@misc{ComberMooneyPurvesetal.2016, author = {Comber, Alexis and Mooney, Peter and Purves, Ross S. and Rocchini, Duccio and Walz, Ariane}, title = {Crowdsourcing: it matters who the crowd are}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {539}, issn = {1866-8372}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-41089}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-410894}, pages = {19}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Volunteered geographical information (VGI) and citizen science have become important sources data for much scientific research. In the domain of land cover, crowdsourcing can provide a high temporal resolution data to support different analyses of landscape processes. However, the scientists may have little control over what gets recorded by the crowd, providing a potential source of error and uncertainty. This study compared analyses of crowdsourced land cover data that were contributed by different groups, based on nationality (labelled Gondor and Non-Gondor) and on domain experience (labelled Expert and Non-Expert). The analyses used a geographically weighted model to generate maps of land cover and compared the maps generated by the different groups. The results highlight the differences between the maps how specific land cover classes were under-and over-estimated. As crowdsourced data and citizen science are increasingly used to replace data collected under the designed experiment, this paper highlights the importance of considering between group variations and their impacts on the results of analyses. Critically, differences in the way that landscape features are conceptualised by different groups of contributors need to be considered when using crowdsourced data in formal scientific analyses. The discussion considers the potential for variation in crowdsourced data, the relativist nature of land cover and suggests a number of areas for future research. The key finding is that the veracity of citizen science data is not the critical issue per se. Rather, it is important to consider the impacts of differences in the semantics, affordances and functions associated with landscape features held by different groups of crowdsourced data contributors.}, language = {en} } @article{deWiljesReichStannat2018, author = {de Wiljes, Jana and Reich, Sebastian and Stannat, Wilhelm}, title = {Long-Time stability and accuracy of the ensemble Kalman-Bucy Filter for fully observed processes and small measurement noise}, series = {SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems}, volume = {17}, journal = {SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems}, number = {2}, publisher = {Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics}, address = {Philadelphia}, issn = {1536-0040}, doi = {10.1137/17M1119056}, pages = {1152 -- 1181}, year = {2018}, abstract = {The ensemble Kalman filter has become a popular data assimilation technique in the geosciences. However, little is known theoretically about its long term stability and accuracy. In this paper, we investigate the behavior of an ensemble Kalman-Bucy filter applied to continuous-time filtering problems. We derive mean field limiting equations as the ensemble size goes to infinity as well as uniform-in-time accuracy and stability results for finite ensemble sizes. The later results require that the process is fully observed and that the measurement noise is small. We also demonstrate that our ensemble Kalman-Bucy filter is consistent with the classic Kalman-Bucy filter for linear systems and Gaussian processes. We finally verify our theoretical findings for the Lorenz-63 system.}, language = {en} } @misc{NuthmannVituEngbertetal.2015, author = {Nuthmann, Antje and Vitu, Fran{\c{c}}oise and Engbert, Ralf and Kliegl, Reinhold}, title = {No evidence for a saccadic range effect for visually guided and memory-guided saccades in simple saccade-targeting tasks}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {506}, issn = {1866-8364}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-41163}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-411639}, pages = {27}, year = {2015}, abstract = {Saccades to single targets in peripheral vision are typically characterized by an undershoot bias. Putting this bias to a test, Kapoula [1] used a paradigm in which observers were presented with two different sets of target eccentricities that partially overlapped each other. Her data were suggestive of a saccadic range effect (SRE): There was a tendency for saccades to overshoot close targets and undershoot far targets in a block, suggesting that there was a response bias towards the center of eccentricities in a given block. Our Experiment 1 was a close replication of the original study by Kapoula [1]. In addition, we tested whether the SRE is sensitive to top-down requirements associated with the task, and we also varied the target presentation duration. In Experiments 1 and 2, we expected to replicate the SRE for a visual discrimination task. The simple visual saccade-targeting task in Experiment 3, entailing minimal top-down influence, was expected to elicit a weaker SRE. Voluntary saccades to remembered target locations in Experiment 3 were expected to elicit the strongest SRE. Contrary to these predictions, we did not observe a SRE in any of the tasks. Our findings complement the results reported by Gillen et al. [2] who failed to find the effect in a saccade-targeting task with a very brief target presentation. Together, these results suggest that unlike arm movements, saccadic eye movements are not biased towards making saccades of a constant, optimal amplitude for the task.}, language = {en} } @article{ThienenWeinsteinMeinel2023, author = {Thienen, Julia von and Weinstein, Theresa Julia and Meinel, Christoph}, title = {Creative metacognition in design thinking}, series = {Frontiers in psychology}, volume = {14}, journal = {Frontiers in psychology}, publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation}, address = {Lausanne}, issn = {1664-1078}, doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1157001}, pages = {20}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Design thinking is a well-established practical and educational approach to fostering high-level creativity and innovation, which has been refined since the 1950s with the participation of experts like Joy Paul Guilford and Abraham Maslow. Through real-world projects, trainees learn to optimize their creative outcomes by developing and practicing creative cognition and metacognition. This paper provides a holistic perspective on creativity, enabling the formulation of a comprehensive theoretical framework of creative metacognition. It focuses on the design thinking approach to creativity and explores the role of metacognition in four areas of creativity expertise: Products, Processes, People, and Places. The analysis includes task-outcome relationships (product metacognition), the monitoring of strategy effectiveness (process metacognition), an understanding of individual or group strengths and weaknesses (people metacognition), and an examination of the mutual impact between environments and creativity (place metacognition). It also reviews measures taken in design thinking education, including a distribution of cognition and metacognition, to support students in their development of creative mastery. On these grounds, we propose extended methods for measuring creative metacognition with the goal of enhancing comprehensive assessments of the phenomenon. Proposed methodological advancements include accuracy sub-scales, experimental tasks where examinees explore problem and solution spaces, combinations of naturalistic observations with capability testing, as well as physiological assessments as indirect measures of creative metacognition.}, language = {en} }