GLS Detrending, Efficient Unit Root Tests and Structural Change

We extend the class of M-tests for a unit root analyzed by Perron and Ng (1996) and Ng and Perron (1997) to the case where a change in the trend function is allowed to occur at an unknown time. These tests M(GLS) adopt the GLS detrending approach of Dufour and King (1991) and Elliott, Rothenberg and Stock (1996) (ERS). Following Perron (1989), we consider two models : one allowing for a change in slope and the other for both a change in intercept and slope. We derive the asymptotic distribution of the tests as well as that of the feasible point optimal tests PT(GLS) suggested by ERS. The asymptotic critical values of the tests are tabulated. Also, we compute the non-centrality parameter used for the local GLS detrending that permits the tests to have 50% asymptotic power at that value. We show that the M(GLS) and PT(GLS) tests have an asymptotic power function close to the power envelope. An extensive simulation study analyzes the size and power in finite samples under various methods to select the truncation lag for the autoregressive spectral density estimator. An empirical application is also provided.

The Credibility and Authoritativeness of Documentary Information in Determining Refugee Status: The Canadian Experience

This article reviews the origins of the Documentation, Information and Research Branch (the 'Documentation Center') of Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), established in 1988 as a part of a major revision of the procedure for determination of refugee status. The Documentation Center conducts research to produce documents describing conditions in refugee-producing countries, and also disseminates information from outside. The information is available to decision-makers, IRB staff, counsel and claimants. Given the importance of decisions on refugee status, the article looks at the credibility and the authoritativeness of the information, by analyzing the structure of information used. It recalls the different types of information 'package' produced, such as a country profiles and the Question and Answer Series, the Weekly Madia Review, the 'Perspectives' series, Responses to Information Requests and Country files, and considers the trend towards standardization across the country. The research process is reviewed, as are the hiring criteria for researchers, the composition of the 'collection', how acquisitions are made, and the development of databases, particularly on country of origin (human rights material) and legal information, which are accessible on-line. The author examines how documentary information can be used by decision-makers to draw conclusions as to whether the claim has a credible basis or the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution. Relevant caselaw is available to assess and weigh the claim. The experience of Amnesty International in similar work is cited for comparative purposes. A number of 'safeguards' are mentioned, which contribute to the goal of impartiality in research, or which otherwise enhance the credibility of the information, and the author suggests that guidelines might be drafted to explain and assist in the realization of these aims. Greater resources might also enable the Center to undertake the task of 'certifying' the authoritativeness of sources. The author concludes that, as a new institution in Canadian administrative law, the Documentation Center opens interesting avenues for the future. Beacause it ensures an acceptable degree of impartiality of its research and the documents it produces, it may be a useful model for others tribunals adjudicating in fields where evidence is either difficult to gather, or is otherwise complex.

Criteria for the validation of specialized verb equivalents : application in bilingual terminography

Multilingual terminological resources do not always include valid equivalents of legal terms for two main reasons. Firstly, legal systems can differ from one language community to another and even from one country to another because each has its own history and traditions. As a result, the non-isomorphism between legal and linguistic systems may render the identification of equivalents a particularly challenging task. Secondly, by focusing primarily on the definition of equivalence, a notion widely discussed in translation but not in terminology, the literature does not offer solid and systematic methodologies for assigning terminological equivalents. As a result, there is a lack of criteria to guide both terminologists and translators in the search and validation of equivalent terms. This problem is even more evident in the case of predicative units, such as verbs. Although some terminologists (L‘Homme 1998; Lerat 2002; Lorente 2007) have worked on specialized verbs, terminological equivalence between units that belong to this part of speech would benefit from a thorough study. By proposing a novel methodology to assign the equivalents of specialized verbs, this research aims at defining validation criteria for this kind of predicative units, so as to contribute to a better understanding of the phenomenon of terminological equivalence as well as to the development of multilingual terminography in general, and to the development of legal terminography, in particular. The study uses a Portuguese-English comparable corpus that consists of a single genre of texts, i.e. Supreme Court judgments, from which 100 Portuguese and 100 English specialized verbs were selected. The description of the verbs is based on the theory of Frame Semantics (Fillmore 1976, 1977, 1982, 1985; Fillmore and Atkins 1992), on the FrameNet methodology (Ruppenhofer et al. 2010), as well as on the methodology for compiling specialized lexical resources, such as DiCoInfo (L‘Homme 2008), developed in the Observatoire de linguistique Sens-Texte at the Université de Montréal. The research reviews contributions that have adopted the same theoretical and methodological framework to the compilation of lexical resources and proposes adaptations to the specific objectives of the project. In contrast to the top-down approach adopted by FrameNet lexicographers, the approach described here is bottom-up, i.e. verbs are first analyzed and then grouped into frames for each language separately. Specialized verbs are said to evoke a semantic frame, a sort of conceptual scenario in which a number of mandatory elements (core Frame Elements) play specific roles (e.g. ARGUER, JUDGE, LAW), but specialized verbs are often accompanied by other optional information (non-core Frame Elements), such as the criteria and reasons used by the judge to reach a decision (statutes, codes, previous decisions). The information concerning the semantic frame that each verb evokes was encoded in an xml editor and about twenty contexts illustrating the specific way each specialized verb evokes a given frame were semantically and syntactically annotated. The labels attributed to each semantic frame (e.g. [Compliance], [Verdict]) were used to group together certain synonyms, antonyms as well as equivalent terms. The research identified 165 pairs of candidate equivalents among the 200 Portuguese and English terms that were grouped together into 76 frames. 71% of the pairs of equivalents were considered full equivalents because not only do the verbs evoke the same conceptual scenario but their actantial structures, the linguistic realizations of the actants and their syntactic patterns were similar. 29% of the pairs of equivalents did not entirely meet these criteria and were considered partial equivalents. Reasons for partial equivalence are provided along with illustrative examples. Finally, the study describes the semasiological and onomasiological entry points that JuriDiCo, the bilingual lexical resource compiled during the project, offers to future users.

Screening for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: an information statement by the scoliosis research society international task force

Background: Routine screening of scoliosis is a controversial subject and screening efforts vary greatly around the world. METHODS: Consensus was sought among an international group of experts (seven spine surgeons and one clinical epidemiologist) using a modified Delphi approach. The consensus achieved was based on careful analysis of a recent critical review of the literature on scoliosis screening, performed using a conceptual framework of analysis focusing on five main dimensions: technical, clinical, program, cost and treatment effectiveness. FINDINGS: A consensus was obtained in all five dimensions of analysis, resulting in 10 statements and recommendations. In summary, there is scientific evidence to support the value of scoliosis screening with respect to technical efficacy, clinical, program and treatment effectiveness, but there insufficient evidence to make a statement with respect to cost effectiveness. Scoliosis screening should be aimed at identifying suspected cases of scoliosis that will be referred for diagnostic evaluation and confirmed, or ruled out, with a clinically significant scoliosis. The scoliometer is currently the best tool available for scoliosis screening and there is moderate evidence to recommend referral with values between 5 degrees and 7 degrees. There is moderate evidence that scoliosis screening allows for detection and referral of patients at an earlier stage of the clinical course, and there is low evidence suggesting that scoliosis patients detected by screening are less likely to need surgery than those who did not have screening. There is strong evidence to support treatment by bracing. INTERPRETATION: This information statement by an expert panel supports scoliosis screening in 4 of the 5 domains studied, using a framework of analysis which includes all of the World Health Organisation criteria for a valid screening procedure.