Unda, unda, unda, unda, unda, unda, unda.  I'm Corbin. I'm Rick. And you can follow us on Instagram, Twitter for more juicy content. That's so juicy. Thank you ever for this awesome patron on. Follow us on Patreon or Twitter or account. Did Andri get you that shirt? Got me this one.  And they were also on our official two-putting channel. Yeah.  Oh, yay. Am I going to cry? No. OK. You sure about that? You shouldn't. There should be no reason for you to. OK. It is the top 10 carbonizations. Oh, sweet. Hence the underhun-duh-hun, which is the king of all carbonizations. They put in the top 10. That's got to be number one. I would think so. But apparently, there's an entire group of people on Twitter that help recommend videos. And also, they vote on different videos. And so this, they voted on their top 10 carbonizations. That's awesome. There haven't been many recently. I actually saw a comment today, people saying they miss the carbonizations. I can't help it. I know. You can't help it. I mean, eventually, we're both going to be fluent in Hindi. So what do you want from us? Here we go. Look at that shirt. I'm wearing it. I like it. We should come up with a top 10 carbonization. And you did. I love that idea. I don't know if I can vote on that, though. Like, I think that has to be made. I think it has to be made. I can vote on that. Great intro. Because like, I don't sometimes even know. I'm mispronouncing these. Yeah, I want, if somebody had the time of the wearable to do it, you know how they've done meme videos, I would like to see a video of just your carbonizations. Well done. Ready to go for me?  Man, this is great. I love this. It's called Jamse Teranina from Saweria. It was in it? It was in it? Saweria. Saweria. And then from Saweria, Vadi. Saweria. Saweria. And the name of the song is … I can't even. Yeah, you can. You got it. Maka-ba-ba-ba. That's- that's- Wow, that's only number nine. Maka-ba-ba-ba-ba. Kovarie died. Wow, I can't believe I mispronounced that one. Why this cold of any day? Because I've heard this song. How'd you pronounce that? Sarbaget? Is that what I said? It's Sherbert. That's right, I wanted to say Sherbert. They don't ever want that in China. Sherbert. Do a song! They're so glad that you didn't scream. I know. A song? A song. Current or Boulder? It is from 1998. And what's it called, Corbin? Bring it on. What's the name of it? Bring it on. It is. Bring it on. Tonka. Tonka. Tonka Tonka. I love that he called it Corbinize. It's not Tonka Tonka. It's Tonak Tonak. Sure. Dollar's Mendy because he has an S on his hand. This one is called... Gersnatch. Gersnatch. Gersnatch. Gersnatch. Gersnatch. Gersnatch. I requested one of... Swades. Is that not what it's pronounced? It's called Swades. What is it? No, look. I didn't even pick up on anything. There's a lot of babies out there right now. How did you pronounce it? I was with you. But it's not gonna be Swade. I don't even fully... I've heard it as Swade so long. I don't know the... I think it's Swades. I don't know. Mind blown. Yeah. Notice I didn't even pick up the Corbinization on that. When you said it, I was like, sure that's called Swades. I'm gonna be reacting to a trailer called... Pajero. Mastanai. Now the kid just dropped me Mastanai. I think it's... It's because it gets happening. Wow. It was not even saying anything. And I bet the R has that little... To it. Yeah. And it has that little... Pajero Mastani. Hey, look at the album. That was... That was... Why are we reacting to... Deborah. Oh. I don't even think I changed it at this point, did I? Deborah. Deborah. I don't realize... I don't realize you glossed at Deborah right there. Deborah. I'll give it a shot. And it forever became... No one knows what I'm talking about when I'm talking about the Deborah film. That's it. That's the Deborah film. It's gotta be Andahan. How do you pronounce... It's still dead. I know how to pronounce it. It doesn't end at the end. Hold on. Hold on. Andahan. Andahan. I think it's... Andahan. No, that's just dumb. It's Andahan. There are two D's. There's only two D's in the whole word. And... And done. And done. Loving memory of the president's existence. It's true, because corporatizations are slowly... It is a slowly dying society. What? Just whenever you do that, we need to have a scale. And that voice. Like when you do it then it just goes... Corbinized. Corbinized. Yeah. Once. One time. Yeah, one time. Yeah. And then... Corbinized. That's too much work. I forget about every single other time. It's too much work. No, that was fun. That was great. Of course, Undahan had to be number one. Tripped down memory lane. I didn't realize you had glossed at Deborah. Yeah. Right there day one. It's funny, because sometimes I'll... Corbinize them right away. Right. But then I'll change them. Like Bajoramastani. Yeah, because that one's Pastrami Mastanani now. Right. And then I didn't know that I made the Deborah film right away. Me neither. I thought that was after... I thought that came up after multiple times of us going, forget it. What did I say? The Deborah film. You know the Deborah film. Yeah. That's awesome. And every single time I tried to talk to somebody about that film. I call it the Deborah film. The Deborah... What? Me too.  The Deborah film. And then the one about Stars in the Sky, the Amir Khan film that we love so much with the little boy. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. It's... It's Tarry Tom... I never remember the film. Stars on... What is it called? Yes. Stars... I always tell them it's the Stars film with the beautiful little boy who's got the learning challenge and Amir Khan is able to reach him and I cry 50 times. I just... I screw up that name every time. As well as the Deborah film. I always screw that one up. Because the Deborah film doesn't even have the word Deborah in it at all. But you just simplified it. It's called Deborah. It's the one with the Rithic and the... It's the Rithic... Deborah film. The Rithic one with the... And there have been so many comments whenever we've mentioned it. What's this Deborah film? They're referring to... Yeah. If you're new, you don't know a lot. Yeah. You have to... And please do. One helps us out. And two, to know what's going on. Go back. Just see the beginning of the channel. Just binge watch and go back. It's not that hard. I mean there's people who spent like two weekends because each of our videos is only like ten minutes long. But I've seen people who've said, hey I'm brand new to your channel and for the past two weeks I've been watching and doing nothing but binge watching and catching up now. Which is beautiful. Yeah but they... You don't... I see that question in the like. What's the Deborah? Right. What's the Deborah film? What... People always correct my saying of under, under, under. Always. I know you're new if you correct my pronunciation. And we will never call that film anything but... I don't even know what that film's name is besides that. It is. We've renamed them. It is under, under, under. It is Swades. I... Honestly I still don't know what that film is called. It is Deborah. I thought it was Swades. That one blew my mind. I know. I still don't know the proper pronunciation of that one. Let us know what other... Corbinizations are... Or out there. Because I know there's more. Oh. There's at least 50. At least 50 that are Corbinized. But those were great. That is a great... I do not argue with that top 10. Yeah. That was great. I even forgot about some of these honestly. Me too. I remember... Obviously I remember Deborah Swades... Pustrami Mastanani. Because that's another one. We don't refer to it as Bajramastani. We only refer to it as Pustrami Mastanani. Pustrami Mastanani. Yeah. That's what that film is.  It wouldn't surprise me. The one you got right for sure was Black. Black and Pink. I think it's actually... Blah, blah, blah.


