No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

In linea di principio, la sentenza può essere definita come il provvedimento giurisdizionale con cui il giudice definisce la controversia, confermando o negando – nel contesto specifico del processo penale – l’ipotesi di colpevolezza dell’imputato. Sennonché, l’impostazione tradizionale – fedele ai consueti metodi dell’indagine giuridica – considera la sentenza esclusivamente in qualità di atto processuale, esaminando la relativa disciplina per individuare i requisiti di validità ed efficacia dell’atto stesso. La presente ricerca, invece, si propone di approfondire lo studio della sentenza penale quale “giudizio”, vale a dire come epilogo del percorso conoscitivo compiuto dall'organo giurisdizionale per giungere alla ricostruzione dei fatti controversi, nonché, alla loro adeguata qualificazione giuridica. In questa prospettiva, le disposizioni che regolano la formazione e i contenuti della sentenza penale vengono prevalentemente in rilievo, in quanto stabiliscono i confini e i percorsi normativi delle operazioni gnoseologiche compiute dal giudice nella fase conclusiva del processo. Esaurite le premesse di carattere metodologico (capitolo I), l’indagine prende le mosse (capitolo II) dalla ricostruzione storica e dogmatica della “sentenza penale”, poiché l’estensione della categoria in esame dipende sia dalla complessiva struttura del processo, sia dalle scelte contingenti operate dal legislatore. In seguito, si approfondisce (capitolo III) la posizione specifica della sentenza nel contesto del procedimento penale, muovendo dalle dottrine generali del processo e giungendo al ruolo che la decisione giurisdizionale assume nell’ambito del cosiddetto “giusto processo”. Nel capitolo IV, si opera un confronto fra le operazioni conoscitive che costituiscono il proprium dell’attività giurisdizionale, rispetto alle metodologie adottate – rispettivamente – nell’indagine di carattere storico e nell’ambito delle scienze sperimentali. Successivamente (capitolo V), si trattano i principali profili di ricostruzione fattuale che caratterizzano la sentenza penale: in particolare, l’attenzione si sofferma sulla configurazione delle regole decisorie tipiche del processo penale e sul dovere di motivazione che incombe sull’organo giurisdizionale. Infine (capitolo VI), viene analizzata la configurazione strutturale del cosiddetto “post dibattimento”, per dimostrare che la decisione giurisdizionale può essere solo convenzionalmente considerata come una realtà processuale unitaria (la sentenza penale), laddove l’analisi normativa lascia intravvedere una serie di comportamenti, che integrano una complessa fattispecie a formazione progressiva. / Sentence can be defined, as a matter of principle, like the decision through which the Court puts an end to the dispute, validating or denying – particularly in criminal cases – the original accusation formulated by the public prosecutor. Given this assumption, legal scholars usually consider the judicial decision merely as a procedural document, interpreting the relevant provisions in order to establish conditions for its validity and enforceability. Instead, the aim of this research is to deepen the study of the criminal judgment, understood as the conclusion of the knowledge path accomplished by the tribunal for the porpuse of reconstructing controversial events and find an adequate legal classification therof. In this perspective, legal provisions concerning the criminal decision (art. 525 ss. of the Italian code of criminal procedure) are mainly examined in so far as they determine routes and limitations for the gnoseological process, which takes place during the closing moments of the trial.

