Schema models

Chapter 12 describes three types of models production systems, neural networks, and hybrid models. The general structure of each is described as well as the most well known examples. 

Chapters 13, 14, and 15 describe particular models developed from the schema theory and problem-solving studies discussed in previous chapters. Chapter 13 contains details about a full computer simulation of the first experiment of Chapter 7. Chapter 14 describes a back propagation connectionist model for the same conditions. And, finally, chapter 15 contains the full hybrid model of schema implementation. 

---

Relatively few attempts have been made to model schema acquisition and use. To be sure, the interpretation of a number of models depends upon the concept of a schema, but the structure of the schema itself is not part of the model. Consequently, to look at existing models of schemas we must broaden our view so that it encompasses not only explicit schema models but also models that are similar to those presented in the next few chapters but that are not focused on schemas. These latter models are models of learning, performance, and recognition. They tend to be either production system models or connectionist models. 

The model presented in Figure 12.2 integrates the dynamic schema model developed by Price (2002) with the traditional Beckian model of stress (Beck 1987 Beck et al. 1985) outlined in Chapter 1 and Young s schema-focused model (Young et al. 2003) presented earlier in this chapter. The model places particular emphasis on the re-enactment of early maladaptive schemata (EMS) and behavioural coping strategies in the context of the workplace in the causation and maintenance of occupational stress. 

The characteristic of a relational database model is the organization of data in different tables that have relationships with each other. A table is a two-dimensional consti uction of rows and columns. All the entries in one column have an equivalent meaning (c.g., name, molecular weight, etc. and represent a particular attribute of the objects (records) of the table (file) (Figure 5-9). The sequence of rows and columns in the tabic is irrelevant. Different tables (e.g., different objects with different attributes) in the same database can be related through at least one common attribute. Thus, it is possible to relate objects within tables indirectly by using a key. The range of values of an attribute is called the domain, which is defined by constraints. Schemas define and store the metadata of the database and the tables. 

The monomer-monomer (MM) model, for the reaction A -H B —> AB, assumes the following Langmuir-Hinshelwood reaction schema ... 

Schema, n. model, pattern blank, form schedule scheme diagram, -bild, n. diagram fiow sheet.

Figure 22.1 A. Schema for a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model incorporating absorption in the stomach and intestines and distribntion to various tissues. B. Each organ or tissue type includes representation of perfusion (Q) and drug concentrations entering and leaving the tissue. Fluxes are computed by the product of an appropriate rate law, and permeable surface area accounts for the affinity (e.g., lipophilic drugs absorbing more readily into adipose tissue). Clearance is computed for each tissue based on physiology and is often assumed to be zero for tissues other than the gut, the liver, and the kidneys.

Figure 5. A schematic representation of superposed steady-state reservoirs of constant volumes Vi (fractional crystallization is omitted in this schema). At steady-state, Vi/xi=V2/x2=..., where x is the residence time. This is analogous to the law of radioactive equilibrium between nuclides 1 and 2 Ni/Ti=N2/T2=...A further interest of this simple model is to show that residence times by definition depend on the volume of the reservoirs.

Remember that you are modeling the business, and not writing a database schema or program or modeling purely physical relationships. The associations are attributes drawn in pictures and not lines of communication or physical connections. (The latter would normally be drawn as an action.)... 

If the first volume of Capital is difficult to absorb, the reader of the second volume, where the reproduction schemes are located, faces an even greater challenge. Due to the unfinished form of the material, which Engels assembled from Marx s notes, it is generally agreed that it lacks coherence. Engels viewed the part of the material on the reproduction schema as excellent in content, but fearfully heavy in form, patched together from two treatments of the problems by two different models (quoted in Zarembka 2000 197). 

The first main purpose of this book is to formalize the role of aggregate demand as a constraint on expanded reproduction. I will develop an analytical model which explores the conditions under which profits can be realized in the reproduction schema. This approach is in keeping with the spirit of Dillard s (1984 425) statement that Marx s economics would be strengthened by a more formal treatment of the theory of effective demand. ... 

Furthermore, a major shortcoming of the supply-side Marxists is their failure to consider the importance of money. In Brody (1974 9), for example Theories of money... are not discussed, although a parallel mathematical approach to them is much needed and indeed within reach (see also Roemer 1978). The problem is that money is essentially neutral in general equilibrium models, a characteristic more appropriate to a barter economy than to capitalism. And in the Grossmann falling rate of profit thesis, money is stripped from the reproduction schema despite its central importance to Capital, volume 2. 

The second main purpose of this book is to develop an alternative interpretation of the reproduction schema in which money plays a key role. Some degree of formalization is required here with respect to circulation of money, which takes on various often contradictory guises in Marx s work. As Foley (1973 viii) commented, Marx s writings on money remain in a pre-model stage. My objective is to develop a coherent model of how the circulation of money intertwines with the reproduction of commodities. 

My analytical contribution is to show how the Harrod-Domar model -more specifically, its Domar variant - can be derived from the multisectoral reproduction schema, with the multiplier and the monetary circuit as the key building blocks. These building blocks are defined using Leontief s input-output analysis, a model which has its origins in the Marxian economic tradition. 

The book is thus a series of steps, from the multiplier and its role in the reproduction schema in Chapter 2 to the Kalecki principle in Chapter 3 and a detailed consideration of the circuit of money in Chapter 4. Having built up a macro monetary model of the reproduction schema, in which both money and aggregate demand are featured, Chapter 5 derives the Domar growth model from these analytical foundations. The relevance of this growth model to Marxian theories of crisis is explored and further developed in Chapter 6. 

A subtext of this analysis is an attempt to address some of the limitations of the reproduction schema. Two main limitations of the schema, as modelled in Chapters 2-6, are the absence of free competition, based on the mobility of capital, and the lack of any room for technical progress. Chapter 7 examines the Grossmann model of how technical progress drives the tendency of the falling rate of profit. And in Chapter 8, free competition is considered by turning to Marx s famous transformation problem a problem that has dominated discussions in Marxian economics. 

Now economists are very fond of diagrams, and one of the few diagrams Marx ever used was to summarize Quesnay s Tableau Economique (Marx 1969a). Quesnay was the doyen of the physiocrats, who thought that land was the source of all value hence the tableau shows the circulation of commodities between farmers and landlords. As shown by Pressman (1994), Marx shaped this model into his reproduction schema a model of how commodities circulate between capitalists and workers. For Marx (1969a 344), the tableau was an extremely brilliant conception, incontestably the most brilliant for which political economy had up to then been responsible . 

---