (focuses on robotics and human simulation; physiological adaptation to stressors; biomedical engineering and rehabilitation; and modeling, simulation, and control of multibody dynamic systems) and an MS, RD, CSCS who serves as the university director of sport science.
What follows is a summary of their full review of the original study- found here:
**The primary findings of the
... keep reading on reddit ➡I'm curious, law is incredibly practical, but people rarely focus on the theoretical (unless they're still studying lol)
ISSN: 0017-8039
URL: heinonline.org
https://youtu.be/jXq4AK562L0
Thomas Alexander. A new channel espousing the research materials of Inarah scholars. The Inarah scholars have dozens of research papers on this topic.
Can someone who speaks legalese help clarify the topic in the link but more importantly in the other links embedded within the article?
This is a link from reuters that I thought my be relevant and interesting to this sub. It is very worrisome in that it is way, way too tricky.
On one hand the consumer is allured into 'getting paid' for his/her data but then is sold insurance plans that may or may not be accountable to state regulations. It is not clear if the legal battle is about considering such insurance plans applicable to those offered by employers (private or federal or state) or to private individuals.
The data is collected through anything the consumer uses whether or not in scope of their employment.
Hello everyone!
I am an undergraduate of BA Philosophy, and I am currently writing my thesis about the weakness of Critical Legal Studies as a Legal Theory. Anyways, I need your help about the literature review part of my thesis. I currently have 4 prints of Roberto Unger (Proponent of CLS), and a chapter about postmodernist legal theories.
Is there a minimum or maximum number with regards to reviewing existing literature? Can you please tell me any suggestion or tip on this part of writing?
Thanks in advance.
And it gets even worse.
Here’s a report by Kyle A. Novak Ph. D a fellow for the US Senate and financed by the American Statistical Association regarding the errors in the so said “study” or Baseline Soldier Physical Readiness Requirements Study done by the University of Iowa.
The underrepresentation of women during the development of the model was so significant …University of Iowa, Virtual Soldier Research Center, reviewers suggested we BOOTSTRAP additional women into the FT Riley sample.”
BOOTSTRAPPING is a technique where data is resampled from already counted data. The researchers simply COPY AND PASTED already overly underrepresented women, virtually cloning an extra 92 women from the original 49.
The version of the BSPRRS model that the Army touts as having an 80 percent ability to predict WTBD/CST performance was developed using data from a mere 16 women out of 152 total participants.
You can read more here:
A Critical Review of the Baseline Soldier Physical Readiness Requirements Study (arxiv.org)
\#acft \#armycombatfitnesstest
