Search Results

This chapter considers the practice of modeling ecological niches and estimating geographic distributions. It first introduces the general principles and definitions underlying ecological niche modeling and species distribution modeling, focusing on model calibration and evaluation, before discussing the principal steps to be followed in building niche models. The first task in building a niche model is to collate, process, error-check, and format the data that are necessary as input. Two types of data are required: primary occurrence data documenting known presences (and sometimes absences) of the species, and environmental predictors in the form of raster-format GIS layers summarizing scenopoetic variables that may (or may not) be involved in delineating the ecological requirements of the species. The next step is to use a modeling algorithm to characterize the species’ ecological niche as a function of the environmental variables, followed by model projection and evaluation and finally, model transferability.

This chapter explains how environmental data can be used to create models that characterize species’ ecological niches in environmental space. It introduces a model, which is a function constructed by means of data analysis for the purpose of approximating the true relationship (that is, the niche) in the form of the function f linking the environment and species occurrences. The chapter first considers the “meaning” of the function f that is being estimated by the algorithms before discussing the modeling algorithms, the approaches used to implement ecological niche modeling, model calibration, model complexity and overfitting, and model extrapolation and transferability. The chapter concludes with an overview of differences among methods and selection of “best” models, along with strategies for characterizing ecological niches in ways that allow visualization, comparisons, definition of quantitative measures, snf more.

This chapter follows fishing rights from primitive monopolies to rights granted over medieval sea-fisheries to fishery regulation to property-like licensing. Most medieval rights were for fresh-water fisheries in the ‘common of fishery’ a manorial sharing arrangement similar to those for the common fields. However salt-water private rights, mostly for tidal stretches of rivers or for shellfish, were abolished in the Magna Carta, to be succeeded by the English ‘public right of fishing’ in tidal waters. The chapter argues that there was neither a demand nor a supply of the exclusivity characteristic for creating a private sea-fishing property right. In the nineteenth century when powerful vessels began depleting ocean stocks, the ‘over-fishing problem’ was recognized and attracted government fishing rules and laws internationally. Such regulation began to include requirements for licenses, which were later limited in number, season, species, gear-types, and area. Thus they were given some enforced exclusivity. Their duration and transferability were also adjusted. The chapter recounts how governments transformed these limited licenses into individual catch quotas (ITQs), first in Iceland and New Zealand then worldwide. It examines fishermen-run fishing co-operatives and ‘TURFS’ for many-vessel and many-species fisheries. It notes their similarity to condominium-type shared rights.

The chapter begins by describing ‘free mining’ in Europe from the Dark Ages to the nineteenth century. The free miner was ‘free’ from most feudal obligations, ‘free’ to explore by roaming his lord's estates, and ‘free’ to form communities making rules governing exploring and mining. Many free mining communities, such as Cornwall's, worked their territory for generations. The chapter stresses that free-mining communities provided noble landlords with mineralization information. The chapter then describes the rise of miner-controlled institutions after the California Gold Rush of 1849-50. The miners tried partnerships but soon joined in rule-making camps. Like their free-miner predecessors they issued claim-like rights to individual discoverers, weaving in the characteristics of property: exclusivity, quality of title, transferability, and duration. Such camps, having many similarities to the European free-mining communities, spread beyond California. Their rules were applied by governments for all mining on public lands (and, in Australia, on private lands).

Although there are a number of qualitative researchers who support the development of methods that integrate knowledge across studies, these same authors also acknowledge that the broad term qualitative research includes vastly different disciplinary, philosophical, theoretical, social, and political commitments (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2003, p. 785), and that these differences can create epistemological and ontological tensions when attempts are made to build common frameworks for the purpose of integration. Paying heed to these debates, our overall contention is that care must be taken not only when considering the different types of methods used in the studies that are synthesized, but to consider the various controversies framing questions of assessing the quality of studies to be included. In this chapter, we briefly highlight key methodological challenges that are worthy of consideration for any researcher, policy maker and practitioner interested in engaging in this type of research.

