Bounding the number of contributors to mixed DNA stains

We derive a simple inequality for the probability of observing a given DNA profile when assuming a fixed number of unknown persons have contributed to the mixed stain. We then show how this inequality can be used to obtain an upper bound for the number of unknown contributors needed to be considered.     

Comparison of gasolines using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and target ion response

Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry was used to compare gasoline samples obtained from different sources based on the difference in amounts of certain components found in the headspace of gasoline using target response data. Many suspected arson cases involve comparing an ignitable liquid extracted from fire debris to a liquid found in a suspect's possession to determine if they could have had a common source. Various component ratios are proposed for determining if an unevaporated gasoline sample could have originated from the same source as an evaporated gasoline extracted from fire debris. Fifty and 75% evaporated gasoline samples were both found to contain similar ratios of certain components when compared with its unevaporated source gasoline. The results of the comparisons in this study demonstrate that for cases involving gasoline that has been evaporated up to 50% and extracted from pine, it is possible to eliminate comparison samples as originating from the same source. The results of the 75% comparisons suggest it may be possible to apply the same type of comparison to cases involving 75% evaporated gasoline.     

Attachment as an Organizational Construct for Affect,Appraisals, and Coping of Late Adolescent Females

The purpose of this study was to 1) compare general affective dispositions (depression and anxiety) and negative affect during interpersonal conflict as a function of attachment security, 2) examine appraisals as a function of attachment style and as predictors of coping, 3) compare strategies of coping with interpersonal conflict as a function of attachment style, and 4) investigate the roles of attachment style, affect, and appraisals in predicting coping in the context of interpersonal conflict. Seventy-three late adolescent females participated. Insecure participants reported higher levels of depression, anxiety, and negative affect during interpersonal conflicts. Insecure participants were more likely to cope with interpersonal conflicts through support seeking or avoidance. Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that general and specific attachment style, affect, and appraisals significantly predict coping strategies. Implications for general and specific models of attachment as organizational constructs and attachment as a predictor of coping with interpersonal and non-interpersonal stressors are discussed.     

Constructing and contesting legitimacy and accountability in polycentric regulatory regimes

The legitimacy and accountability of polycentric regulatory regimes, particularly at the transnational level, has been severely criticized, and the search is on to find ways in which they can be enhanced. This paper argues that before developing even more proposals, we need to pay far greater attention to the dynamics of accountability and legitimacy relationships, and to how those in regulatory regimes respond to them. The article thus first seeks to develop a closer analysis of three key elements of legitimacy and accountability relationships which it suggests are central to these dynamics: The role of the institutional environment in the construction of legitimacy, the dialectical nature of accountability relationships, and the communicative structures through which accountability occurs and legitimacy is constructed. Second, the article explores how organizations in regulatory regimes respond, or are likely to respond, to multiple legitimacy and accountability claims, and how they themselves seek to build legitimacy in complex and dynamic situations. The arguments developed here are not normative: There is no “grand solution” proposed to the normative questions of when regulators should be considered legitimate or how to make them so. Rather, the article seeks to analyse the dynamics of legitimacy and accountability relationships as they occur in an attempt to build a more realistic foundation on which grander “how to” proposals can be built. For until we understand these dynamics, the grander, normative arguments risk being simply pipe dreams – diverting, but in the end making little difference.     

Really Responsive Regulation

Really Responsive Regulation seeks to add to current theories of enforcement by stressing the case for regulators to be responsive not only to the attitude of the regulated firm but also to the operating and cognitive frameworks of firms; the institutional environment and performance of the regulatory regime; the different logics of regulatory tools and strategies; and to changes in each of these elements. The approach pervades all the different tasks of enforcement activity: detecting undesirable or non-compliant behaviour; developing tools and strategies for responding to that behaviour; enforcing those tools and strategies; assessing their success or failure; and modifying them accordingly. The value of the approach is shown by outlining its potential application to UK environmental and fisheries controls. Putting the system into effect is itself challenging but failing to regulate really responsively can constitute an expensive process of shooting in the dark.