雄安新区科技企业创新能力评价研究

科技企业是实现科技创新的驱动者和科技成果转化的重要载体,也是推动研究开发的重要参与者,科学评价科技企业创新能力有助于企业自身不断发展壮大。在分析国内外新区科技企业创新驱动发展相关理论研究的基础上,从研发投入、研发基础、研发效益和现代科技四个角度,运用层次分析法构建科技企业创新能力评价系统,并通过实证分析说明评价系统的可靠性;根据评价系统测算出现阶段雄安新区科技企业创新能力,通过与成熟新区科技企业的比较,发现其短板和不足,力图为决策者科学合理评价、管理科技企业创新发展提供有益参考。     

英文影片的中国方言版字幕翻译

2012年3D 版《泰坦尼克号》的华丽上映曾掀起影迷们对它的新一轮热捧。文章就同样备受中国观众喜爱的中国方言版《泰坦尼克号》为案例，结合功能目的论来探寻中国方言版字幕翻译的目的与性质，进而分析、总结英文影片字幕的中国方言版译制活动过程。     

死者人格利益法律保护之构建

死者无人格权,但死者具有人格利益。为了维护社会利益和善良风俗,我国法学界和司法实务界对死者人格利益保护也达成了共识。完善死者人格利益应在保护范围、行使主体、法律责任、免责事由及保护期限等方面给予立法规制。     

章公祖师佛像跨国追索诉讼国际私法问题研究

从章公祖师佛像跨国追索诉讼主体资格问题切入,分析佛像的法律性质,探讨涉案物权准据法的确定及适用问题。该案原告应由阳春村全体村民担任。涉案佛像属于文物,建议村民在荷兰法院提起原物返还之诉。受案法院应当适用物权冲突法确定准据法,即可能适用中国内地、中国香港或荷兰法律。被告在购买时应当对涉案佛像来源产生合理怀疑,因此不构成“善意”;原告应尽可能搜集证据证明《荷兰民法典》规定的20年消灭时效因起诉而中断。依据《香港货品售卖条例》和中国内地物权法理论与实践,被告均不能取得系争佛像的所有权。     

当代资本主义经济停滞问题:制度结构与治理危机——基于积累的社会结构理论的分析

关于经济停滞问题的探讨是对马克思主义经济危机理论的传承。2008年金融危机爆发十余年,资本主义经济停滞趋于常态化。积累的社会结构理论从资本积累与支撑这一积累的制度环境之间的矛盾出发,发现了主流经济学探讨资本主义经济停滞所忽略的制度性因素。积累的社会结构学派沿着"中间层次"的路径,将2008年金融危机界定为系统性的结构危机,认为新自由主义SSA的失灵是此次经济停滞持续的原因。资本主义经济停滞引发欧美发达资本主义国家的社会治理危机升级,一系列政治、社会和文化危机不断加剧。积累的社会结构理论从微观层面深刻把握了资本主义制度转型的轨迹,但并未深入探讨开展根本的制度变革。在面临百年未有之大变局的时代境遇下,中国在参与全球治理的过程中不断探索并推动世界经济政治新秩序朝着更加公正、合理的方向发展。     

“动物与人”：叙事伦理、悖反性与双重困境指向——论“抉择之痛”作为功能指涉的效力边际

对初始情境中受难者“陷困”功能的探讨，是“动物叙事”叙事语法研究中不容忽视的一环，其中贯穿了一个最为基础的叙事功能指向——“抉择之痛”。强调“动物与人”两类受难者角色在身体、心理抑或情感维度陷入某种矛盾与纠结的状态，并且彼此间时常呈现出一定的矛盾悖反性。这一角色身份由动物形象与人类形象分别或共同承担，均指向一种叙事伦理层面的现代境遇的表达。在题材范畴方面，这一功能指涉涵盖了家养类与野生类“动物叙事”各自的叙事范畴。其效力边际已不仅仅局限在单纯生态视域与人性指涉的层面，而是凸显现代语境下人类所面临的共通性的伦理困境：一种挥之不去的矛盾、困惑与不安的情感和心境的写照。     