This chapter deals with 19 recent contributions from the literature, which aim to provide a systematic categorization of public policy resources (Meltsner, Clapham, Lapeyronnie, Lacam, Kiun, Davern, Lemieux, Newig, Söderlund, Blin, Sabatier & Weible, Hood & Margetts, Dowding, Vesan & Graziano, Sauer, Imbeau, Compston, Klüver and Dente). It concludes that all of the ten resources dealt with in the current book feature in this literature, that the value of resources is relative, and that the contributions by Dente, Compston, Hude & Margetts are closest to mine while those of Söderland, Davers and Meltsner differ most significantly from it. The chapter insists on the exchangeability, transferability and objectivability of public action resources and rejects the inclusion in the definition of personal, individual characteristics of the actors, to whom such resources belong. Furthermore, it stresses the observation that not only public actors but also civil society actors have public action resources.

This chapter gives some practical advice on how to test the quality and transferability of an interatomic force model. The calculation of crystal structure, lattice parameters, and elastic constants is described, including a new and detailed derivation of the structural energy difference theorem and its meaning. The Cauchy relationship between elastic constants is discussed, since it is a measure of how non-central the forces are. An introduction to lattice dynamics in the harmonic approximation follows, including a description of how to calculate force constants. Finally, there is a discussion of the calculation of point defect formation energies, especially the vacancy formation energy.

This chapter discusses the rights attaching to shares and the issues that arise when complexity is introduced into the capital structure by the issue of different classes of shares. Topics covered include the legal nature of a share; capital and dividend entitlements; transferability of shares; voting rights; the juridical nature of the relationship between a company and its registered shareholders; and variation of rights attaching to shares.

Chapter Six highlights the importance of social dialogue to the social politics of fatherhood in the European Union and the importance of scholarly involvement on bodies such as the European Observatory on National Family Policies, the Confederation of Family Organisations of the European Union, the European Commission Childcare Network, the Network on Leave and Policy Research, the European Union Network of Experts on Family Policy and the European Parliament Quality of Childhood Group. Chapter Six illustrates that the Swedish model was influential on the European Union parental leave directives and on the move in 2009 towards individualization and non-transferability of leave for fathers. Chapter six also illustrates that the EU is a site for contested debates concerning child support and broader issues of political economy, family policy, intersectionality and varieties of capitalism.

Action research (AR) is an approach to research that involves engaging with a community to address some problem or challenge, and through this problem-solving, to develop scholarly knowledge. AR is not a method, nor even a suite of methods, but a perspective that makes use of a wide variety of methods. AR is explicitly democratic, collaborative, and interdisciplinary. It focuses on highly contextualized, localized solutions with a greater emphasis on transferability than generalizability. In other words, scholars and community partners work together to develop and learn from solutions that work in a single context; in addition, they collect data that will enable these solutions to be adapted or transferred to other contexts. Most importantly, AR claims that the intervention, the learning, and the doing and knowing cannot be disentangled.

Grounded design is a particular design-research approach applied in case studies. The approach aims to investigate social practices with the purpose of identifying and unveiling problematic aspects of that practice. In research contexts, design case studies are conducted by applying established research methods such as ethnographic field studies, participatory design, and action research. As a research approach, grounded design claims to contribute to scientific knowledge by creating a collection of documented cases that is accessible for a further comprehensive and overarching analysis. This chapter provides an example of such a study through a comparison of two design case studies in the field of civil security research, in the context of firefighting: the Landmarke project and the Koordinator project. In addition, this chapter addresses the transferability of design case studies.

This is a new chapter, highlighting the importance of interpreting, adjusting, and synthesizing evidence for informing cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) models. The chapter goes beyond the original Panel’s conception of evidence synthesis for CEAs by calling for analysts to undertake a pre-analytical phase (defining a question and identifying pertinent data from distinct sources), an analytical phase (positing and learning relationships across data from distinct sources), and a post-analytical phase (conjecturing on the implications of the learned relationships for the question at hand). Unlike systematic reviews and meta-analyses that aim to describe the state of the evidence and the distribution of effects from relevant studies, the goal of evidence synthesis for decision making is to obtain bias-corrected estimates of model parameters in the modeled setting. This invariably requires extra-empirical information, and places more demands on the analytic machinery.

