3 results
11 - Perspectives on judgment and decision making as a skill
- Edited by Mandeep K. Dhami, University of Cambridge, Anne Schlottmann, University College London, Michael R. Waldmann, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
-
- Book:
- Judgment and Decision Making as a Skill
- Published online:
- 05 December 2011
- Print publication:
- 01 December 2011, pp 291-306
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction, Mandeep K. Dhami, Anne Schlottmann, and Michael R. Waldmann
In conclusion, rather than present a summary of the preceding chapters, we invited nine eminent past presidents of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making (SJDM) to provide personal perspectives on the concept of JDM as a dynamic skill. These scholars were not asked to comment on the chapters in this book, but rather to highlight their personal points of contact with the notion of JDM as a dynamic skill. The following perspectives offer historical accounts, and also point to future lines of research.
Shanteau describes how over the years he has highlighted the importance of training and skill acquisition in JDM, but feels “blue” that this view has not been more popular. Wallsten remembers the benefits of learning for JDM performance found in a study that he conducted 30 years ago, and confesses that he has only recently begun to revisit this important finding. Fischhoff points out that a sound understanding of the normative implications of tasks has laid a better foundation for the study of dynamically changing skills, especially in development. Levin and colleagues provide useful examples of their research on the developmental and neurological bases of JDM skills. Reyna highlights how her fuzzy trace theory taps into JDM processes that develop over time and experience, has neurological correlates, and may be evolutionarily adaptive. Baron reveals how he now finds himself in search of the developmental origins of the types of moral heuristics and biases that he has studied during his career. Hogarth shares three steps he has developed during decades of teaching decision making that can help people make better decisions. Klayman reveals that despite decades of studying learning and development of JDM, he still seeks a greater understanding of how decision makers “get that way.” Finally, Birnbaum points to the methodological factors that have limited our understanding of JDM as a skill, and presents a challenge for future researchers: to explain how and why JDM skills change. Overall, the following perspectives provide a rare glimpse of the personalized views of those who have made significant contributions to the field of human JDM.
Complete diets for dairy cows: the effect of energy concentration and change in energy concentration of a complete diet on intake and performance of lactating dairy cows
- R. H. Phipps, J. A. Bines, R. F. Weller, Joanne Thomas
-
- Journal:
- The Journal of Agricultural Science / Volume 103 / Issue 2 / October 1984
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 27 March 2009, pp. 323-331
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Ninety-two British Friesians (56 cows and 36 heifers) were divided into two groups during weeks 3–10 of lactation and received ad libitum either complete diet H (65% concentrates, 35% grass silage, 11·7 MJ ME/kg D.M.) or diet M (50% concentrates, 50% grass silage, 11·2 MJ ME/kg D.M.). In weeks 11· 20 half the animals of each group continued to receive the same diet (HH or MM) while the other half were changed from diet H to M (HM) or from diet M to L (ML). Diet L contained 35% concentrates, 65% grass silage and 10·7 MJ ME/kg D.M. The crude protein concentration of all diets was maintained at about 157 g/kg D.M. by the addition of soya-bean meal to diets M and L.
During weeks 3–10 the mean D.M. intake (kg/day), milk yield (kg/day), milk protein (g/kg) and live-weight change (kg/day) for animals on diets H and M were 15·0, 21·7, 33·3, 0·50 and 12·9, 20·2, 31·5, 0·35 respectively. Differences were significant for D.M. intake, milk yield and milk protein concentration. Although milk-fat concentration of cows given diet H (40·2 g/kg) was similar to that of cows given diet M (39·9 g/kg), heifers receiving diet H had a significantly lower value (37·0 g/kg) than those given diet M (39·8 g/kg).
When animals were changed from diet H to M or from M to L at week 11, D.M. intake, milk yield and milk-protein concentration decreased. However, milk-fat concentration and live-weight change were generally unaffected.
During the complete experimental period, weeks 3–20, animals on treatments HH, HM, MM and ML had mean D.M. intakes and milk yields of 15·3, 14·2, 13·2, 12·4 kg/day and 19·7, 18·5, 17·8, 17·0 kg/day. Milk-protein concentration, was closely related to D.M. intake, but only with heifers did diet H significantly depress milk-fat concentration. The highest live-weight gain was recorded on treatment HH (0·40 kg/day) and the lowost on treatment ML (0·29 kg/day) with intermediate values for treatments HM and MM.
In vivodigestibility coefficients of D.M. and organic matter for diet H (0·731, 0·757) were significantly higher than those of diet L (0·707, 0·734) with intermediate values for diet M. However, for acid-detergent fibre the digestibility coefficient for diet H was significantly lower (0·562) than for diet L (0·662). The digestibility coefficients for nitrogen in all three diets were similar.
Estimates of mean efficiency of utilization of ME for lactation were made on a weekly basis and were 0·56 and 0·64 for animals on diets H and M in weeks 3·10. During weeks 11·20 the mean values for animals on treatments HH, HM, MM and ML were 0·46, 0·53, 0·51 and 0·59, respectively.
1 - Historical perspective
- from Part I - History
- Edited by Ann M. Arvin, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, Anne A. Gershon, Columbia University, New York
-
- Book:
- Varicella-Zoster Virus
- Published online:
- 02 March 2010
- Print publication:
- 23 November 2000, pp 9-22
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
The development of our knowledge of the ubiquitous varicella-zoster virus has been fascinating, illustrating as it does the interplay of different scientific disciplines and the changing nature of the human host. Initially, clinicians differentiated varicella from variola. Then, epidemiologists provided evidence in support of the view that chickenpox and shingles had a common etiology, a thesis supported by pathologists who studied the lesions. Additional evidence of co-identity was provided on cultivation of the viruses in the laboratory. Yet proof of this fact a waited the application of molecular biological techniques.
Concurrently, and paradoxically in large part due to the advances of curative medicine, varicella lost its benign label as an ever-increasing number of high risk subjects in whom varicella might be lethal was recognized. Also concurrently in the developed countries the prevalence of zoster increased in parallel with the increasing longevity of the human population. As varicella emerged as a lethal disease, the need for therapeutic drugs and vaccines became obvious and the efforts of pharmacologists and immunologists yielded effective antiviral drugs and vaccines.
The differentiation of varicella from variola
Whereas zoster was recognized and described in medieval times, varicella was considered to be a mild form of smallpox until 1767 when Heberden read a paper entitled “On the Chickenpox” before the College of Physicians in London (Heberden, 1768).