Good day everyone. My name is Ophelia Bagotno and I work in Homeless People's Federation Philippines. Payatas is a very big place and lot of urban settlement living in this area. We don't know how long it will take the pandemic and the people lost their job, they cannot go for work. So many people stay in the house, they cannot go out because no transportation. My friend from Kessil City Office told me that if I want to join the project of our city mayor that is Mayor Joy Bill Monte and I said what kind of project is it? He told me that it is all about food sustainability, which is our need. Urban farming is a big part of my program and I know it is a big part of yours as well because I realized food security was the number one issue under the pandemic, walang makain ang mga tao and therefore we are now converting idol lands into farms and those idol lands we are converting together with the grassroots women and grassroots organization. So we start planning together with all the volunteers, we are 63 volunteers in our paracels. It is a good thing for me and for my group that is a bit far from my place. That is amlak, we called it amlak. It's maybe more than 1 kilometer walking from my place to that place. They allow us to use the place. So what we did is we talked to the owner and then asked the formation of the president of the village that if we can do the gardening in that place. So we start only three women. I asked the Paris priest that if somebody wants to help us then we will do the gardening at the upper side. The father announced that. And then we create five groups and 450 square meter lap, backhand lap. It is very good that we grow little by little. We made an organic fertilizer. I myself teach them how to do it because I learned it from my friend. Slowly, slowly the plant grows. Some vegetable we sell but some we give it to our members to bring it home so that they have good to their table for their family. In 2020, during the height of the pandemic, the city released more than 40,000 seed starter kits to the growing number of women interested in food production. To date, we have 116 community farms that provide nutritious food and additional livelihood to its mostly women farmers and their families. And after that, the mayor is so happy when she come to our place. She visited us. She can see the people is happy even though that they don't have work. They lost their job. They don't have enough money. And food is not a problem for us now because the vegetable is there. And the rice, we have a continuous supply of the rice with the mayor. Sometimes the mayor send it to us and the barangay captain. And now in Ilu-Ilu, I think Sonya also is telling me that the Ilu-Ilu city wants to replicate these things. In one place also in Keso City, it is district 2. They have 11 hectares of vegetable farm. And one thing, good things that happen to me is the mayor, together with the city councilor, asked me to take the in situ. Agro-interface. And the next one is organic agriculture production I will take again. And then I can give training to the other community that they need. Now I realize that the settlement cannot do it alone in this kind of pandemic. They need to help one another, together with the government. We don't need to fight for the government now. We don't need to complain so much for the government. What we need now is help one another. Whatever we need, everything we need, they give it to us. This is one thing that I can say that if the government, all the government or nearby city can do what our mayor did to us, nobody can, no one can get angry. They can feed their own family. They do not need to have money to go and buy foods for the family. But in their own backyard, they can get the food, the vegetables and everything for the family to eat.


Let's go to the corn maze. Oh my God, Carolyn! What the heck? There's a fire! That's in the direction that we're going. Oh, maw! Oh, maw! Be on your best behavior, Carolyn's here, okay? Don't any of you embarrass me, and where's Merlin? There's Merlin not being on his best behavior. Hello, my fellow sniffers, flighters, and newbies. Welcome to the channel. My name is Marlene McCohen. If you like animals, you're gonna love this channel because you are about to embark on a journey of parrot. And stay with this video because you're about to see some of the most beautiful exotic birds in the world. I have some gorgeous birds, but Carolyn has not one, but two, hyacinth macaws. What's up? You know the guy that like, you know when you're, the police shut down the street and then somebody has to like guide the way? Construction. Oh, because I'm all in yellow and orange. Hi birds, what is this, Carolyn? Well, I thought, so you see this basket? Yeah. I thought we're gonna smash some pumpkins. What do you mean smash it? We smash it, we go up in your balcony and smash it down onto the ground. And then we'll clean that, Carolyn. The birds, they eat it. I don't know about this mess idea. Have you done this before? Smash and pumpkins? Yeah. No, but I thought we do it together for the first time because it's always fun to do stuff, like new stuff with you. I'm excited. Always. Not about the mess, but I'm excited. Hold on, a bird's doing something bad. What are you doing? What's going on? Who's doing it? Who's doing it? Oh, man. Man, man. What are you up to? What are you doing? Uh-oh. Elevator. Oh my God. Love is gonna help me make some tea. You want some Jersey's birthday blend? Sure. It's really, I'm not even saying this, like, I mean, I chose all the ingredients in it and I just am obsessed. Like, everyone in the house is obsessed with this. You choose ingredients? All my friends, yeah, I chose it. It's so good. Behind you is a bird. Huh?  What little bird? Your African gray, what's it called? My African gray is a little bird.  Get the birthday blend. Go ahead. Oh, it smells good. It does, right? Yum. Ooh. Can't wait to try it. It's chamomile. Chamomile. Hibiscus. Hibiscus, something red. And red leaf. Red raspberry. And it's coffee in free. I like it. Yeah, it's so you can give it. Wait, Avian, it's for birds? Yeah, it's for you. Oh, I thought we can drink it. We drink it or the bird drink it? Everybody, you know how a bird wants to share stuff? You can give your bird this tea. Wow. All right, guys, look at this meeting happening over here. We've got a very big meeting of the, these three are in a meeting. OK? Jersey's breakfast, Steve Jobs for Halloween. OK, guys. We have a situation. Nothing you haven't seen before, except there's almost no solution. There's Vinny. Vinny's really upset because he does not like Carolyn's birds. So he's throwing a tantrum. And I cannot get him past here. Even when I bring him down, he's so mad. He likes boxes. I'm trying to tempt him with some boxes. Vinny! Just, you know, but stay right there. You're OK. They're both. I don't know. You might go over you and he might go back up the steps. You have to walk this way.  Go, go, go, Vinny! Vinny! No, he's got a screen. I put the camera down around the latch. I just kind of need like two hands. He'll be fine. He's just getting in his exercise for the day. Vinny, mommy's coming to get you. OK? OK. Really? I'm coming. Really? Come here. I'm coming. Update. He flew onto the stands and then I just rolled the stand over there and picked him up. So the reason for his antics is because he is scared of the hyacinth macaws. I'm not sure why I don't remember him being scared before. But basically that just makes him freak out. Now if he's in the middle of a freak out and I try to pick him up, he's like already an angry bird. That's not like a good time to approach.  So it's like this whole thing. He exhausted himself flying around, got some good exercise, and now he's in his house talking about it. So that's a story right now. Let's go to the corn maze. Yay. How do you guys like my Engage Not Cage shirt? By the way, what I'm loving about it is like all these bright colors can match all different lipsticks and makeup styles. So that's why I love it. Oh my God. Terrible. That's probably a brush fire somewhere. That's in the direction that we're going. There's a fire, guys. We don't even know if we can go there. This is bad. No, but here's what I'm worried about. I don't know if it's there because like it's in that direction, but we should, okay, this is what we should do. We should go, but just check the air quality and if the air quality is bad where we are, we just will come back because it's down the street. Looks like it's going this way. Yeah. You know this way. That is something. I don't know. I don't think we're going to go to this corn maze. There's helicopters everywhere. Fire's not here, but the smoke is still around. Let me tell her. So listen, I don't smell smoke, but I mean it's right under it. I know. So I don't think we should do it. I don't think so either. I don't think we should take a chance because it could just like, look, it's somehow going all around it. It's not on it, but still. It's not here, but the wind can push it over. So I'll just say just let's cancel it. Yeah. And because I don't want to risk my high sense to go in this. Funny enough, it's weird how it's going around. I don't smell smoke, but still. I don't smell smoke either.  