Submitted by JOSIANE SANTOS DE OLIVEIRA (josianeso) on 2018-08-17T16:06:25Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Angela Maria Haberkamp_.pdf: 3622419 bytes, checksum: 8685cab27c26c2999033feb48418cc9a (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-17T16:06:25Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Angela Maria Haberkamp_.pdf: 3622419 bytes, checksum: 8685cab27c26c2999033feb48418cc9a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-03-07 / CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / Esta pesquisa analisou quais são as variáveis individuais e ambientais que influenciam o julgamento e a tomada de decisão (JDM) de contadores em empresas que adotam as International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) e como o fazem, no que se refere ao controle do imobilizado. Este estudo defende que elementos individuais e pressões ambientais influenciam o JDM dos contadores, demandado em maior grau desde a adoção das IFRS no Brasil, em 2010. A perspectiva individual foi estudada à luz da Teoria da Racionalidade Limitada (limitações cognitivas, situacionais e informacionais impedem a decisão ótima); já a ambiental utiliza os pressupostos da Teoria Institucional (as organizações tendem à similaridade, em função de pressões coercitivas, normativas e miméticas). Para a coleta de dados, foi utilizado um questionário semiestruturado, aplicado a 28 contadores que atuam em organizações que adotam as IFRS. Os resultados mostram que tanto as variáveis individuais, quanto as pressões institucionais influenciam o JDM dos contadores estudados. Os elementos individuais referem-se a limitações cognitivas (uso de facilitadores de decisão e excesso de variáveis); informacionais (informação indisponível e custo-benefício de obtê-la); e situacionais (tempo); sendo a limitação cognitiva a mais frequente. As pressões ambientais identificadas são as coercitivas (legislação, auditoria, detentores de capital, gestores e entidades regulamentadoras), as normativas (graduação, outros contadores, formação complementar, professores e auditoria) e as miméticas (consultoria). Destas, a pressão coercitiva é a mais presente no JDM dos contadores. A análise em relação a como elementos individuais e ambientais influenciam o JDM mostra que: a) as limitações cognitivas influenciam com maior intensidade o JDM dos contadores nas decisões operacionais, enquanto as pressões coercitivas influenciam mais o JDM nas decisões relacionadas à gestão do imobilizado (adotar a IFRS de forma integral ou parcial e como atender - ou não - a tudo que a norma demanda); b) há eventos em que Racionalidade Limitada e as Pressões Institucionais influenciam o JDM dos contadores de forma conjunta (como no cálculo da depreciação, teste de impairment e controles complementares), quando isso ocorre, as pressões coercitivas são determinates da decisão. / This research analyzed the individual and environmental variables that influence the judgment and decision making (JDM) of accountants in companies that adopt International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), and how they do it, in terms of asset control. This study argues that individual elements and environmental pressures influence the accountants JDM, demanded to a greater degree since the adoption of IFRS in Brazil in 2010. The individual perspective was studied in light of the Bounded Rationality Theory (cognitive, situational and informational limitations prevent the optimal decision); and the environmental uses the presuppositions of the Institutional Theory (the organizations tend to the similarity, due to coercive, normative and mimetic pressures). For the data collection, was used a semi-structured questionnaire, applied to 28 accountants who work in organizations that adopt the IFRS. The results show that individual variables and institutional pressures influence the JDM of the studied accountants. The individual elements are related to cognitive limitations (use of decision facilitators and excess variables), informational limitations (information unavailable and cost-effective to obtain it) and situational limitations (time); where the cognitive limitation is the most frequent. The environmental pressures identified are coercive (legislation, audit, capital holders, managers and regulators), normative (graduation, other accountants, supplementary training, teachers and auditing) and mimetics (consulting). Of these, the coercive pressure is the most present in the JDM of the accountants. The analysis of how individual and environmental elements influence the JDM shows that: a) Cognitive limitations influence the accountant’s JDM more strongly in operational decisions, while coercive pressures influence the JDM more in decisions about the management of fixed assets (adopt IFRS in whole or in part and how to meet - or not - all that the standard demands). b) There are events in which Limited Rationality and Institutional Pressures influence the accountant’s JDM jointly (as in the calculation of depreciation, impairment test and complementary controls), when this occurs, coercive pressures are determinate to the decision.

No description available.

