Essay Of A Journal

Weekly Journal Reflections Each chapter of the textbook will have a related journal entry prompt to which you will need to respond. You can find these assignments in each weekly module labeled “Chapter X Journal” under the “Assignments and Activities” section. Journals are an opportunity for you to reflect on what you read and learned in the chapter and apply it to your own life. In each journal response, you should answer ALL the questions presented in the prompt thoroughly and thoughtfully. Journals should incorporate what we call the “4 E’s” in college success:

1. Experience:

Your response is written from your own experience and perspective

2. Evidence: Your response includes evidence or support from the chapter or the course 3. Example: Your response uses examples from your own life 4. Explanation: Your thoughts or opinions are clearly and thoughtfully explained Your journal responses should include at least ONE of the FOUR E’s, but I encourage you to use as many as you can. Journals will be assessed on thoughtfulness, thoroughness and writing conventions using the journal rubric on a 0-10 point scale. There is no minimum word or page count for these assignments, but you are expected to answer each prompt in depth.

Martha Stewart

Case Study #11—Martha Stewart

Martha Stewart

click here to place your order

Read the Martha Stewart case study located in the section titled Case Studies in your textbook concerning the following situation:

This case focuses on the corporate governance aspect of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (MSO), a media empire founded by Martha Stewart. Stewart is a former model and devoted her career to domestic perfection and luxury. She is the brand icon of MSO; however, with new technology and the shift of consumer tastes and preferences, MSO’s business model is receiving serious threats from other competitors.

Martha Stewart

After a review of the history of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, the case discusses its competition, the legal problem that Martha Stewart encountered, changing leadership within MSO, Martha Stewart’s questionable compensation, and the future of MSO. The case concludes with a discussion of MSO’s future at a crossroads.

The case underscores the importance of corporate governance when conditions in the environment change. An analysis of the separation of ownership and managerial control, board of directors, and executive compensation will aid in evaluating the future of MSO. Some analysts suggest that MSO will lose its competitiveness once Martha Stewart leaves the company; others suggest that the MSO brand has lost its brand image by going into product lines such as cleaning fluids and dog poop bags. Also, a few analysts suggest that MSO is a potential takeover target.

Martha Stewart

click here to place your order

This case is ideal for demonstrating the importance of corporate governance. The following points are to guide a review and discussion of some important concepts.

  • Discuss MSO’s corporate governance. Has the company been able to separate the ownership and managerial control?
  • Evaluate the effectiveness of MSO’s board of directors. Have the directors been able to monitor and control the company?
  • Executive compensation is a method of governance mechanisms. Discuss Martha Stewart’s compensation and evaluate its effectiveness.
  • Is MSO in financial trouble? Discuss the possibility of the market for corporate control. Will MSO become a takeover target?
  • Describe MSOs next move in terms of growth and expansion.  Provide an analysis, of what additional recommendations would be required to be done to help MSO achieve its goals?
  • Evaluate MSO’s international strategy and its use of alliances to achieve company objectives, what would be their best strategy?

Submission Details:

  • Present your analysis as a 3–4-page report in a Microsoft Word document formatted in APA style.
  • Support your responses with examples.  Cite any sources in APA format.
  • Name your document MGT4070_W4_LastName_FirstInitial.doc
  • Submit your document to the Submissions Area by the due date assigned.

Scientific Models Discussion

Scientific Models Discussion

Find a peer-reviewed academic article that interests you and uses some kind of model. (It could be a scientific model or some other kind.) Attach the article or provide a citation (Title, Author, Journal, etc.).

Article critiques: Create a new thread and post a critique of an article. Your critique should be at least 300 words and should address the following questions:

  1. Why is the model interesting to you?
  2. Is it a scientific model or not? And how can you tell? Why or why not?
    (Use the Week 3 Lecture to help you decide – it should fit ALL of the criteria to be included in our course definition. Also see the Scientific Model Criteria document located in this week’s content.)
  3. What is the research question they are asking with this model? What other research questions could they ask with that model?
  4. Include a link or full citation for your source material.

Reply posts: Next, write substantive, thoughtful replies to at least two of your peers’ posts. Be sure to read their source articles.  Reply posts should address the following prompts:

  • Do you agree with the assessment in the original post (particularly whether the article constitutes a scientific model according to the criteria)? If you do agree, indicate what convinced you. If you don’t agree, explain why.
  • What other research questions might be addressed by the model?
  • What other types of models might address the research aims?
  • You may also share any prior knowledge or personal experience you have with the topic to enrich the discussion.
  •  First post to reply:

Scientific Models Discussion

Superconductors have been a interest of mine for the past year or so when I was introduced to them in the research lab I work in. When I get the occasionally day to read up on things that are outside the research project I often find myself in the realm of super conductors so I am by no means an expert. Of These the YBa2Cu3O7 super conductors are the most interesting to me due to a property in the crystalline structure between the copper and oxygen atoms characterized often in literature “Copper-Oxygen Planes”. These planes are credited with the superconductor’s ability to super conduct electricity above boiling temperature liquid nitrogen. So, the prospect of a model that would allow us to study these copper oxygen planes without the need to have a super conductor material at the critical temperature

Click here to place  your order 

This model operates on the lack of enough quantum computing power to adequately model these copper oxygen planes so instead they use an aspect of quantum computing using a quantum dot array via a dedicated quantum simulator. As an analogy they used was his model was like an analog vs a digital computing device. Where the model is not actually quantum computing but is producing a result of how electrons behave in a quantum environment. Based on the results of this model (as best as I can understand) we can extrapolate how the electrons move from orbital to orbital.