Like a Werther's original. You want food? See this? Rocky, are you jealous? Oh my God. How cute this is. Love. Under the wing. And touch his wing like right here. Rocky is so jealous. So I can make it up here. You feel this little... Rocky, what do you have to say about this? Look at those big, beautiful eyes. Rocky. Put me on Rocky. You want to play the circle challenge? How's the circle challenge? We make our own circles. So let's go and take those pumpkins and make our own little circle. You set up the pumpkins and all clean up. Where is it? And the cleanup expert. He's getting some action shots of you cleaning. Her name's Action of Me Cleaning. Everyone. How's this video? And guess who cooked? Who was it me? Megan, do you think it was me? No. Absolutely not. Do you think it was Rocky? No. Was it you, Megan? Absolutely not. It was Carolyn. Where'd she go? She disappeared. Oh, there she is. Does ketchup go in the fridge? Yes, it should go in the door. I don't know. We made them a wrestling ring. You put your bird in the circle. Kelly has a favorite fabric, but it's red, so we'll see. Yeah, he likes red. Okay, red. And the challenge starts now. Love me as Rocky. First of all, you cheated. You gave love something to be busy doing. Yeah, you cheated. Look at my fairy. That's my fairy. I just thought life would be snow white and have a bird lying all around me while I'm in the circle. Not the time, Rocky. Now it's your turn. Oh, my God. Okay, I'm going to meditate. Who else gets to meditate with a fairy lying? Whoever stays in there longer wins, okay? You like that? No. No. Do you like this?  I'm smelling that. Did you like that challenge? Did you like it? Oh, thank you for the kiss. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and watch Carolyn's channel. Carolyn, where are you? It literally looks like we have some sort of witch circle behind there, Carolyn. Yeah? We love you guys so much. Don't forget to subscribe. Check out Carolyn's channel. She currently has a new drama vlog up for you guys to watch. We love you. Bye. Hey, guys. The Feathered Fun Box is our new subscription box of toys, treats, and other surprises for you and your bird. So don't forget to check the link below and get in on that. And guys, don't forget to check out my new line of organic bird food called Marlene's Signature Blend made with tops. The link is below.


For me, there are multiple reasons why you would want to buy the new TaylorMade Mini Burner Driver. When I say multiple, I mean three. I've always been a big fan of the Mini Driver from TaylorMade as has anyone who's ever reviewed it, which begs the question why more of them don't use it and why TaylorMade don't make more of them. My guess is stock will be limited in two months from now, these will be selling for twice the market value on eBay. The TaylorMade Mini Driver is the hottest ticket in town, but why? Well reason number three makes buying the new TaylorMade Mini Driver an absolute no-brainer, but we're starting in reverse order because YouTube tells me to create anticipation to prolong the watch time, so don't go anywhere. So let's start with reason number one, it's quite simple, they look incredible. And this latest model is no slouch in the Lux department and perhaps a further lean towards the retro style that allows older golfers the opportunity to put a piece of nostalgia in their golf bag that has the looks from the 80s, but with performance that proves otherwise. Again I haven't heard any negativity towards the looks of this driver, a very retro feel, old school TaylorMade logo and the colorways really work well and the copper strip on the crown really does look good at address. The head cover is the best looking head cover on the market right now and the best in terms of usability. So the club looks good but that's not going to be enough to make you buy it, but that's a lie, I'd buy it on Lux alone. So before reason number two here are some photos I took in the changing rooms at Hollywood Golf Club. Yeah I did get a few strange looks but hope you agree they were worth the inevitable rumour which suggests that the average golfer takes his camera in the toilets with him. This driver is adjustable both loft and lie and is available in 11 and a half and 13 and a half degrees. It has two changeable weights which I can assure you have a very effective impact on performance when switched around. Reason number two is the performance well for most average golfers at least. I've tested each model over the last few years and pretty much can say with confidence that this club is 15 yards shorter than my driver so why would I want to sacrifice 15 yards? Well for one simple reason, accuracy. I lose 15 yards but I hit more fairways and that's mainly due to the length of the shaft which is pretty much a three wood shaft in length far easier to control for any golfer even though most will insist on trying to bash your driver as far as they possibly can. But for me the accuracy is also coupled with confidence. The 300cc head is very controllable and paired with the shorter shaft make an ideal combination. So hopefully it's still here and not fall asleep by now and the youtube algorithm is out of control due to our engaging new format which provides you with facts and fun in equal measure. It really is a laugh a minute. The reason number three in the moment that has you inching close to the screen on the edge of your seating uncontrollable anticipation well it's quite simply the price. Okay sorry I overplayed it. It's not quite the moment Rocky Downs Ivan Drago to gain revenge for that savage beating of Apollo Creed but it is a very valid reason as to why you should seriously consider this driver if you're in the market for a new big stick. This driver has an RRP of 379 which makes almost £200 less than the cost of most new drivers right now and in many cases this will be a better option for most golfers. Now this model has only had a lick of paint and has no change in spec from last year's release so you could well buy the older model and not lose any performance but then you wouldn't have this piece of art to gaze at show your friends and feel like the coolest kid on the t-box. Whatever your decision tailor made have created a new club option in the bag which is now being added by rival manufacturers.  The reason why number three is a no-brainer well that's quite simple but then I know some of you are so I'll spell it out for you. If you buy it and it isn't the holy grail on the fairway you're expecting then stick it on eBay and you've just made yourself £200 winner winner chicken dinner as some might say but not me that's far too jovial. Hope you enjoyed my review of the tailor-made mini burner driver if you did then please like and subscribe if you didn't well just close the door on the way out that's the la vista baby


Welcome back, last two classes we have seen about the relationship between food, nutrition and health. We have seen what are the definitions which are related to these topics and how different nutrients are present in food and what are their actions in brief. So let us, for these we have to know how digestion occurs in the food, how does the absorption occurs and how nutrients are utilized. So today let us see what is the digestion, absorption and utilization of nutrients. So I already told you what is the role of food and we are what we eat, is not it? So our body is synthesized mainly by what we eat. So body is made up of cells, tissues and organs which occurs due to changes in the food eaten to body structure. So the body structure is made up by the food that we eat and the changes that occur in the food eaten is by the utilization and elimination of waste products from the body which is called as metabolism. Each nutrient has its own metabolism and this metabolism occurs in a correlated systematic manner. Now what are the uses of food in the body? We have been talking about the uses of food in the body, so it involves in three processes that is the digestion, absorption and utilization of nutrients in the body. These are the main functions of the food in the body. Now digestion, what is digestion? It is a process which releases the many nutrients in the form in which the body can break the food and utilize them in the intestinal tract. That means simply digestion is breaking up of the food into simpler particles where the food can be utilized and absorption is the process which carries these broken nutrients or simpler form of nutrients into the circulatory system and finally they deliver them into the cells. And utilization, after the four nutrients are absorbed and carried to the different cells, the cell being an important part of the life, so large number of chemical reactions takes place in the cells. So these reactions are to utilize the nutrients absorbed and produce the materials that are needed for our existence and mechanical processes are involved in the digestion. The moment we put our food in our mouth, we start chewing them, so this is a mechanical action chewing food, then after chewing food you swallow the food, then when it reaches the stomach churning action in the stomach starts, then because of the rhythmic contractions which is called as the peristalitic movement. So the food moves slowly throughout the gastrointestinal tract to get absorbed and utilized because of the rhythmic contraction. So further these rhythmic contractions in the intestines, they help to break the food into smaller particles, then get mixed with the enzymes properly and the food mass is moved forward through the digestive tract. Now chewing the food reduces the food particles into smaller size and it mixes with the saliva first in the mouth, so that it dilutes with the water. You imagine we produce about 1 to 1.5 liters of saliva per day, so this is the amount of water that is mixed with the food and so that the food becomes very easy to swallow. When you eat something dry in the mouth, you imagine the saliva makes it into a substance which can be swallowed very easily because dry substances cannot be swallowed through the digestive tract. Now the food swallowed is mixed with the enzymes and acid and then churning action takes place. So here is the oral cavity where the food is chewed and it has to go through this very small tube, imagine. So for that the food has to become like a slurry and so that it can be swallowed and then reaches the stomach.  