Registered Replication Report: Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998)

Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence ("professor") subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than participants primed with a category associated with a lack of intelligence ("soccer hooligans"). In two unpublished replications of this study designed to verify the appropriate testing procedures, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, and Holland observed a smaller difference between conditions (2%-3%) as well as a gender difference: Men showed the effect (9.3% and 7.6%), but women did not (0.3% and -0.3%). The procedure used in those replications served as the basis for this multilab Registered Replication Report. A total of 40 laboratories collected data for this project, and 23 of these laboratories met all inclusion criteria. Here we report the meta-analytic results for those 23 direct replications (total N = 4,493), which tested whether performance on a 30-item general-knowledge trivia task differed between these two priming conditions (results of supplementary analyses of the data from all 40 labs, N = 6,454, are also reported). We observed no overall difference in trivia performance between participants primed with the "professor" category and those primed with the "hooligan" category (0.14%) and no moderation by gender

Open Science and Radical Solutions for Diversity, Equity and Quality in Research:A Literature Review of Different Research Schools, Philosophies and Frameworks and Their Potential Impact on Science and Education

Open Science is a phenomenon that can be traced back to the Middle Ages. In the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, Open Science is strongly growing due to the worldwide internet and related new technologies, tools and communication channels. Two core objectives (reliability and trust) and three main characteristics (transparency, openness and reproducibility) of Open Science can be identified but it is still too early for a broad definition of this growing movement. Its growth is happening in many disciplines and in diverse facets. This article presents an overview how Open Science is introduced and established in all three science dimensions of research design, processes and publications. For the future, the benefits are analysed that Open Science is offering as well as the challenges that it is facing. It can be concluded that it is desirable that all researchers collaborate in Open Science. Open Science can improve the different science disciplines, research practices and science in general. In that way, Open Science can contribute to overcome the post-truth age through increasing objective and subjective credibility of science and research. And in the long-term perspective, Open Science can improve the whole research, education as well as our society

Registered replication report: Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998)

Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence (“professor”) subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than participants primed with a category associated with a lack of intelligence (“soccer hooligans”). In two unpublished replications of this study designed to verify the appropriate testing procedures, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, and Holland observed a smaller difference between conditions (2%–3%) as well as a gender difference: Men showed the effect (9.3% and 7.6%), but women did not (0.3% and −0.3%). The procedure used in those replications served as the basis for this multilab Registered Replication Report. A total of 40 laboratories collected data for this project, and 23 of these laboratories met all inclusion criteria. Here we report the meta-analytic results for those 23 direct replications (total N = 4,493), which tested whether performance on a 30-item general-knowledge trivia task differed between these two priming conditions (results of supplementary analyses of the data from all 40 labs, N = 6,454, are also reported). We observed no overall difference in trivia performance between participants primed with the “professor” category and those primed with the “hooligan” category (0.14%) and no moderation by gender

Implementation of push notification using SignalR and WCF

Komunikacijo med strežniki in odjemalci lahko realiziramo na več načinov. Osnoven način je, da odjemalec povprašuje in strežnik odgovarja. V primeru, ko odjemalec ne ve, kdaj mu bo določena informacija na voljo, mora v intervalih spraševati strežnik. To je neučinkovito in boljša alternativa temu je, da strežnik obvešča odjemalce. Takemu načinu komunikacije pravimo potisno obveščanje. Implementacijo potisnega obveščanja smo izvedli s knjižnico SignalR in z ogrodjem WCF. Obe tehnologiji smo raziskali in ju primerjali. Za primerjavo tehnologij smo implementirali obveščanje o dogajanju v nadzoru različic kode. V našem primeru smo imeli dva tipa odjemalcev. En odjemalec je vmesnik za upravljanje z nadzorom različic kode Git. Ta obvešča strežnik o akcijah, ki se dogajajo nad kodo. Drugi tip odjemalca pa je namizna aplikacija in aplikacija za Windows Phone 8. Obe aplikaciji sprejemata obvestila o dogajanju v nadzoru različic kode, ki jim jih pošilja strežnik.Communication between servers and clients can be realised in several ways. A basic method is, when the client requests and the server responds. In case the client does not know, when the specific information will be available, it needs to ask the server in intervals. This is ineffective, and a better alternative is when the server informs the clients. Such communication is called server push. Server push was implemented with the SignalR library and with the WCF framework. Both technologies have been explored and compared. For comparison of technologies we implemented the notification of activity in revision control. In our case, we had two types of clients. The first client is an interface for managing the control of the Git revision control. It informs the server about actions, which take place over the code. The second client is a desktop application and an application for Windows Phone 8. Both applications receive notifications of activities in revision control