Optimal predictive model selection

Often the goal of model selection is to choose a model for future prediction, and it is natural to measure the accuracy of a future prediction by squared error loss. Under the Bayesian approach, it is commonly perceived that the optimal predictive model is the model with highest posterior probability, but this is not necessarily the case. In this paper we show that, for selection among normal linear models, the optimal predictive model is often the median probability model, which is defined as the model consisting of those variables which have overall posterior probability greater than or equal to 1/2 of being in a model. The median probability model often differs from the highest probability model

The interrupted world: Surrealist disruption and altered escapes from reality

Following Breton’s writings on surreality, we outline how unexpected challenges to consumers’ assumptive worlds have the potential to alter how their escape from reality is experienced. We introduce the concept of ‘surrealist disruption’ to describe ontological discontinuities that disrupt the common-sense frameworks normally used by consumers and that impact upon their ability to suspend their disbeliefs and experience self-loss. To facilitate our theorization, we draw upon interviews with consumers about their changing experiences as viewers of the realist political TV drama House of Cards against a backdrop of disruptive real-world political events. Our analyses reveal that, when faced with a radically altered external environment, escape from reality changes from a restorative, playful experience to an uneasy, earnest one characterized by hysteretic angst, intersubjective sense-making and epistemological community-building. This reconceptualizes escapism as more emotionally multivalenced than previously considered in marketing theory and reveals consumers’ subject position to an aggregative social fabric beyond their control

Optimisation of a high-efficiency solar-driven organic rankine cycle for applications in the built environment

Energy security, pollution and sustainability are major challenges presently facing the international community, in response to which increasing quantities of renewable energy are to be generated in the urban environment. Consequently, recent years have seen a strong increase in the uptake of solar technologies in the building sector. In this work, the potential of a solar combined heat and power (CHP) system based on an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) engine is investigated in a domestic setting. Unlike previous studies that focus on the optimisation of the ORC subsystem, this study performs a complete system optimisation considering both the design parameters of the solar collector array and the ORC engine simultaneously. Firstly, we present thermodynamic models of different collectors, including flat-plate and evacuated-tube designs, coupled to a non-recuperative sub-critical ORC architecture that delivers power and hot water by using thermal energy rejected from the engine. Optimisation of the complete system is first conducted, aimed at identifying operating conditions for which the power output is maximised. Then, hourly dynamic simulations of the optimised system configurations are performed to complete the system sizing. Results are presented of: (i) dynamic 3-D simulations of the solar collectors together with a thermal energy storage tank, and (ii) of an optimisation analysis to identify the most suitable working fluids for the ORC engine, in which the configuration and operational constraints of the collector array are considered. The best performing working fluids (R245fa and R1233zd) are then chosen for a whole-system annual simulation in a southern European climate. The system configuration combining an evacuated-tube collector array and an ORC engine is found to be best-suited for electricity prioritisation, delivering an electrical output of 3,605¿kWh/year from a 60¿m2 collector array. In addition, the system supplies 13,175¿kWh/year in the form of domestic hot water, which is equivalent to more than 6 times the average annual household demand. A brief cost analysis and comparison with photovoltaic (PV) systems is also performed, where despite the lower PV investment cost per kWel, the levelised energy costs of the different systems are found to be similar if the economic value of the thermal output is taken into account. Finally, a discussion of the modelled solar-CHP systems results shows how these could be used for real applications and extended to other locationsPeer ReviewedPostprint (updated version

Divergent Perspectives on Expert Disagreement: Preliminary Evidence from Climate Science, Climate Policy, Astrophysics, and Public Opinion

We report the results of an exploratory study that examines the judgments of climate scientists, climate policy experts, astrophysicists, and non-experts (N = 3367) about the factors that contribute to the creation and persistence of disagreement within climate science and astrophysics and about how one should respond to expert disagreement. We found that, as compared to non-experts, climate experts believe that within climate science (i) there is less disagreement about climate change, (ii) methodological factors play less of a role in generating disagreements, (iii) fewer personal or institutional biases influence climate research, and (iv) there is more agreement about which methods should be used to examine relevant phenomena we also observed that the uniquely American political context predicted experts’ judgments about some of these factors. We also found that, in regard to disagreements concerning cosmic ray physics, and commensurate with the greater inherent uncertainty and data lacunae in their field, astrophysicists working on cosmic rays were generally more willing to acknowledge expert disagreement, more open to the idea that a set of data can have multiple valid interpretations, and generally less quick to dismiss someone articulating a non-standard view as non-expert, than climate scientists were in regard to climate science

Resource survey of Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary, 1983

Forward: Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary (LKNMS) was designated in 1981 to protect and promote the study, teaching, and wise use of the resources of Looe Key Sanctuary (Plate A). In order to wisely manage this valuable resource, a quantitative resource inventory was funded by the Sanctuary Programs Division (SPD), Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in cooperation with the Southeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA; the Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies (CIMAS), University of Miami; the Fisher Island Laboratory, United States Geological Survey; and the St. Petersburg Laboratory, State of Florida Department of Natural Resources. This report is the result of this cooperative effort. The objective of this study was to quantitatively inventory selected resources of LKNMS in order to allow future monitoring of changes in the Sanctuary as a result of human or natural processes. This study, referred to as Phase I, gives a brief summary of past and present uses of the Sanctuary (Chapter 2); and describes general habitat types (Chapter 3), geology and sediment distribution (Chapter 4), coral abundance and distribution (Chapter 5), the growth history of the coral Montastraea annularis (Chapter 6), reef fish abundance and distribution (Chapter 7), and status of selected resources (Chapter 8). An interpretation of the results of the survey are provided for management consideration (Chapter 9). The results are expected to provide fundamental information for applied management, natural history interpretation, and scientific research. Numerous photographs and illustrations were used to supplement the report to make the material presented easier to comprehend (Plate B). We anticipate the information provided will be used by managers, naturalists, and the general public in addition to scientists. Unless otherwise indicated, all photographs were taken at Looe Key Reef by Dr. James A. Bohnsack. The top photograph in Plate 7.8 was taken by Michael C. Schmale. Illustrations were done by Jack Javech, NMFS. Field work was initiated in May 1983 and completed for the most part by October 1983 thanks to the cooperation of numerous people and organizations. In addition to the participating agencies and organizations we thank the Newfound Harbor Marine Institute and the Division of Parks and Recreation, State of Florida Department of Natural Resources for their logistical support. Special thanks goes to Billy Causey, the Sanctuary Manager, for his help, information, and comments. We thank in alphabetical order: Scott Bannerot, Margie Bastian, Bill Becker, Barbara Bohnsack, Grant Beardsley, John Halas, Raymond Hixon, Irene Hooper, Eric Lindblad, and Mike Schmale. We dedicate this effort to the memory of Ray Hixon who participated in the study and who loved Looe Key. (PDF contains 43 pages