Sample size

underlined using multivariate techniques and cluster analyses applied to abiotic data. In particular, an integrative system size covariate was derived from a principal component analysis. Factors explaining patterns of species richness at different scales from local habitat to regional features were highlighted. Based on generalised linear models, the estuarine system size, and more particularly the entrance width, and also the continental shelf width were identified as the best explanatory variables

with it. Most significantly, the correlations hide wide individual variation in both cognitive structure and structuredness (i.e., sophistication). Division of the sample into relevant groups helps but does not overcome the problem. Putting this aside, other problems remain. First, with decent filters, something approaching half of the sample can drop out, simply because large numbers of people can’t answer the survey questions. Second, even when researchers correct for measurement error in their statistical

manage, but that the most appropriate method depends on the contingency factors. These contingency factors have been identified as environmental complexity (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967), organization strategy (Child, 1972), technology (Thompson, 1967) and size (Hickson, Pugh and Pheysey, 1969). Additional research suggests that extrinsic rewards (i.e., rewards that are controlled by the organization in order to reward employees when they achieve organizational goals) are considered a part of organizational

others firm’s financial characteristics on the decision and the level of the use of derivatives over a sample of 320 French non financial firms. Results show that ownership structure, stockoptions, leverage, financial constraints and size of firm determine the decision to use derivatives. However, some of the results are counter to theoretical predictions that independent directors and the size of the board determine the decision of hedging. Keywords : Corporate hedging, Risk management, Corporate

“terroir” – wine quality we studied 18 different “terroirs” of the major vineyards in South Western France (Cahors, Gaillac, Madiran…). For each of them we realised a soil description and an example of the different soil horizon was sampled. Each sample was tested (3 replications) with the Mehlich-3 extraction (Mehlich, 1984 ; Sims, 2000) or Bray (Bray and Kurtz, 1945) and Olsen (Olsen et al., 1954) extraction for phosphorus determination and Barium chloride extraction for exchangeable bases determination

sont-ils attractifs ? Revue africaine de l’Intégration Vol. 3, No. 1, janvier 2009 Tableau 3: Résultats de l’estimation de panel avec effets spécifiques fixes Dependent Variable: IDE? Method: Pooled Least Squares Date: 03/20/08 Time: 14:31 Sample(adjusted): 1996 2004 Included observations: 9 after adjusting endpoints Total panel (unbalanced) observations 40 Variable PIB? TINF? INV? TCER? TPIB? BCPIB? BCEXP? CONSP? SOLBU? DETTE? SERDET? TCOU? DEOU? ALPH? LIBER? STAB? FONC? QUAL? ETAT? CORR

et lab dips sont validés ou non par le Style. Si non, des modifications sont demandées avec l'envoi d'un nouveau fit. Si oui le modèle est dit « OK Créa ». 11 Une fois un modèle dit « OK Créa », la production demande au façonnier l'envoi d'un Size Set : C'est à dire trois prototypes, un de la plus petite taille 34, un de la plus grande taille 44, et un de taille moyenne 38, dans le but de vérifier la conformité des mesures. Le modèle passe alors de nouveau en comité produit. Si les mesures ont

l’ensemble des variations. Étude R & R pour le nombre de coins abîmés Gage name : Observation Date of study : 03/01/04 Reported by : A. M. Tolerance : Msc : Components of Variation 4 0 2 Gage R&R Repeat 3 2,5 0,0 Reprod Sample Range R Chart by Évaluateur 3,0 A B Sample Mean 2,5 0,0 5,0 R=1 2,5 0,0 A A B 2 N° emballage 3 Nb endroits abîmés by Évaluateur UCL = 2,574 LCL = 0 0,0 Xbar Chart by Évaluateur © Éditions d’Organisation 7 C 1,5 5,0 1 Part-to-part 5 B Évaluateur C

réussite de l'internationalisation des INV. Le désavantage lié à la jeunesse (liability of newness) implique les difficultés de l'accès aux ressources, le manque de l'expérience et le faible capital social. Le désavantage lié à la taille (liability of size) qui renforce le premier désavantage relativement au manque des ressources. Le désavantage lié au fait d'exister à l'étranger (liability of foreigness) qui signifie que sur un marché les INV sont défavorisées par rapport aux entreprises autochtones

Elmes et al, 1957 Petersen et al, 1967 Pines et al, 1972 Nicotra et al, 1982 Anthonisen et al, 1987 Jorgensen et al, 1992 Moyenne totale – 1,0 – 0,5 0 0,5 1,0 1,5 Effet size et intervalle de confiance 7 Effet size : essais randomisés antibiotique versus placebo au cours de l’exacerbation de bronchite chronique. L’effet size est la différence entre le bénéfice moyen de l’antibiotique et du placebo. D’après la méta-analyse, le bénéfice moyen global est de 22 %. antibiothérapie d’indication élargie