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.
|
Hölker, S. (2016). Typologie der deutschen Pferdehaltung – Eine empirische Studie mittels Two-Step-Clusteranalyse. Z. Agrarpolit. Landwirtsch., 94(3).
Abstract: In der deutschen Pferdebranche besteht u. a. hinsichtlich der Ausrichtung, Lage, Größe und ökonomischen Zielsetzung von Pferdehaltern eine große Heterogenität, gleichzeitig sind die Strukturen in diesem Sektor bislang kaum wissenschaftlich erfasst. Aus diesem Grund wird im vorliegenden Beitrag die Vielzahl unterschiedlicher Erscheinungsformen in der Pferdehaltung mittels einer empirisch gestützten Typologie systematisch beschrieben. Mittels einer standardisierten Onlinebefragung wurden 1.110 private, landwirtschaftliche und gewerbliche Pferdehalter sowie pferdehaltende Vereine befragt. Abgefragt wurden neben der Organisationsform, Bestandsgröße und der Ausrichtung auch Aspekte wie u. a. die Ausstattung der Anlage, die angewandten Haltungssysteme für die Pferde sowie Angaben zur zukünftige Entwicklung und den wahrgenommenen aktuellen sowie zukünftigen Herausforderungen in der Pferdehaltung. Mittels einer Clusteranalyse konnten sechs Typen herausgearbeitet werden: ländliche Hobbypferdehaltung, stadtorientierte Hobbypferdehaltung, Hobby-Zuchtpferdehaltung, Zuchtpferdehaltung, Pensionspferdehaltung und diversifizierte Pferdehaltung. Dabei sind die drei erstgenannten Typen der Liebhaberei zuzuordnen und die drei letztgenannten Typen werden mit Gewinnerzielungsabsicht betrieben. Die ermittelten Typen unterscheiden sich teilweise signifikant u. a. hinsichtlich ihrer Größe, den angewandten Haltungssystemen, der Anzahl an Betriebszweigen oder auch ihren zukünftig geplanten Entwicklungen. Die vorliegende Studie zeigt somit, dass beispielsweise bei der Entwicklung politischer Maßnahmen im Bereich der Pferdehaltung die Auswirkungen für einzelne Pferdehalter sehr unterschiedlich ausfallen können und es daher notwendig ist, die unterschiedlichen, real existierenden Betriebstypen zu berücksichtigen.
|
|
Hoelker, S. (2016). Typologie der deutschen Pferdehaltung – Eine empirische Studie mittels Two-Step-Clusteranalyse. Berichte über Landwirtschaft Zeitschrift für Agrarpolitik und Landwirtschaft, 94(3).
|
|
Zentall, T. R., Sutton, J. E., & Sherburne, L. M. (1996). True imitative learning in pigeons. Psychol Sci, 7.
|
|
Ripple, W. J., & Beschta, R. L. (2012). Trophic cascades in Yellowstone: The first 15 years after wolf reintroduction. Biol Conserv, 145.
|
Hendriksen, P., Elmgreen, K., & Ladewig, J. (2011). Trailer-loading of horses: Is there a difference between positive and negative reinforcement concerning effectiveness and stress-related signs? J. Vet. Behav., 6(5), 261–266.
Abstract: The traditional way to train horses is by the application of negative reinforcement (NR). In the past few years, however, the use of positive reinforcement (PR) has become more common. To evaluate the effectiveness and the possible stressor effect of the 2 training methods, 12 horses showing severe trailer-loading problems were selected and exposed to trailer-loading. They were randomly assigned to one of the 2 methods. NR consisted of various degrees of pressure (lead rope pulling, whip tapping). Pressure was removed as soon as the horse complied. PR horses were exposed to clicker training and taught to follow a target into the trailer. Heart rate (HR) was recorded every 5 seconds and behavior denoting discomfort was observed using one-zero sampling with 10 seconds sampling intervals. Training was completed when the horse could enter the trailer upon a signal, or was terminated after a maximum of 15 sessions. Of the 12 horses, 10 reached the criterion within the 15 sessions. One horse was eliminated from the study because of illness and 1 PR horse failed to enter the trailer. A Mann-Whitney U-test indicated that the horses trained with NR displayed significantly more discomfort behavior per training session than horses trained with PR (NR: 13.26 ± 3.25; PR: 3.17 ± 8.93, P < 0.0001) and that horses in the PR group spent less time (second) per session to complete the training criterion (NR: 672.9 ± 247.12; PR: 539.81 ± 166.37, P < 0.01). A Mann-Whitney U-test showed that no difference existed in mean HR (bpm) between the 2 groups (NR: 53.06 ± 11.73 bpm; PR: 55.54 ± 6.7 bpm, P > 0.05), but a Wilcoxon test showed a difference in the PR group between the baseline of HR and mean HR obtained during training sessions (baseline PR: 43 ± 8.83 bpm; PR: 55.54 ± 6.7 bpm, P < 0.05). In conclusion, the PR group provided the fastest training solution and expressed less stress response. Thus, the PR procedure could provide a preferable training solution when training horses in potentially stressing situations.
|
|
Walpole, M. J., & Leader-Williams, N. (2002). Tourism and flagship species in conservation. Biodivers Conserv, 11.
|
Krueger, K., Trager, L., Farmer, K., & Byrne, R. (2022). Tool Use in Horses. Animals, 12(15), 1876.
Abstract: Tool use has not yet been confirmed in horses, mules or donkeys. As this subject is difficult to research with conventional methods, we used a crowdsourcing approach to gather data. We contacted equid owners and carers and asked them to report and video examples of �unusual� behaviour via a dedicated website. We also searched YouTube and Facebook for videos of equids showing tool use. From 635 reports, including 1014 behaviours, we found 20 cases of tool use, 13 of which were unambiguous in that it was clear that the behaviour was not trained, caused by reduced welfare, incidental or accidental. We then assessed (a) the effect of management conditions on tool use and (b) whether the animals used tools alone, or socially, involving other equids or humans. We found that management restrictions were associated with corresponding tool use in 12 of the 13 cases (p = 0.01), e.g., equids using sticks to scrape hay within reach when feed was restricted. Furthermore, 8 of the 13 cases involved other equids or humans, such as horses using brushes to groom others. The most frequent tool use was for foraging, with seven examples, tool use for social purposes was seen in four cases, and there was just one case of tool use for escape. There was just one case of tool use for comfort, and in this instance, there were no management restrictions. Equids therefore can develop tool use, especially when management conditions are restricted, but it is a rare occurrence.
|
|
Mann Janet, & Patterson Eric M. (2013). Tool use by aquatic animals. Phil. Trans. Biol. Sci., 368(1630), 20120424.
|
|
Kräußlich, H., & Brem, G. (1997). Tierzucht und allgemeine Landwirtschaftslehre für Tiermediziner. Stuttgart: Enke.
|