从《了凡四训》到《训儿俗说》——关于袁了凡及其家风家训的思想史考察

袁了凡（袁黄）以其《了凡四训》闻名于世，该书亦被当作训子家书。其实，了凡所作家训并非《了凡四训》，而是《训儿俗说》。作为王龙溪（王畿）的及门弟子，了凡在思想上是阳明后学的一分子，其人生轨迹属于典型的儒家士大夫，其日常修持及著述呈现三教汇通的思想特色。了凡家风淳朴，家学深厚，以儒为宗，兼收并蓄，强调道德主义，注重积德行善，具有出世情怀，对其人格产生深刻影响。     

Risk Modeling of Interdependent Complex Systems of Systems: Theory and Practice

The emergence of the complexity characterizing our systems of systems (SoS) requires a reevaluation of the way we model, assess, manage, communicate, and analyze the risk thereto. Current models for risk analysis of emergent complex SoS are insufficient because too often they rely on the same risk functions and models used for single systems. These models commonly fail to incorporate the complexity derived from the networks of interdependencies and interconnectedness (I–I) characterizing SoS. There is a need to reevaluate currently practiced risk analysis to respond to this reality by examining, and thus comprehending, what makes emergent SoS complex. The key to evaluating the risk to SoS lies in understanding the genesis of characterizing I–I of systems manifested through shared states and other essential entities within and among the systems that constitute SoS. The term “essential entities” includes shared decisions, resources, functions, policies, decisionmakers, stakeholders, organizational setups, and others. This undertaking can be accomplished by building on state‐space theory, which is fundamental to systems engineering and process control. This article presents a theoretical and analytical framework for modeling the risk to SoS with two case studies performed with the MITRE Corporation and demonstrates the pivotal contributions made by shared states and other essential entities to modeling and analysis of the risk to complex SoS. A third case study highlights the multifarious representations of SoS, which require harmonizing the risk analysis process currently applied to single systems when applied to complex SoS.     

China’s Choice of Analytical Models for Its Anti-Monopoly Law

Modern analytical models for anti-monopoly laws are a core element of the application of those laws. Since the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China was promulgated in 2008, law enforcement and judicial authorities have applied different analytical models, leading to divergent legal and regulatory outcomes as similar cases receive different verdicts. To select a suitable analytical model for China’s Anti-Monopoly Law, we need to consider the possible contribution of both economic analysis and legal formalism and to learn from the mature systems and experience of foreign countries. It is also necessary to take into account such binding constraints as the current composition of China’s anti-monopoly legal system, the ability of implementing agencies and the supply of economic analysis, in order to ensure complementarity between the analytical model chosen and the complexity of economic analysis and between the professionalism of implementing agencies and the cost of compliance for participants in economic activities. In terms of institutional design, the models should provide a considered explanation of the legislative aims of the law’s provisions. It is necessary, therefore, to establish a processing model of behavioral classification that is based on China’s national conditions, applies analytical models using normative comprehensive analysis, makes use of the distribution rule of burden of proof, improves supporting systems related to analytical models and enhances the ability of public authorities to implement the law.     

The evolution of intellectual property strategy in innovation ecosystems: Uncovering complementary and substitute appropriability regimes

In this article, we attempt to extend and nuance the debate on intellectual property (IP) strategy, appropriation, and open innovation in dynamic and systemic innovation contexts. We present the case of four generations of mobile telecommunications systems (covering the period 1980–2015), and describe and analyze the co-evolution of strategic IP management and innovation ecosystems. Throughout this development, technologies and technological relationships were governed with different and shifting degrees of formality. Simultaneously, firms differentiated technology accessibility across actors and technologies to benefit from openness and appropriation of innovation. Our analysis shows that the discussion of competitiveness and appropriability needs to be expanded from the focal appropriability regime and complementary assets to the larger context of the innovation ecosystem and its cooperative and competitive actor relations, with dispersed complementary and substitute assets and technologies. Consequently, the shaping of complementary and substitute appropriability regimes is central when strategizing in dynamic and systemic innovation contexts. This holds important implications for the management of open innovation, innovation ecosystems, platforms, and coopetition.