Full Open Population Capture-Recapture Models with Individual Covariates

Traditional analyses of capture-recapture data are based on likelihood functions that explicitly integrate out all missing data. We use a complete data likelihood (CDL) to show how a wide range of capture-recapture models can be easily fitted using readily available software JAGS/BUGS even when there are individual-specific time-varying covariates. The models we describe extend those that condition on first capture to include abundance parameters, or parameters related to abundance, such as population size, birth rates or lifetime. The use of a CDL means that any missing data, including uncertain individual covariates, can be included in models without the need for customized likelihood functions. This approach also facilitates modeling processes of demographic interest rather than the complexities caused by non-ignorable missing data. We illustrate using two examples, (i) open population modeling in the presence of a censored time-varying individual covariate in a full robust-design, and (ii) full open population multi-state modeling in the presence of a partially observed categorical variable

Molecular simulation of the phase behavior of noble gases using accurate two-body and three-body intermolecular potentials

Gibbs ensemble Monte Carlo simulations are reported for the vapor- liquid phase coexistence of argon, krypton, and xenon. The calculations employ accurate two-body potentials in addition to contributions from three-body dispersion interactions resulting from third-order triple-dipole, dipole-dipole-quadrupole, dipole- quadrupole-quadrupole, quadrupole-quadrupole-quadrupole, and fourth- order triple- dipole terms. It is shown that vapor-liquid equilibria are affected substantially by three-body interactions. The addition of three-body interactions results in good overall agreement of theory with experimental data. In particular, the subcritical liquid- phase densities are predicted accurately. (C) 1999 American Institute of Physics. S0021- 9606(99)50728-9

Owners, traders and providers of capital: the multiple faces of institutional investors

We draw on a series of in-depth interviews with senior fund managers and senior company executives to explore how different and often-contradictory conceptualizations of institutional investors, their role in the corporate governance process, and their interactions with corporate management, are reflected in the attitudes and perceptions of the actors concerned. We find that while conceptualizations in terms of agency and ownership dominate both academic and popular discourses, the actors conceptualize institutional investors more as financial traders and, from the management perspective, politically powerful resource providers.corporate governance, institutional investors, power, resource dependence,shareholder value.

Pointing the Finger at Leadership

The word leadership is often used incorrectly to refer to management, supervision, command, and statesmanship. Scholars rarely, if ever, make any distinction among these four different constructs. Most theories of leadership are really theories of supervision, and the words leadership and supervision are used interchangeably. This paper attempts to distinguish between the two

Gaps in the IFRS Conceptual Framework

The stated purpose of the IFRS Conceptual Framework is to assist the IASB to develop Standards that are based on consistent concepts, and also to assist preparers to develop consistent accounting policies when Standards either do not apply or allow a choice of accounting policy. Yet, the Framework actually does surprisingly little to help the IASB (or preparers) determine which assets, liabilities, income and expenses should be recognised, and how they should be measured. The Framework’s focus on assets and liabilities implies that the accounting can, and should, be determined from the balance sheet. Yet, many current financial reporting requirements focus initially on the income statement, and so they are not so much derived from the Framework as instead in need of being reconciled back to it. At its heart, the problem here is that, while the Framework states that accrual accounting provides a better basis for assessing past and future performance than cash-based information, it does not explain why. To do so would require a conceptualisation of how entities’ business models are employed to create value, and of the strengths and limitations of accounting data in enhancing investors’ understanding of that value-creation. The lack of explanation of the purpose and informational objectives of accruals, how they relate to business models and how they cause the income statement and the balance sheet to interact are gaps in the Framework. Filling those gaps would provide a more robust, and natural, way for the IASB to develop recognition and measurement requirements in its Standards