Columbia University Libraries Journals
Not a member yet
6467 research outputs found
Sort by
It Takes Two to Tango: A Longitudinal Mixed-Methods Investigation of Human-AI Co-Adaptation Across Iterative Dialogues
No full textGiven AI’s capacity to emulate human-like cognition, its integration into educational contexts, particularly in second language (L2) learning, has drawn increasing scholarly attention (Han, 2024; Zhang, 2023). Studies have shown that AI tools can support the development of lexical diversity, grammatical accuracy, and coherence in L2 writing (e.g., Chen, 2025; Escalante et al., 2023). There is also growing interest in how these tools influence learner autonomy, engagement, and motivation (Blake, 2007; Wei, 2023). However, despite this growing body of literature, little remains known about how learners and AI systems mutually influence one another during interaction
Discerning One Primary Purpose From Two:: The Inconsistent Treatment of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Testimony Under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause
No full textSurvivors of sexual assault and domestic violence often play a critical role in the criminal prosecutions of their abusers. The cyclical dynamics of abuse and corresponding prevalence of factors such as trauma, intimidation, and coercion, however, mean that survivors are often unavailable or unwilling to testify at trial. In these instances, a victim’s prior outof- court statements may nonetheless be admissible if they satisfy the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. This Note explores Confrontation Clause jurisprudence in the context of victim statements made during Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) examinations and demonstrates how the divergent approaches taken by courts around the country have left defendants, law enforcement, SANEs, and victims without a coherent framework governing the admissibility of these statements at trial. Part I details the responsibilities of SANEs and the significant role they play in the provision of both medical care and evidentiary support in subsequent criminal prosecutions. Part II lays out the evolution of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Confrontation Clause jurisprudence, from its longstanding focus on reliability to its modern-day primary purpose analysis. Part III explicates how courts throughout the United States analyze the testimonial nature of statements made by victims of sexual assault in the context of SANE examinations. Finally, Part IV recommends solutions to create a more consistent framework for analyzing SANE testimony when a victim is unavailable come trial, including practical changes to SANE programs as well as doctrinal changes to Confrontation Clause jurisprudence. Ultimately, this Note advocates for a declarant-centered approach due to the unique nature of domestic violence and sexual assault prosecutions, including the high rate of unavailable witnesses, the vulnerability involved in a sexual assault examination, and the likelihood of re-traumatization
Remarks by the Recipient of the 2024 MEM Lifetime Achievement Award: Given at the Annual Meeting of Middle East Medievalists (13 December 2024)
No full textStress to be managed and managing stress in clinical education
No full textWe introduced the Journal of Clinical Education in Physical Therapy (JCEPT) in 2019 as an open-access peer-reviewed journal with the twin goals of disseminating educational scholarship related to clinical education and developing physical therapy educational scholars. We were first indexed to the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) in 2022, and recently passed the scientific quality review for PubMed Central (PMC) indexing. As JCEPT has become more and more established the acceptance rate has declined somewhat, yet our editorial team remains true to the developmental aspect of our mission as we work with authors through multiple iterations of their manuscripts. Over the years, JCEPT abstract views have increased five-fold and indexing will further enhance the visibility and credibility of physical therapy clinical education scholarship.
A theme arising from this year’s volume was the focus on issues within the psychosocial domain across the continuum of people involved in clinical education. Student stress during their clinical education experiences including student debt and overall financial stress was explored. Also concerning was the ~66% average rate of inappropriate sexual advances by patients towards physical therapy students and the need to manage related stress and circumstances. Clinical instructors also experience stress as indicated in those with fewer than five years of experience by low compassion satisfaction. The experience may be the opposite for those at the other end of the experience spectrum as those with over 25 years in the field reported low levels of burnout. Directors of Clinical Education also manage stressful scenarios as highlighted by a case report about clinical education adjustments to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as a perspective suggesting adopting common clinical education setting terminology to reduce confusion. And for fellows, who are licensed physical therapists managing life beyond school with further training, the impact of life circumstances is suggested by better functional outcomes and more efficient episodes of care for fellows without kids at home.
JCEPT publishes scholarly work affecting any aspect of clinical education in physical therapy addressing academic or clinical faculty; entry-level students, residents, or fellows; and curricula or teaching and learning methods. In addition to original research, systematic reviews, and innovative teaching methods, JCEPT publishes clinical education case reports, case reports from residency or fellowship training, excellent critically appraised topics, and the occasional perspective. We look forward to supporting educational scholars and developing the evidence underpinning physical therapy clinical education.
Christopher Kevin Wong and Jean FitzpatrickFounding Editors in Chie
Using Past Legislation as a Template for Future AI Licensing Legislation
Full text linkArtificial intelligence (“AI”) has become a major public policy issue in Washington across a range of industries. The copyright community has also been focused on AI policy, most notably over the issues of training AI models on copyrighted works and the copyrightability of generative AI. This Article focuses on AI training.