How do we feel hungry? Sometimes because of sight of food, then when we talk of food we feel like eating something, then the flavor or the smell of food also makes us feel hungry. So there are certain chemo senses which are required for the eating the food. So we have olfactory cells which are stimulated by the order that is present around us. So suppose you are passing through a food court, you get so many types of smell and some of the flavor attracts you to go and eat the food. Then these olfactory cells are found inside the nose and they are connected directly to the brain. So they send these impulses to the brain and brain sends the answer saying that you continue with eating the food. Then you have the gastatory cells which react to the food and beverages.  So these are clustered into taste buds. So taste we have different types of taste like the salty taste, the sour taste, bitter taste and sweet taste. So the entire tongue does not recognize each taste. You have different sides in the tongue where different types of tastes are recognized. When you eat any bitter food, the front part of the tongue does not have any role in recognizing the bitterness. So this is the end part of the tongue is the one which recognize the bitter taste. I mean the sour taste is recognized by these taste buds which are present in the sides of the tongue. The tip of the tongue it recognizes the salty taste and the later part of the after the tip you can recognize the sweet. So these are the various areas that in the tongue recognize different taste. That is how we taste the food. Then the common chemical sense, so there are thousands of nerve endings on the moist surfaces of eyes, your nose, mouth, throat. So all these help in recognizing the smell and taste of food. So flavor when we talk flavor, we talk about smell, we talk about odor, we talk flavor. So flavor typically is a combination of texture, temperature, then common chemical sense, taste and color. So all these put together give us the flavor. Now we have a pre-absorptive stage which is called as a cephalic phase response, cephalic is brain. So cephalic phase response is before we eat the food. So in response to any sensory stimulation, see the moment we think of food, you feel saliva produced, saliva is produced in the mouth, similarly, gastric acid is produced in the stomach. So this is the response to the sensory stimulation in the body and it helps in better absorption of the anticipated nutrients. Then sound, hearing the description of sound also can produce the saliva in the salivary glands. In the mouth you have lot of saliva when you think of food. So the different organs of the gastrointestinal tract are the salivary glands, then you have the esophagus or the food pipe, then you have the stomach, then you have the pancreas which release a lot of enzymes to digest various nutrients in the food, then you have the large intestine, you have the appendix, this is an accessory organ, actually it does not have any role in digestion, but still it is an accessory organ, maybe it prevents against some disorders or maybe it has some disease-protecting function. Then you have the small intestines, then you have the liver. Liver is the site where a lot of enzymes are produced, they are stored and metabolized. So liver has, since it is a largest gland it produces many enzymes and all. And the gallbladder is situated here in the liver, which stores bile produced from the liver and it releases into the diodenum whenever the fatty food enters into the diodenum. Now starting with the salivary glands, the salivary glands are the first glands which produce the liquid saliva along with enzymes so that the water food is moistened and also digested to a certain extent. So we have three types of salivary glands present in the mouth, one is the parotid gland which is the largest gland, present just below our ears or on the cheeks and you have the submaldibular glands which is present under the mandibular and sublingual which are present under the tongue. And there are many more salivary glands which are small and produce little amount of saliva, so but these three are the main glands that are present in the mouth. And these help whenever the sight of food, thought of food or presence of food this starts secreting salivary gland to the mouth. Now the physical processes, the first one is chewing and then you have the peristalsis and in the peristalsis you have a segmentation and for these to provide I mean the facilitate all these you have many sphincters also present in the digestive tract. So chewing occurs in the mouth and peristalsis is a wave like rhythmic movements that occur in the gastrointestinal tract. That means it contracts at some place and then relaxes, contracts and relaxes so that the food moves down the intestinal tract. After the food is put in the mouth and then it is combined with saliva it forms into a bolus type or a small ball type which is called as chyme. So this chyme moves down the intestinal tract slowly because of the peristaltic movement. In the peristaltic movement you have a segmentation movement where there is periodic squeezing and partitioning of the small intestine. So when the intestine is squeezed the entire food is in contact with the walls of the intestine and the food is mixed with the enzymes and the liquid that is produced in the intestines. So that the entire food is in contact with the enzymes and it is digested very well. So the digestive juices and absorbing cells also come in contact with the food. Then sphincters are to regulate the flow in the food particles. So this is how peristaltis look like. The food is moving you see the contraction here and then the food is moving down the second third you see how the food keeps moving in the segmentation movement. And this here the circular muscles are present in the intestines which contract therefore keeps moving the chyme down into the intestinal tract. Now I was talking about the sphincters. These sphincters are to prevent the back flow of food out of the digestive tract. Suppose you are having vomiting the food that is present in the stomach comes out through the mouth. So this should not happen generally unless there is some ill health normally food should not come out from the mouth after you eat. So this is protected by sphincters which are present in the beginning of the stomach which is called as the lower esophageal sphincter and after the food goes of this out of the stomach again there is a sphincter called the pyloric sphincter. So that the food moves in a unidirection it does not come back and spoils your health. Then there are certain chemical processes that take place in the intestinal tract. For these enzymes are produced throughout the gastrointestinal tract each place the type of enzyme produced is different and the pH of the food also changes. So these enzymes they are protein compounds and they facilitate the chemical reaction but these enzymes are not altered in the process. They only help in combining different chemicals or the nutrients but they remain come back to their normal stage. For example acid in the stomach the stomach produces hydrochloric acid and when it comes to the small intestine the acidic nature has to go. So the substance has to become basic. So bicarbonate is produced in the small intestine. Then bile and mucus also are produced to improve the digestion. In the mouth you have the saliva which produces the salivary amylase is the enzyme that is produced which helps in breaking down the starch into simple sugar molecules. But since we our food stays in the mouth for a very short time you just chew it and swallow it is not it. So in this short time there is not much of digestion that occurs. So only 5% of the starch gets break down into sugars. Then you have lingual lipase. This is the substance which digests the fats or breaks down the fat. But again as the food stays for a very small time the digestion is minimum. Then here you have an epiglottis that is a guard that is present at the entrance of the trachea. So this is the epiglottis and when you are breathing this epiglottis closes the esophagus and when you are eating the food it closes the airways.  So it helps in closing the airways and pushing the food through the food pipe of the esophagus. Then the stomach produces gastric juice which consists of water hydrochloric acid. The hydrochloric acid that is produced by the stomach is of very high acidic in nature. The pH is 2. Imagine if you pour that hydrochloric acid that is present produced in the stomach on the floor you will get a big hole. It can digest anything. Then it has a thick layer of mucus and enzymes, hormones and intrinsic factor. This intrinsic factor is very essential for absorption of vitamin B12. Otherwise B12 cannot be absorbed anywhere else. Similarly when it gets combined with the intrinsic factor it gets absorbed. Nutrient absorption in the stomach only lipid soluble compounds are absorbed weak acids such as alcohol and aspirin and vitamin B12. These are the only substances that are absorbed. Only digestion occurs in the stomach and no absorption except for vitamin B12. So this is the digestion and breakdown of food from the mouth to the stomach. So next class we will see what how the digestion occurs in the intestines and the other part of the stomach. So digestion, absorption and utilization of nutrients is very important for us to absorb the nutrients and utilize them for various body functions in our body. Thank you.


Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us today for another webinar series. The GUESSI webinar series serves as a platform for the GUESSI network members to share experience and expertise in evidence synthesis and share potential collaboration. As you see, you are all muted by default, so if you want to ask your question, please raise your hand to be unmuted so that you can ask your question directly to the presenter or you can submit your questions and comments using the question panel. For those who are joining us for the first time, an overview of today's stakeholder engagement webinar series, stakeholder engagement is an integral part of all systematic reviews to some degree. However, there has been a little discussion of this important process and systematic review guidance to date, particularly in the field of environmental management and conservation. This series discusses various aspects of engaging with stakeholders, like describing the ranges of methods available, outlining experiences from various systematic review experts, and discussing issues with the context. The benefits of training engaging directly with decision makers and communicating review results. So today's webinar series is the second webinar in the stakeholder engagement webinar series, and it's about managing knowledge production and context of conflict by Dr. Annika Nielsen. So Dr. Annika Nielsen is an interdisciplinary researcher focusing on the politics of Arctic change environmental governance and the co-production of knowledge at the science policy interface. She works as an independent researcher including engagement with KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden and the Nordland Research Institute in Norway. She has recently been engaged in the Arctic Council's Arctic Resilience Assessment and in the Bartons region study for adaptation action for a changing Arctic. Dr. Nielsen has a PhD in environmental science as well as over 20 years of professional experience as a science writer before entering academia. Once again, thank you Dr. Nielsen for joining us today. I'm very happy that you're joining today and I'm very happy to have this opportunity to meet with you. I have not worked that much with systematic reviews. I've had a way, drew me into some work but my experience really comes from other fields. I'm more of a, sometimes I call myself an undisciplined researcher but towards the political science field and as Nadja said with an interest in politics of Arctic change. But I've worked with several scientific assessment processes relating to pollution in the Arctic and social issues in the Arctic. And also in my own research looked at knowledge production about climate change in the Arctic. And scientific assessments in a sense have many similarities to systematic reviews in that they build on a strong belief in knowledge as an important input in policymaking and decision making. And while I fully agree on the importance of knowledge for good decisions, I wouldn't question that. It's important to remember that knowledge is really only one aspect of decision making and one aspect that needs to inform decision making in society. And maybe even more important, knowledge is often contested, even if it's based on available scientific evidence. And in some cases even the knowledge production process as such, the scientific process is contested. There used to be a notion that all would be well if only science could speak truth to power. But we know today from many studies of the science policy interface that the picture is much more complex and actually from my perspective, more interesting, but I study these processes. For those of you who try to influence policy and try to systematize available knowledge, it just makes it more challenging. But it has implications for the power of systematic reviews and for the role of systematic reviews, not least in relation to stakeholder engagement, which of course is the topic for the seminar series. And as Nadja said, I'm a researcher at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden and mainly engaged in Nordic Centre of Excellence working on issues related to resource extraction and sustainable Arctic communities. And I will take some of the examples from that field today because it is definitely one in which knowledge and contested issues and conflicts are very much in place. But before going into the details, I want to give a little bit more of the context we're moving in and why the topic of looking at stakeholder engagement as part of a contested knowledge issue is very relevant at this moment in time. I would argue that we have today a shifting landscape of contested futures. And it's, if we go back in time, it seems, if you go back in time a long time, you know, things seem to be just continue as they were. If we go back in time maybe 30 years, there was a notion that everything is progress, everything is going to be better. Today we live in a time where that's not so easy to say anymore. We live in a times of very rapid social and environmental change where the ground is shaking. And that means that the future is being renegotiated. So we kind of just so where do we want to go. And the stakes are quite high. It's not as if we can get everything we want. And that creates, in a sense, a tense situation in and of itself. Where you also have a situation where common aspirations, such as getting better material welfare, being able to travel. Everyone having a good economy is no longer seen as sustainable, at least not the way it has been practiced by Western countries so far. And that of course challenges the people who are in power today, the people who are in a good situation today. So new knowledge, for example, about environmental change and impact and the impact of the consequences of the decisions and the lifestyle we have. That type of information is actually often perceived as an existential threat. It's not just new neutral information, it challenges people to question their life choices and their lifestyles. And sometimes even their identity. We also live at a time where power relations are shifting in many different ways. Geopolitical power relations are shifting towards Asia compared to the old world, but also among generations. Young generation, large populace of young generation coming with different values, different ideals. We see this in Sweden, which is where I sit, with Greta Thunberg and her challenging politicians about why aren't you doing anything about climate change and getting young people all over the world to actually call on the older generation. So what are you doing? You're destroying our future. So those people are invoting power in not too many years. And on top of it, we have a virtual media landscape that creates completely new conditions for communication, much more rapid, but also creating media bubbles. So we live in a completely different landscape than I would say 20, 30 years ago, which is when I started working on these issues. And that means that also knowledge becomes contested. And there is a renegotiation of the role of science in society. And that creates a need to recognize what science can do and what it cannot do. And thereby also I would say what systematic reviews can do and what they cannot do. And first of all, and this is something Sheila Jasenoff wrote, has written a lot about it. I put one reference in the end slide. I have the full references for these papers that were kind of cornerstone papers in the development of this thinking is we have to recognize that knowledge is not something neutral objective that's there. It's something that is negotiated and co constructed in a dialogue between whatever we are studying, whether it's an ecosystem or society and those who are studying it with those are researchers, whether it's politicians or whoever. It's it's a knowledge comes out of a relationship where people are involved, not only people but also institutional structures. And while it might be possible to answer specific quiet scientific question in a reasonably objective manner, the body of knowledge that is produced and highlighted in political decision making is a product of a number of social and political processes, ranging from science funding the organization of academia power relations in society. And that is, I think, fairly well recognized now by many people but not necessarily by by people who work in hardcore natural sciences, where it's seen as something bad, whereas when I describe it is more an observation that's that's how it how it functions is it's not I don't put a value in it that it would be negative that that's the case. But it also means that it becomes very difficult to make a clear distinction between what is a stakeholder and what is a knowledge producer. In today's webinar in the series Neil Hadaway gave a more general introduction to stakeholder engagement and I assume some of you have have listened listen to that as well. And here I want to highlight that it's not really possible to differentiate between the knowledge producers and stakeholders what you may call stakeholders are also knowledge providers, or at least knowledge holders, while those of you may recognize those who you make recognize as experts very often have their own stake in in the process and in the knowledge production processes, whether it be systematic review or empirical research. These things can for example be related to career, or other social rewards, not only what you may initially think of as stakes in a political issue. But knowledge pro both knowledge producer and who's a stakeholder requires some reflection. Third, and this is something that comes very much from insights from studying scientific assessment, there was a large project that global environmental assessments, looking at them evaluating them, which was reported by Michela in 2006 that scientific credibility is not sufficient, but that it must be accompanied