4 results
Antarctic science in Chile: a bibliometric analysis of scientific productivity during the 2009–2019 period
- Marcelo González-Aravena, Lucas Krüger, Lorena Rebolledo, Ricardo Jaña, Anelio Aguayo-Lobo, Marcelo Leppe, Rodolfo Rondon, Francisco Santa-Cruz, Carla Salinas, Cristine Trevisan, César A. Cárdenas
-
- Journal:
- Antarctic Science / Volume 35 / Issue 1 / February 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 19 April 2023, pp. 46-59
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
The changes implemented in 2005 in the development strategies of Antarctic science carried out by Chile have had a positive impact on the scientific productivity of the Chilean Antarctic Science Program (PROCIEN). We analysed scientometric indicators from between 2009 and 2019. The bibliographic data were extracted from the Web of Science database using search query keywords. We used multiple correspondence analysis to identify specific trends and also network analyses of international collaboration in VOSviewer. The number of Antarctic science publications in Chile has gradually increased from 21 in 2009 to 95 in 2019. The rise in the number of articles was higher in journals for the first impact factor quartile. Research lines showing increased first-quartile impact factor papers corresponded to Antarctic ecosystems, biotechnology and geosciences. The main geographical domains in which such research activities have been carried out corresponded to in the South Shetland Islands and the Antarctic Peninsula. Fieldwork data are the main sources for the production of scientific articles, and there are three science platforms within which most of these papers concentrate. The diversification of funding sources, the implementation of improvements in the selection process and Chile's alignment with Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research programmes have contributed to improving the science that Chile has developed in Antarctica.
A Shaping Procedure to Modulate Two Cognitive Tasks to Improve a Sensorimotor Rhythm-Based Brain-Computer Interface System
- Leandro da Silva-Sauer, Luis Valero-Aguayo, Francisco Velasco-Álvarez, Álvaro Fernández-Rodríguez, Ricardo Ron-Angevin
-
- Journal:
- The Spanish Journal of Psychology / Volume 21 / 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 25 October 2018, E44
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
This study aimed to propose an adapted feedback using a psychological learning technique based on Skinner’s shaping method to help the users to modulate two cognitive tasks (right-hand motor imagination and relaxed state) and improve better control in a Brain-Computer Interface. In the first experiment, a comparative study between performance in standard feedback (N = 9) and shaping method (N = 10) was conducted. The NASA Task Load Index questionnaire was applied to measure the user’s workload. In the second experiment, a single case study was performed (N = 5) to verify the continuous learning by the shaping method. The first experiment showed significant interaction effect between sessions and group (F(1, 17) = 5.565; p = .031) which the shaping paradigm was applied. A second interaction effect demonstrates a higher performance increase in the relax state task with shaping procedure (F(1, 17) = 5. 038; p = .038). In NASA-TXL an interaction effect was obtained between the group and the cognitive task in Mental Demand (F(1, 17) = 6, 809; p = .018), Performance (F(1, 17) = 5, 725; p = .029), and Frustration (F(1, 17) = 9, 735; p = .006), no significance was found in Effort. In the second experiment, a trial-by-trial analysis shows an ascendant trend learning curve for the cognitive task with the lowest initial acquisition (relax state). The results suggest the effectiveness of the shaping procedure to modulate brain rhythms, improving mainly the cognitive task with greater initial difficulty and provide better interaction perception.
