203 research outputs found
Cuestiones de sociologÃa y economÃa de la ciencia
Se exponen los aspectos principales de la ciencia, considerada como una institución social, y se plantea la tesis de que dichos aspectos pueden ser explicados mediante las técnicas de análisis económico, suponiendo que los cientÃficos son agentes nacionales cuyas decisiones conjuntas desembocan en una situación de equilibrio. Algunas alternativas radicales de la sociologÃa actual de la ciencia son criticadas desde el punto de vista de la teorÃa económica de la ciencia
Inmaculada de Melo-MartÃn and Kristen Intemann. 2018. The Fight Against Doubt: How to Bridge the Gap Between Scientists and the Public
Review of: Inmaculada de Melo-MartÃn and Kristen Intemann. 2018. The Fight Against Doubt: How to Bridge the Gap Between Scientists and the Public
Evaluation of three diets based on a mixture fuzz of rice with broliler litter in young bull commercial zebu in the tropical lowlands of High Magdalena Valley, Colombia.
P?ginas 22-27El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la respuesta animal al consumo de tres dietas con base en la mezcla tamo de arroz-pollinaza. La investigaci?n se llev? a cabo en Agroindustriales del Tolima AGRINSA S.A. municipio del Espinal, (Tolima), Las variables analizadas fueron: ganancia de peso, consumo, digestibilidad, rentabilidad y desempe?o de las instalaciones. El experimento se desarroll? con 30 toretes Ceb? comercial, peso inicial promedio de 210 kg. Se evaluaron tres tratamientos (dietas) con diferente proporci?n de la mezcla tamo de arroz-pollinaza en la dieta: 57,7; 47,1 y 36,8%. Los dem?s ingredientes de la dieta fueron: semilla de algod?n, harina de arroz, cacota de algod?n, tortave, melaza, y una premezcla de vitaminas y minerales. El periodo de ensayo fue de 105 d?as, con manejo de los toretes en instalaciones m?viles desarmables. Se encontraron diferencias significativas en peso vivo (p<0,05) entre las dietas: 1012; 840 y 680 g/d?a para los tratamientos con 36,8; 47,1 y 57,7% de tamo-pollinaza en la dieta, respectivamente. El tratamiento con 36,8% de la mezcla present? el mejor consumo; sin embargo, la mejor conversi?n alimenticia se encontr? en el tratamiento con 47,1% de la mezcla (6,9) superando al tratamiento de 36,8% de la mezcla (7,0). La mejor digestibilidad fue encontrada en el tratamiento con 36,8% de la mezcla (63,4%); mientras que la mayor rentabilidad se obtuvo con la dieta con 36,8% de tamo-pollinaza (12,4%), seguido del tratamiento con 47,1% de la mezcla en la dieta y el tratamiento con 57,7% de tamo-pollinaza arroj? una rentabilidad negativa (-6,6%).ABSTRACT. The objective of this was to evaluate the animal response at three diets based on mixture of rice?s fuzz with broiler?s litter. This study was carried out in the facilities of Agroindustrial of the Tolima AGRINSA S.A. Espinal municpa-lity (Tolima). The analyzed variables were weight gain, digestibility, profitability and performance of installations, The experiment was carried out using 30 young bull commercial Zebu with a initial mean weight of 210 kg. Three treatments (Diets) with different proportion of the mixture rice?s fuzz ? brioler?s litter (bed of fatten chickens) were evaluated: 57,7; 47,1 and 36,8%. The other ingredients were cotton seed, rice?s flour, cotton dung, tortave (crop byproducts from the region), molasses, and a premixture of vitamins and minerals. The evaluation was developed during 105 days, managing the young bulls in mobile, folding and disable facilities. Statistical differences in live weight gained were found (p<0.05) between diets: 1012; 840 and 680 g/day for the treatments with 36.8; 47.1 and 57.7% of the mixture rice?s fuzz ? brioler?s litter in the diet, respectively. The treatment with the highest consumption was the diet with 36.8% of the mixture; however, the best nutritious conversion was found in the treatment with 47.1% of the mixture (6.9) being higher than treatment with 36.8% of diet (7.0). The highest digestibility was found in the treatmen t with 36.8% (3.4%); whereas, the highest profitability was found in the diet with 36.8% of rice?s fuzz ? brioler?s litter (12.4%), .followed by the treatment with 47.1% of the mixture in the diet and the treatment with 57.7% of rice?s fuzz ? brioler?s litter had a negative profitability ( -6.6%)
An economic model of scientific rules
Empirical reports on scientific competition show that scientists can be
depicted as self-interested, strategically behaving agents. Nevertheless, we
argue that recognition-seeking scientists will have an interest in establishing
methodological norms which tend to select theories of a high epistemic
value, and that these norms will be still more stringent if the epistemic value
of theories appears in the utility function of scientists, either directly or
instrumentally.The authors gratefully acknowledges financial support from DGI grant BEC2002-03715 (Ministerio de Educación y Cultura), PB98-0495-C08-01 and BFF2002-03656 (Ministerio de Educación y Cultura).Publicad
Un análisis inferencialista de la co-autorÃa de artÃculos cientÃficos
Co-authorship is very common in most areas of science and has grown as the complexity of research has increased the need for scientific collaboration. But plural authorship tends to complicate the attribution of merit to individual scientists, which is the basis of scientific evaluation. I argue that collaboration does not necessarily entail co-authorship, though in many cases the latter is an option that the individual scientists might not choose, at least in principle: individually authors might separately publish their own contribution to a collaborative project in which they had taken part, or papers could explicitly state what contribution each individual author had made. I ask, hence, why it is that scientists prefer to ‘pool’ their contributions instead of keeping them separate if they are pursuing, amongst other things, individual recognition. My answer, following an inferentialist approach to scientific knowledge, is based on the view of the scientific paper as a piece of argumentation rather than as a piece of knowledge.<br><br>La co-autorÃa es muy frecuente en la mayor parte de las áreas cientÃficas. Sin embargo, la autorÃa plural tiende a complicar la atribución de mérito a cada cientÃfico individual (una atribución que es la base de la evaluación cientÃfica). En este artÃculo, argumentamos que la colaboración no implica necesariamente co-autorÃa: cada autor podrÃa publicar en artÃculos separados su contribución individual al proyecto colaborativo (o los artÃculos conjuntos podrÃan especificar la contribución individual de cada autor). La cuestión que nos planteamos en este artÃculo es por qué los cientÃficos prefieren fusionar sus contribuciones en lugar de mantenerlas separadas – teniendo en cuenta que su objetivo es, entre otras cosas, el reconocimiento individual –. Nuestra respuesta, enmarcada en una visión inferencialista de la práctica cientÃfica, se basa en la idea de que los artÃculos cientÃficos han de ser vistos como argumentos, en vez de como colecciones de conocimiento
- …