also by salience and process legitimacy. And it came from an observation that you have loads of scientific assessments, but only a few of them actually have an impact on policy. And even if they were had very high scientific credibility, it did not guarantee having having any impact. And what they showed by looking at many of these processes, both internationally and in national context is that, and this one is probably fairly obvious to you that the question posed by the assessment have to be seen as relevant to the people who are trying to reach and that might be pretty obvious what is might be less recognized is that the knowledge production process must be perceived as legitimate. And how what is legitimate depends on who you ask for a scientist, a natural science person that scientific process itself creates legitimacy. And in the systematic review processes we tend to think of that the transparency and the systematic matter of a review process would create a process legitimacy. But that's not necessarily true for all audiences. For example, it might not be relevant for an audience who would rely on a world tradition as more legitimate than written written evidence. So what is what is a legitimate process depends who you're trying to reach. And unfortunately, what is credible, salient and legitimate to one target audience may not be equally credible, salient and legitimate to another target audience who also need to be convinced. So, but but looking at these three aspects at least makes you think of what you have to have in mind and try to look at your own process from the outside from the view of who you're trying to reach. And I think one of the things that have. I have had to think hard about more and more having my own background comes from actually being a science journalist initially, and having worked with science communication and we we. I think we have been a bit naive that if we can only come with new tools and approaches and flashier way of presenting our material and better language, it would be able to reach but we have. I come to realize that that's not where the problem is often the problem lies somewhere else is not a matter of being a good communicator only. So we need to critically assess how we think about science communication. And we need to think about it in the very beginning of the knowledge and process it's not a matter of translating scientific results to flashy usable language for for decision makers. And on top of it sometimes something I mentioned earlier, we live in a time where you have media bubbles that create parallel knowledge landscapes and factor systems and various different groups frame the whole issue in different ways. There are several examples so that are quite well studied in the view of vaccinations child vaccination is very clear examples where you have a strong strong scientific basis and strong public health incentives to to vaccinate for many of what's called childhood diseases while also quite a substantial group of people well educated people don't believe in it don't believe those messages. And of course climate change is a is another classic one where there's also quite a bit of research showing how the how that links the the the media bubbles and the knowledge resistant links to to to political ideologies. So, we need to be humble. We also need to be humble about the limits of science and limits of knowledge. It cannot science cannot solve all of society's challenges, they can only it can only address specific questions, and the questions post also depends on who has power to post questions. And but what what questions are not because they're not scientific. And we need to think about can knowledge really be objective in an unequal world where some actors have a voice have do not have a voice in defining what is relevant. This photo is from the Arctic Council ministerial meeting in Keterna in Sweden in 2013. The Arctic Council is a is a collaboration among the Arctic count, eight Arctic countries in the circumpolar north. But it also shows the, you know, the diplomatic car coming and you have representatives of the Sami community in the background saying new Arctic mining. And what the power relations in these pictures are quite obvious and they were also obvious actually inside the meeting where I happen to be. And it goes beyond scientific question it comes in a history of colonialism questions about human rights indigenous peoples rights that includes not only the explicit political processes when conflicting interest against each other, but also power of defining what knowledge is and what knowledge is relevant when assessing the impacts of mining. So the, the link sometimes they used to be we need to keep science and politics apart but you can't. They're always intertwined. And we need to recognize the limits of science and that some issues are political at their core. And I have some examples here from from resource extraction in the Arctic based on ongoing research in two projects one is within the Nordic center of excellence Rex resource extraction and sustainable Arctic communities. And the other is a project where I was involved at the start which is focusing on mapping the impacts of mining using multiple knowledges. And where a systematic review of published literature, kind of rather classic in the systematic review sense is only one aspect, and where another aspect is empirical work together with the Sami reindeer herding community to gather their knowledge that is often not written down or documented and actually dismissed as just feelings or opinions, especially when you start getting in in in situations where it's contested land use. A company wants to open a mine on land that has traditionally been used for reindeer herding, for example. In Rex one one question relates to need to process is related to environmentally environmental impact assessment. And currently the focus is quite local in the emphasis on potential impacts on the environment such as water, soil, air and biodiversity at the kind of biotope and species level. And if you look at these the social and economic aspects are not disgusting at all the same detail that knowledge is not weighed in counted. Another question is what scale should be in focus. Is it the very local impacts of mining of, you know, the kind of close vicinity to a mine, or is it the large scale system that the fact that the mind generates the building of roads and railroads requires energy has maybe pollution that's we via river far down downstream, all of these issues. Where you draw the line for whether environmental impact assessment that the company has to do is is should be responsible. Even if it's control nothing control of the mining companies. And even questions such as when we talk about economic fence consequences, should the focus be on the national economy, the next 10 years or the local economy in the next 100 years. And these are questions that go to the heart of how we define sustainable development, where the local focus currently is often not very well articulated. For the three mk project and by now you had a chance to look at it a little bit I invite you to take a look close look at the lower image here. What do you see it. I mean it's contradictory information but even if you recognize that after a while, it usually takes a little while before you see it. Your eyes drawn to one picture but not the other. I will say is it drawn to people needing jobs that would come from a mine or is it people having their livelihoods threatened, such as ranger herders, or do you see another small detail in an environment that's already encroached and maybe you think destroyed or is it is it actually doing something to pristine environment. Are you looking at a local system or a global system. So these are some examples of how, how knowledge is not as simple as one would want to be. And I want to, since my guess is that most of you may not come from a background of philosophy of science I want to place. What I have discussed part into a framework of more theory theoretical understanding of the role of science society. In an early recognition of the complexity of knowledge in relation to decision making came with the notion of wicked problems. In 1973, which really was a way to describe what cause, cause problems that have multiple causes, maybe nonlinear dynamics, often lacking definitive solutions and linked to alternative policy frames. Climate change is a very, very good example of a wicked problems. You cannot describe it in a simple science. You cannot reduce it to one single scientific question that you can answer. You can certain aspects of it you can, you know, the atmospheric dynamics you can study with scientific methods. You cannot address the whole problem of climate change in society with only scientific methods. It's too, it's too complex. A next step in the sense in the recognition of the complexity and the role of science in society, what's called post-normal science notion that Funtowit and Roberts wrote about in 1993. And they really focused on the scientific management, certainly they recognize the wicked problems. So what does one do with it? What do you do it as a scientist with something like this? But they remain within the scientific paradigm, but add then a commitment to solving it with specific activities and dialogue, for example, management of uncertainty that is inevitable. I think IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a very good example of a body that was created with that kind of thinking in mind. You have all kinds of examples of how they try to manage uncertainty while staying within a scientific paradigm and even if it's a very much of a science policy interface, trying to safeguard the scientific credibility by always managing that interface. However, I think what we see now is that very role and status of science in society is challenged. And it's of course very problematic in