Resolving the electron temperature discrepancies in HII Regions and Planetary Nebulae: kappa-distributed electrons

The measurement of electron temperatures and metallicities in H ii regions and Planetary Nebulae (PNe) has-for several decades-presented a problem: results obtained using different techniques disagree. What it worse, they disagree consistently. There have been numerous attempts to explain these discrepancies, but none has provided a satisfactory solution to the problem. In this paper, we explore the possibility that electrons in H ii regions and PNe depart from a Maxwell-Boltzmann equilibrium energy distribution. We adopt a "kappa-distribution" for the electron energies. Such distributions are widely found in Solar System plasmas, where they can be directly measured. This simple assumption is able to explain the temperature and metallicity discrepancies in H ii regions and PNe arising from the different measurement techniques. We find that the energy distribution does not need to depart dramatically from an equilibrium distribution. From an examination of data from Hii regions and PNe it appears that kappa ~ 10 is sufficient to encompass nearly all objects. We argue that the kappa-distribution offers an important new insight into the physics of gaseous nebulae, both in the Milky Way and elsewhere, and one that promises significantly more accurate estimates of temperature and metallicity in these regions.Comment: 16 pages, 11 figures, 2 tables, published in Ap

Crashing the Boards: A Comparative Analysis of the Boxing Out of Women On Boards in the United States and Canada

This paper will first provide a critical, comparative look at the Canadian and the federal American responses to the under-representation of women on boards of large, publicly traded corporations. There will be a discussion about the competing conceptions which emerge in addressing the regulation of women on boards in the United States and Canada and why each jurisdiction implemented its policy when it did. The conceptions arising out of questions about under-representation of women on boards tend to fall within two categories: business case rationales and normative rationales. Given the competing conceptions of this issue, this paper will attempt to demonstrate how the regulatory regimes fit within these conceptions and the solutions which follow each conception. An argument will be advanced that not only does each disclosure regime fail to provide a solution to the underlying issue it is attempting to regulate, but also neither regime even advances the goal the regulators purport to be advancing. Finally, a closer look at the polarizing reactions to Bill 826 provides a hint as to the future direction of the American and Canadian debates. This paper will be one of the first to discuss Bill 826 and what it may mean for the U.S. and Canada

The Morals of the Women on Boards Story: Global Board Gender Diversity Efforts Still Need Fairness-Based Arguments to Move Regulation to the Next Chapter

The number of women on boards of public companies in the United States and Canada is still staggeringly low despite the fact that both of these jurisdictions have implemented disclosure-based regulation relating to board diversity. Typically, arguments in support of regulation aimed at increasing women\u27s participation on public boards fall into two categories: the business case and the fairness-based (or normative) case. The business case is essentially the idea that women bring some instrumental benefit to the board which leads to improvements in firm functioning or performance overall. While politically attractive, the business case for justifying regulation has yet to convince most of those in the business community in Canada and the U.S. If it had, we would have seen a much greater transformation in board composition in recent years than we have seen. The normative case, which is the idea that women deserve board seats because this is morally right, is less politically attractive because it is often seen to clash with the view, particularly in the U.S., that the role of corporations-and by implication the boards that manage them-is to maximize shareholder wealth.This article uses the Canadian and American experiences to argue:(1) that the normative case, by itself and in combination with the business case, can justify stronger regulation encouraging greater female participation on boards, especially given the role of the board and the involvement of institutional investors; and(2) that securities regulators in each jurisdiction have a critical and appropriate role to play in increasing board diversity.This article provides an overview of various jurisdictions\u27 regulatory regimes aimed at increasing board diversity and the respective increases of female participation on public boards. It goes on to outline the normative case and provides an analysis of the popular critiques and responses thereto. Also included is a description of the business case and its acknowledged weaknesses. Finally, it argues that normative-based rationales for implementing regulation aimed at enhancing gender diversity on public boards justify action by the SEC in the U.S. and provincial securities regulators in Canada, recognizing, however, that it is important for these capital market regulators to stay within the boundaries of their respective mandates and ensure that regulation does not harm the interests of investors or damage capital markets