MFA15 (MFA 2015)

Catalogue of a culminating student exhibition held at the Mildred Lane Kemper Art Museum, May 1 - August 2, 2015 . Introduction / Heather Corcoran and Patricia Olynyk -- Diana Casanova / Emily J. Hanson -- Andrea M. Coates : in the operating theater / Stephanie Dering -- Margaux Crump -- Brandon Daniels -- Addoley Dzegede : do you prefer answers or truth? / Aaron Coleman -- Vita Eruhimovitz -- Carling Hale -- Amanda Helman -- Mike Helms / Ming Ying Hong -- Ming Ying Hong / Emily J. Hanson -- Sea A Joung / Ervin Malakaj -- Stephanie Kang / Jeremy Shipley -- Dayna Jean Kriz / Andrew Johnson -- Thomas Moore : you should move to the city / Nathaniel Rosenthalis -- Jacob Muldowney -- Laurel Panella / Garrett Clough -- Caitlin Penny -- On the bridge, between Juarez and El Paso / Eric Lyle Schultz -- Jeremy Shipley -- Emmeline Solomon -- Kellie Spano / Margaux Crump -- Michael Aaron Williams -- Austin R. Wolf : monumental labor / Adam Turl.https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/books/1015/thumbnail.jp

Structural elements of coordination mechanisms in collaborative planning processes and their assessment through maturity models: Application to a ceramic tile company

Maturity is defined as a measure to evaluate the capabilities of an organization in regards to a certain discipline. The Collaborative Planning Process is a very complex process and Coordination mechanisms are especially relevant in this field to align the plans of the supply chain members. The objective of this paper is to develop a maturity model and a methodology to perform assessment for the Structural Elements of Coordination Mechanisms in the Collaborative Planning Process. Structural elements are specified in order to characterize coordination mechanisms in a collaborative planning context and they have been defined as key areas to be assessed by the maturity model. The identified structural elements are: number of decision-makers, collaboration level, interdependence relationships nature, interdepen-dence relationships type, number of coordination mechanisms, information exchanged, information processing, decision sequence characteristics and stopping criteria. Structural elements are assessed using the scheme of five levels: Initial, Repeatable, Defined, Managed and Optimized. This proposal has been applied to a ceramic tile company and the results are also reported.Cuenca, L.; Boza Garcia, A.; Alemany Díaz, MDM.; Trienekens, JJ. (2013). Structural elements of coordination mechanisms in collaborative planning processes and their assessment through maturity models: Application to a ceramic tile company. Computers in Industry. 64(8):898-911. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2013.06.019S89891164

The Barents and Chukchi Seas: Comparison of two Arctic shelf ecosystems

This paper compares and contrasts the ecosystems of the Barents and Chukchi Seas. Despite their similarity in a number of features, the Barents Sea supports a vast biomass of commercially important fish, but the Chukchi does not. Here we examine a number of aspects of these two seas to ascertain how they are similar and how they differ. We then indentify processes and mechanisms that may be responsible for their similarities and differences.Both the Barents and Chukchi Seas are high latitude, seasonally ice covered, Arctic shelf-seas. Both have strongly advective regimes, and receive water from the south. Water entering the Barents comes from the deep, ice-free and "warm" Norwegian Sea, and contains not only heat, but also a rich supply of zooplankton that supports larval fish in spring. In contrast, Bering Sea water entering the Chukchi in spring and early summer is cold. In spring, this Bering Sea water is depleted of large, lipid-rich zooplankton, thus likely resulting in a relatively low availability of zooplankton for fish. Although primary production on average is similar in the two seas, fish biomass density is an order of magnitude greater in the Barents than in the Chukchi Sea. The Barents Sea supports immense fisheries, whereas the Chukchi Sea does not. The density of cetaceans in the Barents Sea is about double that in the Chukchi Sea, as is the density of nesting seabirds, whereas, the density of pinnipeds in the Chukchi is about double that in the Barents Sea. In the Chukchi Sea, export of carbon to the benthos and benthic biomass may be greater. We hypothesize that the difference in fish abundance in the two seas is driven by differences in the heat and plankton advected into them, and the amount of primary production consumed in the upper water column. However, we suggest that the critical difference between the Chukchi and Barents Seas is the pre-cooled water entering the Chukchi Sea from the south. This cold water, and the winter mixing of the Chukchi Sea as it becomes ice covered, result in water temperatures below the physiological limits of the commercially valuable fish that thrive in the southeastern Bering Sea. If climate change warms the Barents Sea, thereby increasing the open water area via reducing ice cover, productivity at most trophic levels is likely to increase. In the Chukchi, warming should also reduce sea ice cover, permitting a longer production season. However, the shallow northern Bering and Chukchi Seas are expected to continue to be ice-covered in winter, so water there will continue to be cold in winter and spring, and is likely to continue to be a barrier to the movement of temperate fish into the Chukchi Sea. Thus, it is unlikely that large populations of boreal fish species will become established in this Arctic marginal sea. © 2012 Elsevier B.V

Fine-scale harbour seal usage for informed marine spatial planning (dataset)

The research data supporting this publication. Terrestrial counts and GIS files for the usage maps

Seals and shipping: quantifying population risk and individual exposure to vessel noise (datasets)

Accompanying data to the publicatio