the sense of the consequences of factor assistance, some of which I mentioned earlier. But one could also turn around and see it as positive that it's also recognition of alternative epistemologies, alternative ways of knowing, for example, the upgrading of local and indigenous knowledge, and the kind of recognition that scientific methods are not the only ways of knowing. And that each way of knowing has its kind of strengths and weaknesses so you can start having a dialogue around that. That's the positive aspect of it, but of course you have to get to the dialogue in order to get the positive aspects and not get stuck in the factor assistance and all that. So, then what are the implications of all of this for systematic reviews you might think that this was kind of a detour for what you're really interested in systematic reviews so In this, what we tried to do with me together with a colleague, Rasmus Klokolas, and we tried to put this all into a kind of a heuristic framework that could help guiding systematic reviews and this is published and you can find it. Oh, you get the reference at the end. So what I would like to do is kind of go around, go around this circle. And the importance is important this to think of, where are you, what kind of problem do you have when you're, what do you problem, what kind of problem do you want to address. What, how do you have to think when you think about stakeholder involvement and kind of knowledge production in general. So, so starting in the lower right corner, what type of conflicts are you talking about we can start in the beginning is it the knowledge based conflict. Normal science and systematic reviews might serve you quite well, especially if you can define the issue clearly enough. However, if it's a wicked problem you may have to think differently. Going into the inner circle if the if it is a knowledge based problem that the stakeholder involvement might be more of a consultation. Objectivity might be relevant to talk about and you know, generality becomes a measure of quality. However, if it's a wicked problem. Now let's have to think of which direction I'm going because I don't see the whole picture in my, my screen so I have to look at a paper. If you go one step up and look at post normal science, you have a more wicked problem. A recognition that it's co constructed your view on knowledge, you get a different view on knowledge that you have to take into account. And the measure of quality here would be stakeholder relevance maybe more than, or not instead of but in addition to to what you would think of as scientific quality. It's not just any scientific study that's relevant to include. It's one that actually addresses the issue that needs to be addressed according to stakeholders. And your stakeholder involvement. The goal might be to think of social learning how do you create a process in which the various actors can actually learn from each other. Which is a different type of task than only consulting them and asking them for something you might have to create a workshop setting you might have to create create a trust social trust that actually makes it possible to learn. And hopefully then go to the, the outer circle and end up in a situation where you have a destructive conflict. And I will go into different kinds of conflicts later but a destructive conflict is one that is no one really wants and it's not moving anything forward. It's not helping anyone. Different views on what knowledge is actually is or what knowledge is relevant. Some I think certain knowledge is just feelings or myths, or that other knowledge is some kind of bogus science. And when it comes to measures of quality, then you might have to think of, can you at least get to a point where you can get a mutual recognition and a common sense of what what we're talking about. To get beyond where you are in a situation of a destructive conflict. Getting to a constructive conflict where you can start teasing it apart and actually move forward. And in stakeholder involvement, you might have to think of, what are the power relations between different groups, can you create a situation where everyone actually has a chance to speak and share their knowledge and perspectives. What does equality in practice mean? Does it mean changing the settings? Rasmus Glokolaisen, for example, has worked with doing assessments, impact assessment together with the Sámi community without anyone from the outside in a facilitated process where you can kind of isolate one point in time from a situation where it's actually quite conflictual, but that of course also requires resources. And it's a question of who has resources to put into the process. So that's what equality in practice is. There you can think of all kinds of dimensions. It can be gender dimensions, it can be different ethnic groups, it can be different practices, it can be different countries. There are all kinds of dimensions that need to be taken into account when looking at equality in practice. And as I said, conflicts can have many different dimensions and here's some to help you sort out what might be relevant. Is it that you can think of when you consider whether to do a systematic review and when you consider planning it? Is it a destructive or a constructive conflict that you're dealing with? If a destructive conflict and people aren't talking to each other and they're ready to hit each other in the head, it might be a different approach that you need to take than if you already have a constructive dialogue. And it's a matter of looking more specifically at finding facts. Is it based on different facts or different knowledges? Is it a knowledge-based conflict to start with or is it a different type of conflict? Maybe conflict based on interests or is it based on different perceptions of reality? Or as I said, incommensurable specific interests. If you have a piece of land in northern Sweden, you cannot use the same piece of land for a mine, for reindeer herding and for tourism and for wind power. Those interests are likely to be incommensurable. You cannot solve that with more knowledge. It's a political process that has to be carried out that can move that forward. And then we have the more loaded issues. Is the conflict based on perceptions of past wrongdoings? The colonial heritage does play a role in northern, across the Arctic and I think in many, many other parts of the world. What does that do to the discussion? And linked to that, what role and sense of power or powerlessness are there among the participants, both past and present? And what role do emotions play? That can be hope or we really want to invest in this mine because we're going to earn a lot of money and that will not only be good for a company, but it could even be important for a country. In the case of Greenland, for example, as a means towards independence from Denmark, so really high stakes. Or fear, fear of losing your livelihood, fear of losing your place of where you live, fear of losing something that's important to your identity. And I think having a starting, reflecting on what kind of conflict you're dealing with can narrow down what a systematic review in the classical sense can actually be useful for and what it cannot be useful for and where there might be other means of moving further. And this is in a sense a summary of some of the things I've said that that you can use in a sense as a guide. A summary of the two previous slides can use this guide for doing that assessment yourself before starting a systematic review. Is the question one well-defined, closed-framed, or is it a wicked problem? Is it potentially irreconcilable problem definition or coexisting diverging questions? Is the evidence there in published scientific and grey literature or can be gathered from quantitative or qualitative scientific analysis? Or is it a matter of filling primary data gaps highlighted by stakeholders as exploring interpretations through social learning? Or do you actually have to start a whole new process of generating evidence in joint fact findings? And that might not be then a systematic review processing in more classical definition. And the review team then has different roles in the normal science column. It's experts and scientific independence becomes important, whereas in a post-normal science involving stakeholders in framing the whole process, making it legitimate. For example by identifying research questions and seeking consensus becomes important. Whereas in a conflict management situation, you have to be careful to try to force a consensus which the risk is that some people will walk out. And instead involving stakeholders directly in answering the questions which then becomes kind of contradicted to some of the norms in systematic reviews of scientific independence. So you can see here where systematic review may not be the relevant tool to move forward in an issue where you have a contest. What do you think it might be about consensus knowledge? And the stakeholder group also comes very different roles. Is it you only consult them about something you already know what you're doing? Or do they actually have decision-making authority and early involvement in the planning? Or they may not form a group at all and might have several different meetings because they don't do each other in a productive manner. And you might have expertise in facilitation to get a quality in practice actually getting everyone a chance to be heard. I talked a lot about stakeholders and I had this slide first in the beginning and then I moved it to the end. But I think it's also important to think who is a stakeholder. Is it knowledge users? Which is the more classical way of thinking about it? Or affected parties directly or indirectly? Or a knowledge provider? And as earlier I said that the line between knowledge provider and stakeholders is not necessarily so clear. We also have to think of what status different stakeholders have. Do they have legal rights and sharp rules about consultation? That can sometimes not in all countries, but sometimes be the case in environmental impact assessment, but not in all countries. It varies. Do they have rights by ethical norms such as human rights, indigenous peoples rights, not sharp legal requirements? Or maybe they have a status by the power, economic, political or brute force power. The companies for example, or maybe by soft means they can affect your reputation by shaming or endorsing you. So there you have to think about different roles of stakeholders. And then in summary, I'm reasonably in time I see to summarize and this is repetition of what the question that you might want to keep in mind in planning for a systematic review in an issue area where some conflicts could be an issue. Is the issue in focus mainly about knowledge or facts that can be assessed in a systematic manner? Or does it include other dimensions such as conflicting interests, conflicting worldviews? What role can your review process play in a larger context of the issue at hand? You're not the only knowledge process, you're not the only process that's possible to take. And in assessing that, is the systematic review likely to reduce or exacerbate conflicts? How will the larger context affect your credibility and legitimacy of your review process? And you should never assume that it's neutral.  