Vlaev等人（2011）提出大部分決策理論可分為「數值優先（第一類）」、「計算數值並以比較為基礎（第二類）」及「純粹比較（第三類）」三種觀點。在純粹比較觀點中，Stewart等人（2006）提出的抽樣決策理論認為個人的決策歷程只有形成決策樣本，並將目標物與決策樣本中其他選項進行兩兩次序比較就能產生對該目標物的評價，不需要真正計算選項的數值。然而很少研究檢驗決策是否確實不牽涉刺激數值的計算，以及第三類觀點是否優於第一及第二類觀點的理論。 　　本研究的目的為檢驗抽樣決策理論的適切性，並進行資料庫分析及四類實驗。資料庫分析以代表三種觀點的薪資、薪資相對位置及薪資相對排名為預測變項，工作滿意度為依變項進行階層回歸，結果支持相對排名最能預測工作滿意度。 　　實驗部分則以Brown 等人（2008）的實驗設計為基礎，展開四類實驗檢驗排名對滿意度評價的影響是否存在且強勢。結果發現排名對滿意度評價的影響雖穩定存在，但影響強度會隨著實驗程序是否暗示受試者進行比較而改變，且相對位置亦會影響評價結果，因此本研究的結果支持第二類觀點的範圍頻次理論。 　　然而抽樣決策理論並非錯誤。藉由比較四個實驗間的差異，本研究認為抽樣決策理論若將記憶或抽樣歷程可能發生的偏誤納入考量，應能增加對實證資料之解釋力。無論是範圍頻次理論或抽樣決策理論，由於未考量個人對物理刺激的感受性及物理空間與心理空間的對應關係，可能導致部分受試者的反應不適合用此類模型解釋，亦是未來可以進一步探討的方向。 　　雖然受限於實驗設計無法檢驗受試者對於刺激材料的記憶程度，且實驗設計相較於真實決策情境簡單許多，外推性受到限制，但在相對簡單，比較細微實驗程序差異的本研究中，仍能看到個人隨著作業環境不同而改變行為模式的彈性，無疑是對傳統經濟學家的理性人假設的一個挑戰。

No description available.

The interest in structural health monitoring (SHM) has grown considerably in the past half century, due to an explosive growth in the availability of new sensors, the development of powerful data analysis techniques, and the increasing number of civil infrastructure that are approaching or exceeding their initial design life. In SHM, we acquire observation on the behavior of a structure to understand its condition state, based on which we decide how to manage it properly. However, this optimistic view of SHM is in contrast with what happen in real life: infrastructure operators are typically skeptical about the capacity of monitoring to support decisions, and instead of following the suggestions provided by SHM, they often act based on their experience or common sense. The reason is that at present it is not fully clear how in practice to make decisions based on monitoring observation. To fill this gap between theory and practice, I propose to consider SHM as a logical process of making decision based on observation consisting of two steps: judgment, in which the condition state of structures is inferred based on SHM data, and decision, in which the optimal action is identified based on a rational and economic principle. From this perspective, a monitoring system should provide information that can improe he managers knoledge on he srcral condiion sae enough to allow them to make better decision on the structure management. Therefore, in designing a monitoring system, the design target must be the accuracy in the knowledge of structural state achieved analyzing the observations provided by it. However, when an engineer designs a monitoring system, the approach is often heuristic, with performance evaluation based on experience or common sense rather than on quantitative analysis. For this reason, I propose a performance-based monitoring system design, which is a quantitative method for the calculation of the expected performance of a monitoring solution a pre-posteriori and for checking it effectiveness in the design phase. It is based on the calculation of the monitoring capacity and the monitoring demand the counterparts of structural capacity and demand in the semi-probabilistic structural design, and like in structural design, the solution is satisfactory if the capacity is equal or better than the demand. The choice in whether to invest a limited budget on a monitoring system or in a retrofit is another critical choice for infrastructure managers: a retrofit work can increase the capacity and the safety of a structure, while sensors do not change the capacity, nor reduce the loads. Recently, the SHM-community has acknowledged that the benefit of installing a monitoring system can be properly quantified using the concept of Value of Information (VoI). A typical assumption in the VoI estimation is that a single decision-maker is in charge for decisions on both the investment in SHM for a structure, and its management based on SHM data. However, this process is usually more complex in the real world, with more individuals involved in the decision chain. Therefore, I formalize a rational method for quantifying the conditional value of information when two different actors are involved in the decision chain: the manager, who operate the structure based on monitoring data; and the owner, who chooses whether to install the monitoring system or not, before having access to these data. The results are particularly interested, showing that under appropriate conditions, the owner may be willing to pay to prevent the manager to use the monitoring system. Application to case studies are presented for all the research contribution presented in this doctoral thesis.