POLITICAL SCIENCE

TITLE: How Hillary May Have Lost the White House: The Electoral Effects of Presidential
Campaign Visits in 2016
FINDINDS:
Results Descriptive Statistics Regarding Visits Before delving into results of the
aforementioned statistical models, it is first helpful to provide an overview of the visits which
each candidate took during the campaign to foster a better understanding of the data being
analyzed. Regarding the total number of visits by each candidate, Mr. Trump took the most with
99 during the campaign. Secretary Clinton took considerably fewer than Mr. Trump, having
taken 62 visits. With the fewest number of visits, Governor Johnson took 27. This discrepancy
between the number of visits by the two major parties’ nominees is especially prominent in
September, wherein Trump made nearly double the number of campaign stops that Clinton did:
32 as compared to Clinton’s 17. Interestingly, all but 28 of Mr. Trump’s visits were in unique
counties, having visited 71 different counties across his 99 visits. On the other hand, a smaller
percentage of Secretary Clinton’s visits were in a unique county, with 38 of her 62 visits taking
place in unique counties. Finally, Governor Johnson visited a unique county in 25 instances from
his 27 total visits. The specific, unique, counties which each candidate visited are reflected below
in Figures 5.1 - 5.3. Many of the counties in question played host to a candidate on multiple
occasions, with 37 counties receiving 2 or more visits. Unsurprisingly, many of the counties
receiving the most visits are located in the most contentious states: Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania and Cuyahoga County, Ohio received 7 visits, while Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania hosted 6 visits. Each of these counties contains a major metro area such as
Philadelphia, Cleveland, and 31 Pittsburgh, respectively. An outlier exists, however, in the case
of Washington, D.C. which hosted 6 different visits despite having among the strongest
Democratic voting tendencies in past elections. Among the counties with more than one visit, 22
of those 37 hosted both Secretary Clinton and President Trump at some point between September
1st and Election Day. With his considerably smaller campaign footprint, Governor Johnson
visited 8 counties also visited by either of the major party campaigns.

ECONOMICS
TITLE: The economic costs of loneliness: a review of cost-of-illness and economic
evaluation studies
FINDINDS:
Measurements of both resource use/cost and utility data from trials would provide more
robust information for any subsequent modelled analyses. Therefore, while the economic
evaluations tended to generally demonstrate that loneliness or social isolation interventions may
provide good value-for-money, the diferences in the methods and contexts of each study meant
that they are not inherently comparable. We identifed fve ROI/SROI studies highlighting the
popularity of this type of analysis in this research area. However, while ROI studies tend to adopt
what are largely partial economic evaluation frameworks (with health benefts sometimes
ignored), SROI studies tend to place monetary values on many impacts, which do not have an
inherent monetary value (e.g., friendship). Unfortunately, many of the values for such benefts
used in SROI studies have not been determined using experimental designs and, therefore, the
accuracy of the valuation is unclear. A more general issue relating to all the studies identifed in
this review is the focus on older adults. We did not identify any studies which included children,
adolescents or younger adults. A recent unpublished UK study found that the prevalence of
loneliness was higher in young people than older populations [35]. This fnding has been
corroborated in the peer-reviewed literature [36]. It is also important to consider how loneliness
and interventions designed to target loneliness impact on working-age adults since productivity
losses are a signifcant component of economic burden of many health and mental health
conditions. Another fnding of this literature was the lack of consistency in the actual
measurement of loneliness and social isolation. Many scales in this area have been developed
from diferent theoretical perspectives and may not be comparable [37]. Further research
regarding what is the gold standard of measurement needs to occur. Another fnding, particularly
of the economic evaluation and ROI/SROI studies, was that the modelled studies sometimes used
evaluations undertaken in one context (e.g., Japan) and modelled their impact in another context
(e.g., the UK). While this is not uncommon in the modelled health economic evaluation
literature, it is important to assess to what extent the components of the intervention are
“transferable” to other settings and whether they are likely to result in the same or similar
impacts. Last, tackling social isolation and loneliness is likely to require a multi-sector approach
and the impacts are likely to fall in many sectors, not just health. As such, the economic
evaluation approach needs to refect these complexities and consider the costs and benefts
occurring outside the health care sector. Furthermore, attention to the comparators or the
counterfactual also needs to be more carefully considered.

SOCIOLOGY
TITLE: Social Inequality
FINDINGS:
According to the findings, inequality is not the opposite term to the term equality. The
reason of such concluding remark is because all people are different. The study identifies the
equality as a zero point of the total range of inequality. Further, the findings underline that
socially recognized differences provoke the existence of absolute. According to the results of the
study, there are nine different inequality bases; hence, equality is just the balance of all
inequalities.

PSYCHOLOGY
TITLE: Work Engagement as Mediator between Perceived Participation, Supervisor
Support and Altruistic Behaviors: Empirical Results from the Italian Social Enterprise
Sector
FINDINGS:
Overall, the findings regarding the PLS measurement model were satisfactory. According
to the results of the statistical data-analysis construct validity could be concluded for that all the
LV’s. Aside from the item we9, all OV acceptably loaded on the corresponding constructs (>
0.7) without cross-loadings on the remaining LVs (see Table 1). Since the cross-loadings of we9
did not surpass the hypothesized loadings, and in order to preserve the high of the criterion
variable, the item was maintained. This decision was supported by further results on the
construct validity of all LVs. The divergent validity of all LVs was confirmed by the results of
the AVE test (see Table 2). T

EDUCATION
TITLE: SCHOOL ABSENTEEISM: ITS CAUSES AND IMPLICATIONS TO THE

STUDENT’S ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE IN SMGCHS

FINDINGS: We found out that some of them was taking absent because of health issue and
many factors. They are experiencing some difficulties because of that, there non-attendance
affects their performance at school. And some of them are taking absent because the
location of their house was very far at school. They also sleeping late at night, so they wake
up late in the morning. They hard cope up with their performance and they missing lessons
at school. They can’t manage their time, it affects all of their lesson and their academic
skill.