And that's of course often the ambition. What's the point otherwise of doing work? But it's easy as a scientist to think that you're neutral when you aren't. And you might also want to think about what other processes regarding knowledge and power can you affect and be affected by. So that is in summary and here are some of the cited literature and resources that I mentioned. And you will get the slides, you will have this in your inbox or however that is being distributed. So you don't have to sit and try to copy it. And there's just where you can reach me and at REXAC org you can see if you're interested specifically in art resources and extractive industries can see a little bit about what we're doing in that project. So that's it. And I'm very open for your questions and comments. Thank you Dr. Anika Nielsen. This was a very interesting presentation. So we will take questions right now. Hello, Mahmoud. Yes, hello. Are you listening to me? Yes, we are. Yeah, well, first of all, thank you very much for this wonderful talk actually. It's very constructive and I got one comment here. I agree with the speaker regarding to implementation this engagement framework and from the high level. Sound is good if you like implementing this framework in Sweden and European country, but I can't see it's very challenging when it comes to logic. Since we have faced a lot of issues regarding to limited access to like public structure in a day with the human resource and health research, we got like a lack of funding. And also we got problem that everybody knows that that's knowledge translation difficulties. So I didn't know this is my first comment. I didn't know how this fit from the high level perspective, from, sorry, from level perspective. My second question is back to your theoretical framework, which is good. Actually, there's two components here when you speak about the view of logic. I couldn't see the cultural perspectives where the cultural, I mean, the trans-cultural issue in that model. And also you speak nicely about how you, I mean, in terms of a process, how you involve the stakeholder involvement. But I couldn't see. Can you repeat what you said just? So back to your model. So yeah, I've got two issues in your models here that I need to ask. So in your model, there's a way, the process of viewing knowledge. And the other one is how to so-called involvement. So, but as you can see in your model, I couldn't see that. I'm talking from like a long perspective, where the cultural and trans-cultural issue will fit in terms of, yeah. So I couldn't see that in terms of viewing the knowledge because I would say that cultural issues will impact definitely the way of people or scientists to view the knowledge. Other issue is regarding to the stockholder involvement. So in logic perspective, we go back to social injustice. It's a big dilemma to involve literacy, low education, low social economics. So where empowerment could fit? So I'll just summarize and conclude what I'm trying to say here is that that model will be definitely fit in high-logic. It's very applicable, but when it comes to apply what you have said in logic perspective, it's very challenging at the moment. So we need to like working to modify. I'm not saying we defy, but we need to find the solutions or how this brilliant actually, I like the framework actually, I like it so much. But in terms with respect to logic perspective, like I'm talking from South Africa, I didn't do this myself. Yeah, so I'm from University of Cape Town, Department of Education, Evidence Based Research Unit. So I can see a question and let's see if I can. I think that the the trans-cultural issue is not explicit in here. I agree with that and it could be made much more explicit, but actually the trans-cultural issue is very much present in the context of the Arctic in relation, for example, to indigenous peoples. And larger society. And I think what one could think of is elaborating because you have the trans-cultural issue. There are both in a sense can be, view of knowledge can look very different, different worldviews to start with. And also things like what you see as quality in one culture is not necessarily the same thing as you see as quality in another. So I think I agree with you. You could, in a sense, the trans-cultural issue applies to several aspects here and could be brought out much stronger than we did in our article. And when it comes to issues of social injustice and illiteracy, I think that that can very much be elaborated further than I did when you taught equality in practice.  People have no possibility to take part in it, even if they would want to, because they can't leave their job, because they have to earn a living. How do you then create a situation that actually makes it possible for them to take part? And that, of course, is context-specific. You can't provide one answer for South Africa that's also relevant for Northern Sweden. You have to know the social context in which you're working. And that, I think, is true also when you talk about social learning. How do you create a setting where people actually can listen and talk to each other in a constructive manner that is not the same in Stockholm, Sweden, in Northern Sweden, or in South Africa. You have to know the cultural context you're in. So I very much agree with that. Those are things that I think should be elaborated on further. I agree with you there. Thank you very much. That's fine. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your question. And of course, these are often not things that you can, you know, it's not a simple question.  And as the previous person talked about, you have to discuss it with your colleagues in the specific context that where you're working, whether it's the cultural context or the type of issue you're asking. And I think that's my point in reflect. So we have Monica Morrison who wants to ask a question. Monica, can you hear us? It's very much really, really useful and relevant. And I'm working in Northern Botswana where we currently have the issue of elephant control and management. So all of this is speaking to what's going on here. But what I wanted to ask you was, how important is it to have transdisciplinary teams. When you're looking at something so complex as planning a systematic review with at all of these stages and possibly at the outermost ring, which is, which is heavily conflicted. Who does what where do you start, you know, you're putting together a team to do this. No, you disappeared the end of a question but I got as far as who do you involve in planning these kinds of projects. And I think, I mean, the, the thing is, I think to realize that it's not sufficient with expertise in the, in the specific question in scientific question you need in a sense expertise in the cultural context you're working. That could be local involvement in and of itself or it can be in some context, maybe someone in anthropology, or it can also be someone with expertise in facilitation. How do you run a workshop in a specific context so it works. That is knowledge in and of itself in the three mk project we were quite a diverse group. I'm not involved anymore because I've left SCI where where the project is, but, but we had some people who are experts in systematic reviews and the methodology. We have one person as much localize and my colleague who co author of the article who was worked very closely with some communities directly so and worked a lot with facilitation issues and then I was involved. Looking at the stakeholder mapping and doing those kinds of work in that kind of work initially. But I think it, I think a good way of start is to actually ask yourself, what type of knowledge do I need and think broader than relating to the question and think about the process. You need knowledge about how to set up the process. I hope that answers your question. Thank you, Dr. Annika Monica, we're sorry we lost you at the end, so I hope Dr. Annika answered your question. But you can always contact her through her email as she said. And I don't think we have other questions. So, thank you Dr. Monica for being here with us for this webinar. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity. It was, and I really appreciate the questions that came and make me also have to think further. That's, that's what's nice. And thank you everybody for joining us today. So please stay tuned for the coming stakeholder engagement webinar series next month up until February 2020. Thank you. Bye.