Chapter 24 - Policies for the Energy Technology Innovation System (ETIS)
-
- By Arnulf Grubler, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria and Yale University, Francisco Aguayo, El Colegio de México, Kelly Gallagher, Tufts University, Marko Hekkert, Utrecht University, Kejun Jiang, Energy Research Institute, Lynn Mytelka, United Nations University-MERIT, Lena Neij, Lund University, Gregory Nemet, University of Wisconsin, Charlie Wilson, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Per Dannemand Andersen, Technical University of Denmark, Leon Clarke, University of Maryland, Laura Diaz Anadon, Harvard University, Sabine Fuss, International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, Martin Jakob, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Daniel Kammen, University of California, Ruud Kempener, Harvard University, Osamu Kimura, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Bernadette Kiss, Lund University, Anastasia O'Rourke, Big Room Inc., Robert N. Schock, World Energy Council, UK and Center for Global Security Research, Paulo Teixeira de Sousa, Jr., Federal University Mato Grosso, Leena Srivastava, The Energy and Resources Institute
- Global Energy Assessment Writing Team
-
- Book:
- Global Energy Assessment
- Published online:
- 05 September 2012
- Print publication:
- 27 August 2012, pp 1665-1744
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Executive Summary
Innovation and technological change are integral to the energy system transformations described in the Global Energy Assessment (GEA) pathways. Energy technology innovations range from incremental improvements to radical breakthroughs and from technologies and infrastructure to social institutions and individual behaviors. This Executive Summary synthesizes the main policy-relevant findings of Chapter 24. Specific positive policy examples or key takehome messages are highlighted in italics.
The innovation process involves many stages – from research through to incubation, demonstration, (niche) market creation, and ultimately, widespread diffusion. Feedbacks between these stages influence progress and likely success, yet innovation outcomes are unavoidably uncertain. Innovations do not happen in isolation; interdependence and complexity are the rule under an increasingly globalized innovation system. Any emphasis on particular technologies or parts of the energy system, or technology policy that emphasizes only particular innovation stages or processes (e.g., an exclusive focus on energy supply from renewables, or an exclusive focus on Research and Development [R&D], or feed-in tariffs) is inadequate given the magnitude and multitude of challenges represented by the GEA objectives.
A first, even if incomplete, assessment of the entire global resource mobilization (investments) in both energy supply and demand-side technologies and across different innovation stages suggests current annual Research, Development & Demonstration (RD&D) investments of some US$50 billion, market formation investments (which rely on directed public policy support) of some US$150 billion, and an estimated US$1 trillion to US$5 trillion investments in mature energy supply and end-use technologies (technology diffusion).
Chapter 25 - Policies for Capacity Development
-
- By Lynn Mytelka, United Nations University-MERIT, Francisco Aguayo, El Colegio de México, Grant Boyle, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, Sylvia Breukers, Duneworks, Gabriel de Scheemaker, Conduit Ventures Ltd., Ibrahim Abdel Gelil, Arabian Gulf University, René Kemp, United Nations University-MERIT, Joachim Monkelbaan, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Carolina Rossini, University of São Paulo, Jim Watson, University of Sussex, Rosemary Wolson, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Staffan Jacobsson, Chalmers University of Technology, Upendra Tripathy, Government of India, John T. Wilbanks, The Ewing Marro Kauffman Foundation, Youba Sokona, United Nations Economic Commission
- Global Energy Assessment Writing Team
-
- Book:
- Global Energy Assessment
- Published online:
- 05 September 2012
- Print publication:
- 27 August 2012, pp 1745-1802
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Executive Summary
This chapter focuses on capacities and capacity development for energy transitions. The transitions put forward in GEA require a transformation of energy systems that demand significant changes in the way energy is supplied and used today, irrespective of whether the technologies involved are new to the world or to a country, its producers or users.
Energy transitions are, by definition, long-term, socially embedded processes in the course of which capacities at the individual, organizational, and systems levels, as well as the policies for capacity development themselves, will inevitably change. From this perspective, capacity development can no longer be seen as a simple aggregation of individual skills and competences or the introduction of a new “technology.” Rather, it is a broad process of change in production and consumption patterns, knowledge, skills, organizational forms, and – most importantly – in the established practices and norms of the actors involved, or what are called informal institutions. In other words, a host of new and enhanced capacities will be needed over time. Informal institutions are reflected in a range of beliefs and boundaries that shape choices about new energy technologies. These can include engineering beliefs about what is feasible or worth attempting and boundaries that shape the processes of choice, such as lines of research to pursue, kinds of products to produce, or practices of consultation and dialogue. They also emerge as “path dependence” in contexts where earlier investments result in high sunk costs, habits and practices are entrenched, and “expert views” are shaped by earlier thinking that narrows the range of choices to established technologies and evaluation techniques.