Alternative System Solvers

2021 ◽  
pp. 303-330
Author(s):  
Gerald Farin ◽  
Dianne Hansford
Keyword(s):  
Alternative System

scholarly journals Simulating lesion-dependent functional recovery mechanisms

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Noor Sajid ◽  
Emma Holmes ◽  
Thomas M. Hope ◽  
Zafeirios Fountas ◽  
Cathy J. Price ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Functional Recovery ◽  
Model Performance ◽  
Neuronal System ◽  
Learning Capacity ◽  
Word Repetition ◽  
Alternative System ◽  
Long Term Effect ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Recovery Mechanisms ◽  
Incomplete Damage

AbstractFunctional recovery after brain damage varies widely and depends on many factors, including lesion site and extent. When a neuronal system is damaged, recovery may occur by engaging residual (e.g., perilesional) components. When damage is extensive, recovery depends on the availability of other intact neural structures that can reproduce the same functional output (i.e., degeneracy). A system’s response to damage may occur rapidly, require learning or both. Here, we simulate functional recovery from four different types of lesions, using a generative model of word repetition that comprised a default premorbid system and a less used alternative system. The synthetic lesions (i) completely disengaged the premorbid system, leaving the alternative system intact, (ii) partially damaged both premorbid and alternative systems, and (iii) limited the experience-dependent plasticity of both. The results, across 1000 trials, demonstrate that (i) a complete disconnection of the premorbid system naturally invoked the engagement of the other, (ii) incomplete damage to both systems had a much more devastating long-term effect on model performance and (iii) the effect of reducing learning capacity within each system. These findings contribute to formal frameworks for interpreting the effect of different types of lesions.

The effect of the adoption of an alternative corporate governance system on firms’ performances

2016 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 517-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlo Bellavite Pellegrini ◽  
Bruno S. Sergi ◽  
Emiliano Sironi
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Performance Outcomes ◽  
Corporate Law ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Governance System ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Alternative System ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Board System

Purpose – Alternative corporate governance systems (CGSs) have attracted a significant bulk of research recently. While the connection between the adoption of an alternative system (one tier board or two tier board system) and firms’ performances has not been fully analysed yet, the purpose of this paper is to analyse whether companies which have turned into an alternative board system have eventually improved their performance over time. Design/methodology/approach – Using a sample of more than 15,000 Italian unlisted joint stock companies, the authors compare performance outcomes in 2009 of firms adopting alternative systems with performances of firms that maintained the system in force before the 2003 Corporate Law Reform (defined as “traditional”). Because of the choice of an alternative system (one tier or two tier board) instead of a traditional one is not random, the authors reduce selection bias implementing matching methods and comparing firms that are close in terms of propensity score measured in 2003 (the year before the new CGSs have been introduced by a corporate law reform). Findings – The authors do not find evidence of a significant improvement of performances in 2009 concerning those firms that have adopted a one tier or two tier board systems with respect to those which maintained a traditional one. Originality/value – The novelty of the study concerns the application of propensity score matching for the evaluation of the impact of the change of the CGS that is possible in presence of two conditions that are all verified in our setting: first, to have a country where corporate law allows for choosing among different systems; in this case Italy is a good laboratory, because it allows for the choice among three different systems; and second, to have the opportunity to evaluate the effect of the change in light of a relatively recent “pre-treatment” condition; this is made possible by the fact that before the 2003 Reform of corporate law all the companies had a traditional system.

A Modification in the Sequential Tutoring of Emotionally Disturbed Children

1967 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 517-521
Author(s):  
L. K. Brendtro ◽  
Phyllis Rash Stern
Keyword(s):  
Emotionally Disturbed ◽  
Tutoring System ◽  
Primary Intervention ◽  
Alternative System ◽  
Emotionally Disturbed Children ◽  
Special Classes

Previous research has indicated that the primary intervention in special classes for the disturbed is sequential tutoring. In this method the teacher provides individual attention by rotating from student to student. A number of limitations to this approach are discussed and an alternative system of individualizing the instructional procedure is suggested. Several advantages of this modified sequential tutoring system are considered.

scholarly journals The Journal Impact Factor and its discontents: steps toward responsible metrics and better research assessment

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Roberto F. Arruda ◽  
Robin Champieux ◽  
Colleen Cook ◽  
Mary Ellen K. Davis ◽  
Richard Gedye ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Sufficient Information ◽  
Alternative System ◽  
Practical Support ◽  
Journal Impact

A small, self-selected discussion group was convened to consider issues surrounding impact factors at the first meeting of the Open Scholarship Initiative in Fairfax, Virginia, USA, in April 2016, and focused on the uses and misuses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), with a particular focus on research assessment. The group’s report notes that the widespread use, or perceived use, of the JIF in research assessment processes lends the metric a degree of influence that is not justified on the basis of its validity for those purposes, and retards moves to open scholarship in a number of ways. The report concludes that indicators, including those based on citation counts, can be combined with peer review to inform research assessment, but that the JIF is not one of those indicators. It also concludes that there is already sufficient information about the shortcomings of the JIF, and that instead actions should be pursued to build broad momentum away from its use in research assessment. These actions include practical support for the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) by research funders, higher education institutions, national academies, publishers and learned societies. They also include the creation of an international “metrics lab” to explore the potential of new indicators, and the wide sharing of information on this topic among stakeholders. Finally, the report acknowledges that the JIF may continue to be used as one indicator of the quality of journals, and makes recommendations how this should be improved.OSI2016 Workshop Question: Impact FactorsTracking the metrics of a more open publishing world will be key to selling “open” and encouraging broader adoption of open solutions. Will more openness mean lower impact, though (for whatever reason—less visibility, less readability, less press, etc.)? Why or why not? Perhaps more fundamentally, how useful are impact factors anyway? What are they really tracking, and what do they mean? What are the pros and cons of our current reliance on these measures? Would faculty be satisfied with an alternative system as long as it is recognized as reflecting meaningfully on the quality of their scholarship? What might such an alternative system look like?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document