A GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR PARAMETER ESTIMATION FOR THE LAW OF COMPARATIVE JUDGEMENT

1973 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Arbuckle ◽  
James H. Nugent
Keyword(s):  
Parameter Estimation ◽  
General Procedure ◽  
Comparative Judgement ◽  
The Law

Parameter Estimation for an Internal Variable Model Using Nonlinear Optimization and Analytical/Numerical Response Sensitivities

1997 ◽  
Vol 119 (4) ◽  
pp. 337-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. F. Fossum
Keyword(s):  
Parameter Estimation ◽  
Nonlinear Optimization ◽  
Optimization Algorithm ◽  
Plastic Material ◽  
General Procedure ◽  
Estimation Procedure ◽  
Variable Model ◽  
Material Parameters ◽  
Relative Response ◽  
Efficient Test

This paper demonstrates through examples that erroneous material constants for complex visco-plastic material models can be obtained from simultaneous parameter estimation by nonlinear optimization methods unless the laboratory load paths used in the fitting process give significant model response sensitivities to changes in all of the material parameters. A general procedure is proposed in which a nonlinear optimization algorithm is coupled with analytically/numerically derived response sensitivities to evaluate an unambiguous set of material parameters. Response sensitivities enter into the parameter estimation procedure in two ways. Relative response sensitivities are first used to identify an efficient test matrix that, when simulated with the model, give model responses that are sensitive to changes in each of the material parameters. Then the corresponding nonzero response sensitivities are used to construct the gradient and Hessian matrices in a gradient-driven optimization algorithm to evaluate the material parameters. A model for braze alloys is used to demonstrate that erroneous parameter values may result if not all of the relative response sensitivities are “nonzero” and distinct.

scholarly journals Procedure for exemption from punishment on the ground of legal act on decriminalization provided

2019 ◽  
pp. 72-80
Author(s):  
A. Chugaievska
Keyword(s):  
General Procedure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Immediate Release ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Law

Analysis of the criminal procedure for exemption from punishment on the ground of legal act on decriminalization provided; analysis of current status of the problem provided; the key problems and legislative gaps identified, and respective solutions developed. The study revealed that the procedure for exemption from the court-sentenced punishment on the ground of legal act on decriminalization provided, has no sufficiently and precise regulations in the criminal procedural legislation. The goal of research is analyzing procedural order of exemption person from appointed sentence of court for action, the punishment of which is eliminated by law, identifying a range of problems which connects with procedural order of exemptions from the sentence imposed in connection with adoption of the law which eliminates the criminal act and amendment of improving current criminal procedural legislation. In the framework of the analysis of the recent studies, researches and respective publications it has been examined the current status of the scientific researches of the issues on exemption from the court-sentenced punishment on the ground of legal act on decriminalization provided (part 2 of the Article 74 of the Criminal Code). The grounded conclusion reads that that the procedure for this type of exemption from the court-sentenced punishment is insufficiently studied. Within the framework of implementing the tasks on analyzing the procedure for exemption from the court-sentenced punishment on the ground of legal act on decriminalization provided, detection a range of issues related to the procedure for exemption from the court-sentenced punishment on the ground of legal act on decriminalization provided and contributing recommendations for improvement of the current criminal procedural legislation, the following conclusions and recommendations were proposed. In particular, the application of of legal act on decriminalization at the criminal proceedings does not require a specific regulations. However, the general procedure for examining issues while executing a sentence requires taking into account specific cases of exemption from court-sentenced punishment. The ensuring of the prescribed by the Part 2 of Art. 74 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine "immediate" release of a person from a punishment sentenced by a court, should be supported by improving the procedural terms of consideration of the petition for release and introduction of a separate regulations. It is recommended to implement into the procedure a list of grounds (issues) that the court must consider during a trial and resolving the issue of release from punishment on the ground of legal act on decriminalization provided. In addition, it is appropriate in our opinion to oblige the court in deciding whether to release a person from punishment on the ground of legal act on decriminalization provided, while applying the exemption from punishment under Part 2 of Art. 74 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, to consider the issue of eradication of conviction the person who was sentenced.

A General Procedure for Accurate Parameter Estimation in Dynamic Systems Using New Estimation Errors

2012 ◽  
pp. 149-166
Author(s):  
Masahiko Nakatsui ◽  
Alexandre Sedoglavic ◽  
François Lemaire ◽  
François Boulier ◽  
Asli Ürgüplü ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Parameter Estimation ◽  
Dynamic Systems ◽  
General Procedure ◽  
Estimation Errors

Ethical Challenges: Less About Moral Wrongdoing and More About Communication Breakdown

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 72-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Leslie ◽  
Mary Casper
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Thickened Liquids ◽  
Communication Breakdown ◽  
Professional Duty ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
The Law ◽  
Personal Case

“My patient refuses thickened liquids, should I discharge them from my caseload?” A version of this question appears at least weekly on the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's Community pages. People talk of respecting the patient's right to be non-compliant with speech-language pathology recommendations. We challenge use of the word “respect” and calling a patient “non-compliant” in the same sentence: does use of the latter term preclude the former? In this article we will share our reflections on why we are interested in these so called “ethical challenges” from a personal case level to what our professional duty requires of us. Our proposal is that the problems that we encounter are less to do with ethical or moral puzzles and usually due to inadequate communication. We will outline resources that clinicians may use to support their work from what seems to be a straightforward case to those that are mired in complexity. And we will tackle fears and facts regarding litigation and the law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document