Recovering Natural History: Modeling Cardiovascular Biomarkers in the Presence of Endogenous Medication Use

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-08

Cross-sectoral differences in the drivers of innovation: evidence from the Irish Community Innovation Survey

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to analyse differences in the drivers of firm innovation performance across sectors. The literature often makes the assumption that firms in different sectors differ in their propensity to innovate but not in the drivers of innovation. The authors empirically assess whether this assumption is accurate through a series of econometric estimations and tests. Design/methodology/approach: The data used are derived from the Irish Community Innovation Survey 2004-2006. A series of multivariate probit models are estimated and the resulting coefficients are tested for parameter stability across sectors using likelihood ratio tests. Findings: The results indicate that there is a strong degree of heterogeneity in the drivers of innovation across sectors. The determinants of process, organisational, new to firm and new to market innovation varies across sectors suggesting that the pooling of sectors in an innovation production function may lead to biased inferences. Research limitations/implications: The implications of the results are that innovation policies targeted at stimulating innovation need to be tailored to particular industries. One size fits all policies would seem inappropriate given the large degree of heterogeneity observed across the drivers of innovation in different sectors. Originality/value: The value of this paper is that it provides an empirical test as to whether it is suitable to group sectoral data when estimating innovation production functions. Most papers simply include sectoral dummies, implying that only the propensity to innovate differs across sectors and that the slope of the coefficient estimates are in fact consistent across sectors.

Multijurisdictional fisheries performance reporting: How Australia’s nationally standardised approach to assessing stock status compares

Australian marine wild-capture fisheries are managed by eight separate jurisdictions. Traditionally, fishery status reports have been produced separately by most of these jurisdictions, assessing the fish stocks they manage, and reporting on the effectiveness of their fisheries management. However, the format, the type of stock status assessments, the thresholds and terminology used to describe stock status and the classification frameworks have varied over time and among jurisdictions. These differences complicate efforts to understand stock status on a national scale. They also create potential misunderstanding among the wider community about how to interpret information on the status of fish stocks, and the fisheries management and science processes more generally. This is especially true when considering stocks that are shared across two or more jurisdictional boundaries. A standardised approach was developed in 2011 leading to production of the first national Status of key Australian fish stocks reports in 2012, followed by a second edition in 2014 (www.fish.gov.au). Production of these reports was the first step towards a broader national approach to reporting on the performance of Australian fisheries for target species and for wider ecosystem and socioeconomic consequences. This paper outlines the challenges associated with moving towards national performance reporting for target fish stocks and Australia’s successes so far. It also outlines the challenges ahead, in particular those relating to reporting more broadly on the status of entire fisheries. Comparisons are drawn between Australia and New Zealand and more broadly between Australia and other countries.

Comparison and validation of physical wave parameterizations in spectral wave models

Recent developments in the physical parameterizations available in spectral wave models have already been validated, but there is little information on their relative performance especially with focus on the higher order spectral moments and wave partitions. This study concentrates on documenting their strengths and limitations using satellite measurements, buoy spectra, and a comparison between the different models. It is confirmed that all models perform well in terms of significant wave heights; however higher-order moments have larger errors. The partition wave quantities perform well in terms of direction and frequency but the magnitude and directional spread typically have larger discrepancies. The high-frequency tail is examined through the mean square slope using satellites and buoys. From this analysis it is clear that some models behave better than the others, suggesting their parameterizations match the physical processes reasonably well. However none of the models are entirely satisfactory, pointing to poorly constrained parameterizations or missing physical processes. The major space-time differences between the models are related to the swell field stressing the importance of describing its evolution. An example swell field confirms the wave heights can be notably different between model configurations while the directional distributions remain similar. It is clear that all models have difficulty in describing the directional spread. Therefore, knowledge of the source term directional distributions is paramount in improving the wave model physics in the future.