Copyright issues surrounding training are currently the subject of significant litigation in U.S. district courts, predominantly the Southern District of New York in which the fair use defense has been raised by AI companies. Copyright issues surrounding AI training may very well reach the U.S. Supreme Court. There is certainly enough money at risk on both sides of the issue to make it likely that at least once of the many current cases will eventually be heard by the Court. If the Supreme Court determines that a license is not generally required, the licensing question (and the basis for this Article) ends the day such a decision is announced. If, however, the Supreme Court determines that a license is often required, Congressional action to enable either collective or compulsory license may be needed in certain circumstances even though direct licensing has already occurred and will no doubt continue.
From 2004 to 2007, I served as copyright counsel to then-House Judiciary Charmain James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin during which time I led weekly Congressional negotiations over two copyright bills. The first bill was an update to the Section 115 compulsory music licensing system. The legislation, titled the Section 115 Reform Act, was designed to modernize a paper-based licensing system for the digital music services era. The second bill, titled the Orphan Works Act, was a copyright industry-wide bill to address the longstanding orphan works licensing problem on a work-by-work basis. Neither bill was signed into law by Congress, although an updated version of the Section 115 Reform Act later became the now-enacted Music Modernization Act of 2018. One could also say that the Music Modernization Act proved that Congressional staff never leave since I was the lead negotiator on that bill as well. Although none of these three bills had anything directly to do with AI, Congress often builds upon what it has previously debated or enacted as a basis for future legislation. Thus, it is possible that the prior music licensing and orphan works bills could provide some basis for AI licensing legislation
State Administrative Constitutionalism and Environmental Rights: Judicial Review and New York’s Green Amendment
Full text linkSince New York’s Environmental Rights Amendment took effect in 2022, judges and litigants alike have understandably struggled to make sense of it. The “Green Amendment” presents unique interpretive challenges as a state constitutional positive right that is closely related to a preexisting regulatory scheme. Thus far, Green Amendment claims have been accompanied by statutory causes of action. Consequently, courts’ early interpretations of the right have, at best, entangled—and at worst, equated—the right with adherence to existing environmental laws, especially the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Reviewing environmental statutory and constitutional rights claims concurrently raises questions related to state constitutional interpretation, administrative agencies’ role in constitutional interpretation, and deference. This Note seeks to propose a framework for reviewing Green Amendment claims within the existing statutory context using lessons from scholarship on state constitutionalism and administrative constitutionalism. This Note ultimately concludes that democratic proportionality review is the most appropriate way to interpret the Green Amendment as a positive state constitutional right and argues that courts can conduct this proportionality analysis by merely reviewing agencies’ mitigation findings under SEQRA using a de novo standard of review. Such an approach acknowledges that administrators engage in constitutional interpretation when implementing their statutes, but it applies the appropriate standard of review to those interpretations, since courts are the final arbiters of constitutional meaning
The Flip and Flop of Taxing Alimony
Full text linkSince the dawn of income taxation in America, the tax treatment of alimony payments has flipped, flopped, and flipped again. The tax burden was first borne by the person paying alimony, then by the person receiving it. The burden has since shifted back to the alimony payor. This, we argue, was a flop.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 eliminated a tax deduction for alimony payments that served to reduce the taxable income of the payor and shift the payments into the taxable income of the recipient. Congress justified this deviation from the longstanding deduction/income treatment based an old Supreme Court case that held alimony was to be taxed to husbands as part of their moral and legal obligations to support their wives. More likely, Congress was acting for its own benefit—eliminating the deduction is estimated to raise billions for the fisc.
In this Article, we argue that this change was a mistake. Treating alimony payments as income to the recipient better comports with the Tax Code’s progressive rate structure and the concept of taxing a party based on “ability to pay.” The argument proceeds in two parts. First, we argue that alimony payments do not constitute consumption by the payor. Thus, like gifts, alimony payments should only be taxed to one of the parties involved in the transfer. Existing scholarship seems to coalesce on this point. Still, this does not tell us whom to tax: the alimony payor or the recipient? Distinguishing the income tax treatment of alimony from that of gifts, we argue the latter.
As a theoretical matter, allowing a deduction for alimony payments aligns with our progressive rate structure by accounting for the payor’s lower marginal “ability to pay” after making alimony payments. These payments represent future consumption by the recipient, not the payor, and thus reflect an increase in the recipient’s “ability to pay” taxes on such sums. And, as a practical matter, allowing parties the flexibility to allocate the tax burden among themselves is a negotiating chip that may grease the wheels in other areas of the divorce settlement process. We recommend that Congress flip once more and return the tax treatment of alimony to what it was prior to the 2017 Act reform
