SN 2018fif: The explosion of a large red supergiant discovered in its infancy by the Zwicky transient facility

High-cadence transient surveys are able to capture supernovae closer to their first light than ever before. Applying analytical models to such early emission, we can constrain the progenitor stars’ properties. In this paper, we present observations of SN 2018fif (ZTF 18abokyfk). The supernova was discovered close to first light and monitored by the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) and the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory. Early spectroscopic observations suggest that the progenitor of SN 2018fif was surrounded by relatively small amounts of circumstellar material compared to all previous cases. This particularity, coupled with the high-cadence multiple-band coverage, makes it a good candidate to investigate using shock-cooling models. We employ the SOPRANOS code, an implementation of the model by Sapir & Waxman and its extension to early times by Morag et al. Compared with previous implementations, SOPRANOS has the advantage of including a careful account of the limited temporal validity domain of the shock-cooling model as well as allowing usage of the entirety of the early UV data. We find that the progenitor of SN 2018fif was a large red supergiant with a radius of R = 744.0-+128.0183.0 R☉ and an ejected mass of Mej = 9.3-+5.80.4 M☉. Our model also gives information on the explosion epoch, the progenitor’s inner structure, the shock velocity, and the extinction. The distribution of radii is double-peaked, with smaller radii corresponding to lower values of the extinction, earlier recombination times, and a better match to the early UV data. If these correlations persist in future objects, denser spectroscopic monitoring constraining the time of recombination, as well as accurate UV observations (e.g., with ULTRASAT), will help break the extinction/radius degeneracy and independently determine both

What the TUT? Examining the Causes and Consequences of Emotionally Valenced Mind Wandering

The emotional valence of mind wandering may moderate its impact on task performance. Evidence supporting this claim has relied on examining the impact of emotional valenced mind wandering on overall performance scores. In the first study, we examined the consequences of emotionally valenced task unrelated thoughts (TUTs) on a trial-by-trial basis for high demanding and moderately demanding tasks. On high demand working memory span tasks, all TUTs predicted poorer performance on immediately preceding trials. On a moderately demanding sustained attention task, only negatively valenced TUTs predicted poorer performance on immediately preceding trials. While contextual predictors of mind wandering in real life have been explored, no research has extended this to examine predictors of emotionally valenced mind wandering. In the second study, we used an experience sampling procedure to examine predictors of emotionally valenced mind wandering. Emotional valence of the TUT moderated the predictors of mind wandering in the real world

Ethnic identity and local government responsiveness in Taiwan

Countless studies have shown that local officials are less responsive to ethnic minority citizens. Surprisingly, we find no similar pattern of discrimination by Taiwanese local officials. In an online contacting experiment, we send citizen service requests to the websites of 358 township and district chiefs, randomly varying the name of the putative citizen to reflect an indigenous or an ethnically Chinese identity and collecting data on officials\u27 responses. We find that officials are equally responsive to both identities. Drawing on in-depth interviews and nonparticipant observation in government service centers, we attribute this surprising finding to institutional elements of Taiwan\u27s local bureaucracy that limit the impact of individual-level bias. However, our research provides preliminary evidence that local governments are generally less responsive in indigenous areas. While clearly defined procedures may prevent discrimination against indigenous individuals, interregional differences in local state capacity can nonetheless produce unequal experiences with local governance

Public Servants at the Regulatory Front Lines:Street-Level Enforcement in Theory and Practice

This chapter focuses on the central role of public servants in street-level enforcement. The central aim is to contribute to the understanding of “street-level enforcement” (De Boer, Street-level enforcement style: A multidimensional measurement instrument. International Journal of Public Administration 42 (5): 380–391, 2019) in theory and practice. To analyze the important work of public servants at the regulatory frontlines, we use two conceptual lenses. To illustrate the different theoretical concepts, and to assess some of the strengths and weaknesses of the literature, both conceptual lenses will be applied in a case study about the enforcement of welfare laws in the Netherlands. The first lens is the concept of “street-level bureaucracy.” Lipsky (Street-level bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1980) famously argued that the decisions of street-level bureaucrats, and the routines that they establish, effectively become the public policies they carry out. This chapter shows that this not only applies to public servants who are involved in policy implementation, but also to those working in the field of regulatory enforcement. The Dutch case shows, for example, that a punitive law like the “Welfare Fraud Act” does not automatically lead to strict and punitive enforcement. The second lens that we use is the concept of the regulatory “enforcement style.” Based on how public servants apply the rules and how they respond to rule violations, we were able to get a more detailed understanding of how public officials act in their daily contacts with clients. In the Dutch case, public servants use three enforcement styles: strict punishment, flexible punishment, and flexible persuasion. Finally, based on this review of the literature and the findings from the case study, the chapter will discuss several future challenges for both practitioners and students in the field of street-level enforcement

Accountability of Public Servants at the Street Level

Public servants are accountable to the public – as their name suggests. However, the question of accountability is not as clear as it seems. Public servants working at the street level of government bureaucracy enjoy discretion in the implementation of public policies (Thomann, van Engen and Tummers, J Public Adm Res Theory 28(4):583–601, 2018a). In the context of regulatory governance, policy implementers more often than not enforce regulation and hence are regulators at the street level. They use discretion to make decisions that ultimately define policies and regulation; and they do so along different reference systems (Thomann, Hupe, and Sager F, Governance 31:299–319, 2018b). Lipsky (Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1980, 2010) famously conceptualized the resulting dilemmas for this stratum of public servants. Maynard-Moody and Musheno (J Public Adm Res Theory 10:329–358, 2000) capture the core dilemma of those public servants’ accountability when interacting with clients with the distinction between “state agents” primarily following the law and “citizen agents” first of all addressing clients’ needs. In their accountability regimes framework, Hupe and Hill (Public Adm 85:85–102, 2007) introduce profession as third key reference institution, alongside state and society. In the course of new modes of governance, in particular contexts, private actors have gained an additional role as implementation agents. Sager et al. (Public Manage Rev 16:481–502, 2014) and Thomann et al. (2018) therefore extend the accountability regimes framework with market as central in the fourth accountability regime at the street level. The chapter presents the extended accountability regimes framework, illustrates it with empirical cases, and discusses regulatory and policy implications of the accountability dilemmas of street-level implementers