Following the article, the author J. Kenens has published another paper "Changing perspectives: tracing the evolution of citizen radiation measuring organizations after Fukushima (2020)" DOI: 10.1051/radiopro/2020041 (link) that draws on the research on citizen science in Japan with a new focus on the comparison of their practices directly after the nuclear accident and today.
It is interesting to see how citizen science in Japan is enacted and how the concept of citizen science is dependent to the social and cultural context. Also looking at it not only from a top-down perspective, where universities or organizations are involved, but also the bottom-up perspective that includes only those practices that are done by citizens alone opens up a new space. As I am currently engaging with research on air pollution in different sites, I could build from this text in considering the link between "citizen-driven approaches and institutional imparatives in the governance" (p. 7) of issues with air pollution.
The text is an article about citizen science in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster in 2011. The first noteworthy detail about this text that struck me is the inclusion of Japanese words and even their original spelling. This creates a kind of closeness to the field that the authors did their research in.
The authors engaged in multi-sited ethnographic fieldwork that took place in and around Fukushima but also in other geografical sites like Tochigi, Miyagi, Aichi, Tokyo and Kyoto. There, they conduct semi-structured interviews with various organisations that are all somehow involved with citizen science or radiation measurement. To learn about the citizens that measure radioactivity and create their own data on radiation because of a lack of provided data by the government, a literature review of policy documents and workshops with those citizen scientists is performed.
Its basically impossible to judge who uses the app, if anyone. Th only way to judge would be if they published results of downloading a useage, as their reviews are inadequate.
1) Current criteria surrounding clinical depression: While most of us hold an idea of what depression is, physicians have been given the task of specifically categorizing this nuanced disease. Also called "major depression", clinical depression is the prolonged sensation of low mood during almost all times/activities. These sensations must be present for at least 2 weeks and be persistent across daily activity in order to be considered major depression
2) CBT: Cognitive behavioral therapy is the current widely used model for psychosocial intervention. It focuses on the patient developing coping strategies to aid in emotional regulation, curb unhelpful cognitive patterns, and seek personal solutions
3) Vignette: Never heard of this word before. The term originally referred to small, pleasing sketches, views, engravings, photographs, or illustrations. However, the term is used here to describe a story of patient care. The quick snap-shot is a far-cry from the typical encyclopedia given to health care providers about a patient; it acts as a small, short tale depiction of the scenario, the intervention used, and the outcome.
Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons
This study was published in 1998 in the American Journal of Community Psychology. It is a bimonthly, peer-reviewed academic journal focusing on research devoted to community psychology. Community psychology attempts to place an individual's context within communities/community structure and in society. This includes quality of life for certain individuals, populations, and communities. The impact factor is only about 2, indicating that the journal is infrequently cited and does not have the prowess of larger journal publications.
The article has a very diverse bibliography with multiple references from the International Atomic Energy Agency. If you can learn anything, it's that Schmid pulls information from reliable sources.