scholarly journals Emerging technology to measure habitat quality and behavior of grouse: examples from studies of greater sage-grouse

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (SP1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Sorensen Forbey ◽  
Gail L. Patricelli ◽  
Donna M. Delparte ◽  
Alan H. Krakauer ◽  
Peter J. Olsoy ◽  
...  
Ecology ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 89 (5) ◽  
pp. 1457-1468 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Winnie ◽  
Paul Cross ◽  
Wayne Getz

Ecosphere ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. art15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kurt T. Smith ◽  
Christopher P. Kirol ◽  
Jeffrey L. Beck ◽  
Frank C. Blomquist

2021 ◽  
Vol 192 ◽  
pp. 104550
Author(s):  
Jacob D. Hennig ◽  
Jeffrey L. Beck ◽  
Courtney J. Duchardt ◽  
J. Derek Scasta

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tzu-Yang Huang ◽  
◽  
Chih-Hsiung Ku ◽  

The purpose of the research was to understand the public’s social Image of emerging technology—nanotechnology. Furthermore, the differences among different major students and the decision-making style in “self-evaluation and other-evaluation” were analyzed too. In this research, the social image was defined by three phases, “general image of nanotechnology”, “business decision behavior of nanotechnology”, and “free recall of nanotechnology”. The research instrument was a self-designed questionnaire “college student’ social image of nanotechnology”. The participants were 256 college students selected using convenience sampling from one university in the east Taiwan area. The main findings were: (1) Students tended to agree that nanotechnology is better than other general-tech. (2) The college students believed that they have more rational attitude and behavior to make decision than others. (3) Most college students’ association related "nanotechnology image" with "high tech" in thinking. Keywords: nanotechnology image, public understanding, social image.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document