Scientific Models Discussion

This model is trying to ask can we measure the effect of copper-oxygen planes synthetically with an ‘analog device’. With this answered we can start to see the type of patterns we observe under certain energy conditions. That opens the door to a plethora of questions we can ask on how the physics of those planes work. Then based on those results you can apply them to actual YBa2Cu3O7 super conductors to verify the result.

Manousakis, E. (2002). A Quantum-Dot Array as Model for Copper-Oxide Superconductors: A Dedicated Quantum Simulator for the Many-Fermion Problem. Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 126(5), 1501-1513.

Second Post to reply for:

Scientific Models Discussion

Click here to place  your order 

My article uses the Arabidopsis genome to study genome duplication and polyploidization. Arabidopsis is a plant in the mustard family that is a popular model organism for studying genetics. It is popular because it is small, has a short life cycle, has a small and completely sequenced genome, and has powerful reverse and forward genetics. This model is interesting to me because I’m interested in genetics.

This is a scientific model. Studying Arabidopsis can provide simple examples of evolutionary processes. The study of Arabidopsis is used to generate understanding about underlying genetic processes. The data produced by studying Arabidopsis can be compared to data produced by studying other, more complex genetic systems. Finally, data is collected on the evolutionary processes of Arabidopsis using the scientific method.

Click here to place  your order 

In this model they are studying the  utility of microarrays for genome-wide analysis of changes in gene expression, genome organization and chromatin structure in Arabidopsis polyploids and related species. In the future, The Arabidopsis model system could illuminate our understanding of mechanisms and evolutionary consequences of polyploidization that will be applicable to other polyploid taxa and natural populations, as well as provide insights into manipulating the expression of duplicate genes in polyploid agricultural crops.

Here a link to the article:

Verification And Validation Discussion Post

Verification And Validation Discussion Post

Find a modeling article that you can critique for verification and validation. This could be a new article, or one from a list of provided articles in other online discussions. Find the lists of suggested articles by going to Content > Articles for post-session discussion. Article critiques: Create a new thread and post your response. Your critique should be at least 300 words and should address the following questions:

  1. Describe (or remind us) what the model was, and what research question it was used to investigate.
  2. How did the researchers go about verifying the model?
  3. How did the researchers go about validating the model?
  4. What else could be done (by these researchers or other researchers) to make sure the model is credible?
  5. Include a link or full citation for your source material.

Reply posts: Next, write substantive, thoughtful replies to at least two of your peers’ posts. Reply posts should address the following prompts:

  • Do you agree with the assessment in the original post? If you do agree, indicate what convinced you. If you don’t agree, explain why.
  • What other methods of verification and/or validation could the researchers have used?
  • In your opinion, what are the biggest challenges for verification and validation of scientific models?

Post one to reply:


This was probably my favorite Model and study from the course. The study was all about the use of computer simulating and finding a method of planting maize efficiently. They investigated many questions, such as “What will the influence of field seedling emergence rate on the yield be like?”, “Which planting methods is the best?”, “Planting density will influence the yield, then how much will the influence be?”, and “Different planting density can lead to the yield compensation because of the sparse breaks up, then how much will the compensation be?”

Verification And Validation Discussion Post

To Verify their model essentially they only needed to make sure their software was working, and was working as intended.  They output several visualizations to verify that their simulation is working as intended.

To Validate, the researchers used mathematical depictions based on previous field experiments and studies of maize planting. By basing their model on real world data they can to a certain degree replicate the natural world.

This is only a model of course, and to completely validate their model for the natural world would involve many more factors to be considered. The researchers mention such aspects as seed quality and variety, soil factors such as acidity, fertilizers, basic things like sunshine and weather or moisture where much of their mathematics they utilized will have be changed to more accurately the germination and growing of maize.

The study can be found here.

Second Post to reply: Click here to Place your order


  • Describe (or remind us) what the model was, and what research question it was used to investigate.

The model is intended to research Sea surface temperature patterns that occur with global warming. The interest in investigating these patterns is due to information about how the temperature in the Arctic Ocean have increased without negative feedback loops from ice melt. It has generally been understood that the water warms when ice melts from global warming, and there is less mass to reflect solar radiation. Since the information indicates that warming is occurring without the accepted theory, researchers were interested in learning why this is the case.

Click here to Place your order

  • How did the researchers go about verifying the model?

In this model the researchers aggregated 17 prior models with verified information about longwave radiation. Another study had pointed to the data being similar in warming patterns so that seemed to indicate there may be information that could be inferred from studying the data. They also worked with two twenty year data sets of historical climate and projected climate information in what they referred to as a multimodel ensemble analysis approach in order to reduce internal noise.


  • How did the researchers go about validating the model?

So for one, they applied some fancy math that I don’t understand, and that helped them to find patterns in the data. Then they compared the data from their model to the models from their aggregated lists average data.

  • What else could be done (by these researchers or other researchers) to make sure the model is credible?

A main factor in the results of this model being credible have to do with the information from the previous studies being accurate, and the metrics for measuring short and longwave radiation being available. Only 13 of the 17 models had this data available in the way that the researchers needed, so I think if there were a way to aggregate more data related to the short and longwave radiation that was used to calculate the results, and if after that the results we’re able to be repeated, then the model would be more credible.

Click here to Place your order