|
|
Burch, J. W., Layne, G. A., Follmann, E. H., & Rexstad, E. A. (2005). Evaluation of Wolf Density Estimation from Radiotelemetry Data. Wildl Soc Bull, 33.
|
|
|
|
Tooze, Z. J., Harrington, F. H., & Fentress, J. C. (1990). Individually distinct vocalizations in timber wolves, Canis lupus. Anim Behav, 40.
|
|
|
|
Harrington, F. H. (1989). Chorus howling by wolves: Acoustic structures, pack size and Beau Geste effect. Bioacoustics, 2.
|
|
|
|
Harrington, F. H. (1987). Aggressive howling in wolves. Anim Behav, 35.
|
|
|
|
Harrington, F. H., & Mech, L. D. (1982). An analysis of howling response parameters useful for wolf pack censusing. J Wildl Manag, 46.
|
|
|
|
Harrington, F. H., & Mech, L. D. (1979). Wolf howling and its role in territory maintenance. Behaviour, 68.
|
|
|
|
Pimlott, D. H. (1960). The use of tape-recorded wolf howls to locate timber wolves. Toronto: Twenty-second Midwest Wildlife Congress.
|
|
|
|
Fritts, S. H., Bangs, E. E., & Gore, J. F. (1994). The relationship of wolf recovery to habitat conservation and biodiversity in the northwestern United States. Landsc Urban Plan, 28.
|
|
|
|
Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D. C., Arx, M., Huber, D., & Andrén, H. (2014). Recovery of large carnivores in Europe's modern human-dominated landscapes. Science, 346.
|
|
|
|
Bücheler, T., & Sieg, J. H. (2011). Understanding Science 2.0: Crowdsourcing and Open Innovation in the Scientific Method. Proceedings of the 2nd European Future Technologies Conference and Exhibition 2011 (FET 11), 7, 327–329.
Abstract: The innovation process is currently undergoing significant change in many industries. The World Wide Web has created a virtual world of collective intelligence and helped large groups of people connect and collaborate in the innovation process [1]. Von Hippel [2], for instance, states that a large number of users of a given technology will come up with innovative ideas. This process, originating in business, is now also being observed in science. Discussions around “Citizen Science” [3] and “Science 2.0” [4] suggest the same effects are relevant for fundamental research practices. “Crowdsourcing” [5] and “Open Innovation” [6] as well as other names for those paradigms, like Peer Production, Wikinomics, Swarm Intelligence etc., have become buzzwords in recent years. However, serious academic research efforts have also been started in many disciplines. In essence, these buzzwords all describe a form of collective intelligence that is enabled by new technologies, particularly internet connectivity. The focus of most current research on this topic is in the for-profit domain, i.e. organizations willing (and able) to pay large sums to source innovation externally, for instance through innovation contests. Our research is testing the applicability of Crowdsourcing and some techniques from Open Innovation to the scientific method and basic science in a non-profit environment (e.g., a traditional research university). If the tools are found to be useful, this may significantly change how some research tasks are conducted: While large, apriori unknown crowds of “irrational agents” (i.e. humans) are used to support scientists (and teams thereof) in several research tasks through the internet, the usefulness and robustness of these interactions as well as scientifically important factors like quality and validity of research results are tested in a systematic manner. The research is highly interdisciplinary and is done in collaboration with scientists from sociology, psychology, management science, economics, computer science, and artificial intelligence. After a pre-study, extensive data collection has been conducted and the data is currently being analyzed. The paper presents ideas and hypotheses and opens the discussion for further input.
|
|
