• Canada
• Research softwareclose
• Other research productsclose
• DE close
• CN close
• IE close

https://viurrspace.ca/bitstream/handle/10613/10040/Jan29-1908.pdf?sequence=2

https://viurrspace.ca/bitstream/handle/10613/9324/Aug15-1927.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

https://viurrspace.ca/bitstream/handle/10613/18851/Jul19-1895.pdf?sequence=2

Many software systems contained cloned code, i.e., segments of code that are highly similar to each other, typically because one has been copied from the other, and then possibly modified. In some contexts, clones are of interest because they are targets for refactoring. This paper summarizes the results of a working session in which the problems of merely managing clones that are already known to exist. Six key issues in the space are briefly reviewed, and open questions raised in the working session are listed.

Households have choices when it comes to reducing waste sent to landfills: reduction of consumption or packaging, reuse of goods purchased, or recycling. In this paper, we adopt a holistic approach to the analysis of these choices as separate but related facets of households' waste management behaviour. Theoretically, households produce waste as a by-product of their consumption and must then deal with it either by curbside disposal or by recycling. To the extent that managing additional waste is costly even if only in terms of time, households may also engage in waste prevention, that is, produce less waste by reducing their consumption level and/or changing their consumption patterns in favour of less waste-intensive products. As curbside disposal, waste prevention and recycling relate to the same problem and are linked via several constraints, we employ a three-equation mixed process estimation strategy which allows for the error terms of the three equations to be correlated. For the study, we rely on an original data set that permits defining waste prevention comprehensively from a list of 19 waste prevention activities, that provides for a more balanced policy representation (in terms of presence versus absence of unit pricing), and that covers a wide range of attitudinal elements, values, and norms. Given the richness of the data set, we also examine individuals' decisions over recyclable items that carry a refundable deposit in terms of both purchasing and returning habits, with particular attention to the interaction between a refundable deposit system and unit pricing.

https://viurrspace.ca/bitstream/handle/10613/18481/Jun19-1912.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

https://viurrspace.ca/bitstream/handle/10613/17623/Jun28-1899.pdf?sequence=2

https://viurrspace.ca/bitstream/handle/10613/19025/Dec26-1874.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

https://viurrspace.ca/bitstream/handle/10613/21933/Feb27-1878.pdf?sequence=2

This article shows that, contrary to the suggestion of some investment advisers, for an individual Canadian investor subject to personal income taxation, the after-tax yield on a discount bond is always higher than (or, at worst, equal to) the yield on a premium bond. This follows because the tax rate on capital gains is lower than the tax rate on coupon income in Canada. It is also shown that a decline in the capital gains tax rate raises the after-tax yield on discount bonds but reduces the after-tax yield on premium bonds, and may even cause the yield on premium bonds to become negative. Further, a cut in the tax rate on interest income raises the after-tax yield on all bonds, but raises the yield on premium bonds relative to discount bonds. While the lower after-tax yields on highercoupon bonds might be expected to cause the pre-tax yields on these bonds to rise, no evidence of such tax capitalization is found using a large data set of matched pairs of government of Canada bonds for the period 1986-2006. The observed near-equality of pre-tax yields since 1995 for bonds with different coupons implies that individuals in Canada earn a significantly smaller after-tax yield from holding premium bonds than discount bonds.