The e-ROSA project seeks to build a shared vision of a future sustainable e-infrastructure for research and education in agriculture in order to promote Open Science in this field and as such contribute to addressing related societal challenges. In order to achieve this goal, e-ROSA’s first objective is to bring together the relevant scientific communities and stakeholders and engage them in the process of coelaboration of an ambitious, practical roadmap that provides the basis for the design and implementation of such an e-infrastructure in the years to come.
This website highlights the results of a bibliometric analysis conducted at a global scale in order to identify key scientists and associated research performing organisations (e.g. public research institutes, universities, Research & Development departments of private companies) that work in the field of agricultural data sources and services. If you have any comment or feedback on the bibliometric study, please use the online form.
You can access and play with the graphs:
- Evolution of the number of publications between 2005 and 2015
- Map of most publishing countries between 2005 and 2015
- Network of country collaborations
- Network of institutional collaborations (+10 publications)
- Network of keywords relating to data - Link
Reliability of categorical versus continuous scoring of welfare indicators: lameness in cows as a case study
Many animal welfare traits vary on a continuous scale but are commonly scored using an ordinal scale with few categories. The rationale behind this practice is rarely stated but appears largely based on the debatable conviction that it increases data reliability. Using 54 observers of varying levels of expertise, inter-observer reliability (IOR) and user-satisfaction were compared between a 3-point ordinal scale (OS) and a continuous modified visual analogue scale with multiple anchors (VAS) for scoring lameness in dairy cattle from video. IOR was significantly better for the VAS than for the OS. IOR increased with self-reported level of expertise for the VAS, whereas for the OS it was highest for observers with a moderate level of expertise. The mean continuous scores and the mean categorical scores were highly correlated. Three times as many observers stated a preference for the VAS (n = 2 7) compared to the OS (n = 9) in investigating differences in lameness between herds. Contrary to common perception, these results illustrate that it is possible for a continuous cattle lameness score to be more reliable and to have greater user acceptability than a simple categorical scale. As continuous scales are also potentially more sensitive, and produce data more amenable to algebraic processing and more powerful parametric analyses, the scepticism against their application for assessing animal welfare traits should be reconsidered.
Inappropriate format for Document type, expected simple value but got array, please use list format