The first part of the Introduction adapts ideas from Benjamin to read the inner connections of the Canterbury Tales as intra-lingual translations. This approach allows the work to be treated as complete yet unfinished; the thematic or figurative affinities that relate tellers to tales, or tales to tales, either within particular groupings or across them, do not depend on their order. The portraits in the “General Prologue” have positional, not interpretive precedence; the pilgrims emerge less as authors of the tales than “fictors” who author their performances of them. The chapter also surveys translation theory and practice in late medieval England; as translators domesticated the foreignness of their originals, they implicitly raised questions about transferability, resistance, fidelity, and hospitability, which Robert Venuti and other critics have made central issues in present-day translation studies.

In previous research on the economic adjustment of immigrants, hypotheses were generated based on the degree of the transferability of skill and the self-selection of immigrants for labor market ability. These hypotheses were found to be consistent with cross-sectional data for the United States and other countries. This chapter considers two alternative hypotheses that have been suggested: selective return migration of immigrants and the migration of those who anticipate high earnings for reasons other than ability. To compare the original and alternative models, a variety of new tests are made using cross-sectional and longitudinal data on earnings, occupation, and schooling from the censuses of population and the National Longitudinal Survey. The model of immigrant adjustment based on skill transferability and immigrant self-selection is shown to be consistent with these new tests, while the alternative hypotheses are not.

This chapter studies whether “negative” assimilation among immigrants living in the United States occurs if skills are highly transferable internationally. It outlines the conditions for negative assimilation in the context of the traditional immigration assimilation model, in which negative assimilation arises not from a deterioration of skills but from a decline in the wages afforded by skills coincident with the duration of residence. The authors use U.S. Census data from 1980, 1990, and 2000 to test the hypothesis on immigrants to the United States from English-speaking developed countries. They present comparisons with native-born workers to determine whether the findings are sensitive to immigrant cohort quality effects and find that even after controlling for these effects, negative assimilation still occurs for immigrants in the sample. They also find that negative assimilation occurs for immigrants from English-speaking developed countries living in Australia and for immigrants from Nordic countries living in Sweden.

This chapter introduces the concept of process expertise to refer to a form of expertise individuals may enact in managing information and communication both within and across specialist domains but which does not, in itself, represent those domains’ practices. An argument is made that the value of workers who apply this expertise (e.g. process experts) is often overlooked because people are conditioned to value work practices that are visibly associated with exclusive forms of domain knowledge. Four different forms of processes are identified as representative of process expertise: operational processes, curational processes, evaluative processes, and representational processes. Process expertise is valuable for individuals because it is transferable across organizational contexts, and is valuable for organizations because it complements or amplifies the contributions of specialist experts. Developing theory that incorporates process expertise will help communication scholars interrogate questions related to the authority, visibility, materiality, and exclusivity of work practices.

This chapter aims to identify the ‘structural’ (or ‘doctrinal’) features of property law, compare these features with other branches of law, and consider how these features have been applied to the use and storage of bodily material. Since property rights are exclusive rights, property rights are exercisable against an open-set of persons, actionable per se, and impose duties of non-interference. This set of features can explain why there is pressure on the common law to recognize property rights in bodily material: to pull the entitlements in bodily material behind an ‘exclusionary boundary’. Additionally, since property rights are also rights that can exist independently of the particular rights-holder, they impose corrective remedial duties and are transferable. This set of features can begin to explain why there are limits to the appropriate application of property law: not all rights regarding an object or resource can exist independently of the rights-holder.

The insolvent estate is comprised of the property which is the subject matter of an insolvency proceeding. It is important that there is clarity in this respect. If the proceeding is distributive, the estate is the property which will be realized for the benefit of the creditors; if it is reorganizational, the estate is the property which will be protected by any stay and which may be the subject of the reorganization. The Act does not define the insolvent estate for the purposes of its corporate insolvency provisions; the crucial term used by the Act is ‘property’.