| |
|
|
| Registros recuperados : 97 | |
| 14. |  | SAMBRANA, I. R.; REIS, V. D. A. dos. Infestação pelo ácaro varroa destructor em abelhas adultas de Apis Mellifera em Ladário, MS: 2016-2017. In: CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE APICULTURA, 22., CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE MELIPONICULTURA, 8., 2018. Joinville. Polinização, tecnologias oportunidades e desafios para o criador de abelhas no Brasil: anais. Joinville, SC: CBA, 2018. p. 206. CONBRAPI 2018.| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Pantanal. |
|    |
| 15. | | SAMBRANA, I. R.; REIS, V. D. A. dos. Infestação pelo ácaro Varroa Destructor em pré-pupas e pupas de Apis mellifera em Ladário, MS: 2016-2017. In: CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE APICULTURA, 22., CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE MELIPONICULTURA, 8., 2018. Joinville, SC. Polinização, tecnologias oportunidades e desafios para o criador de abelhas no Brasil: anais. Joinville, SC: CBA, 2018. p. 205. CONBRAPI 2018.| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Pantanal. |
| |
| 19. | | REIS, V. D. A. dos; BIJOS, G. N. Processo de transição de extrativismo de mel para a apicultura em comunidade ribeirinha de Corumbá, MS. In: CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE APICULTURA, 22., CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE MELIPONICULTURA , 8., 2018. Joinville, SC. Polinização, tecnologias oportunidades e desafios para o criador de abelhas no Brasil: anais. Joinville, SC: CBA, 2018. p. 250. CONBRAPI 2018.| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Pantanal. |
| |
| Registros recuperados : 97 | |
|
|
|
Registro Completo
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Agricultura Digital. |
|
Data corrente: |
10/02/2015 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
24/02/2015 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Boletim de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento |
|
Autoria: |
FREUA, M. C.; BARIONI, L. G.; VILAMIU, R. G. d'A.; DIAS, F. R. T. |
|
Afiliação: |
MATEUS CASTELANI FREUA, USP; LUIS GUSTAVO BARIONI, CNPTIA; RAPHAEL GUSTAVO D’ALMEIDA VILAMIU, Cefet-RJ; FERNANDO RODRIGUES TEIXEIRA DIAS, CPAP. |
|
Título: |
A comparison between three different approaches to omplement a system dynamic model: an assessment by a multidisciplinary team. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2014 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Campinas: Embrapa Informática Agropecuária, 2014. |
|
Páginas: |
19 p. |
|
Série: |
(Embrapa Informática Agropecuária. Boletim de pesquisa e desenvolvimento, 36). |
|
ISSN: |
1677-9266 |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
In the last few decades, application of system dynamics models (SDM) has disseminated through the agricultural sciences. Modeling groups are now much more multidisciplinary once the models currently developed are applied to larger frameworks. The literature has been inconclusive with regard to empirical evidence of the trade-offs between different paradigms to implement SDMs. In order to gain insight on the advantages and disadvantages between the paradigms we simulated a working group environment with seven researchers coming from various educational backgrounds where they had to implement a process-based SDM and fill in a questionnaire scoring characteristics of the paradigms and implementation process. The participants were divided into three groups according to their expertise: NAA, formed by procedural programming experts that performed the exercise in MATLAB®; OOA, formed by objected-oriented programming experts that performed the exercise in a C++ simulation framework; and GDA, the domain expert that performed the exercise in Vensim®. The approaches were ranked NAA > OOA > GDA for mathematical expressiveness, GDA > OOA > NAA for visual expressiveness, OOA > NAA = GDA for scalability and code reuse, and NAA = OOA > GDA for software integration. Based on the questionnaire and group discussions, a descriptive framework of what should be considered to identify the most appropriate implementation strategy for a SDM was developed. We suggest that the choice of what strategy to use should be driven by a combination of variables related to the model characteristics, group member's expertise and the properties intrinsic to each programming paradigm. Further research is needed to extend the analysis of how the decision on the paradigms should be related to the SDM characteristics, the time available, and the modeling group member's expertise. MenosIn the last few decades, application of system dynamics models (SDM) has disseminated through the agricultural sciences. Modeling groups are now much more multidisciplinary once the models currently developed are applied to larger frameworks. The literature has been inconclusive with regard to empirical evidence of the trade-offs between different paradigms to implement SDMs. In order to gain insight on the advantages and disadvantages between the paradigms we simulated a working group environment with seven researchers coming from various educational backgrounds where they had to implement a process-based SDM and fill in a questionnaire scoring characteristics of the paradigms and implementation process. The participants were divided into three groups according to their expertise: NAA, formed by procedural programming experts that performed the exercise in MATLAB®; OOA, formed by objected-oriented programming experts that performed the exercise in a C++ simulation framework; and GDA, the domain expert that performed the exercise in Vensim®. The approaches were ranked NAA > OOA > GDA for mathematical expressiveness, GDA > OOA > NAA for visual expressiveness, OOA > NAA = GDA for scalability and code reuse, and NAA = OOA > GDA for software integration. Based on the questionnaire and group discussions, a descriptive framework of what should be considered to identify the most appropriate implementation strategy for a SDM was developed. We suggest that the choice of what strategy... Mostrar Tudo |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Agricultural models; Modelo dinâmico; Modelos agrícolas; Objected-oriented programming; Programação orientada a objetos. |
|
Thesagro: |
Modelo Matemático. |
|
Thesaurus NAL: |
dynamic models; Mathematical models. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
X Pesquisa, Tecnologia e Engenharia |
|
URL: |
https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/117682/1/Livro-BolPesq36.pdf
|
|
Marc: |
LEADER 02832nam a2200277 a 4500
001 2008307
005 2015-02-24
008 2014 bl uuuu u0uu1 u #d
022 $a1677-9266
100 1 $aFREUA, M. C.
245 $aA comparison between three different approaches to omplement a system dynamic model$ban assessment by a multidisciplinary team.$h[electronic resource]
260 $aCampinas: Embrapa Informática Agropecuária$c2014
300 $a19 p.
490 $a(Embrapa Informática Agropecuária. Boletim de pesquisa e desenvolvimento, 36).
520 $aIn the last few decades, application of system dynamics models (SDM) has disseminated through the agricultural sciences. Modeling groups are now much more multidisciplinary once the models currently developed are applied to larger frameworks. The literature has been inconclusive with regard to empirical evidence of the trade-offs between different paradigms to implement SDMs. In order to gain insight on the advantages and disadvantages between the paradigms we simulated a working group environment with seven researchers coming from various educational backgrounds where they had to implement a process-based SDM and fill in a questionnaire scoring characteristics of the paradigms and implementation process. The participants were divided into three groups according to their expertise: NAA, formed by procedural programming experts that performed the exercise in MATLAB®; OOA, formed by objected-oriented programming experts that performed the exercise in a C++ simulation framework; and GDA, the domain expert that performed the exercise in Vensim®. The approaches were ranked NAA > OOA > GDA for mathematical expressiveness, GDA > OOA > NAA for visual expressiveness, OOA > NAA = GDA for scalability and code reuse, and NAA = OOA > GDA for software integration. Based on the questionnaire and group discussions, a descriptive framework of what should be considered to identify the most appropriate implementation strategy for a SDM was developed. We suggest that the choice of what strategy to use should be driven by a combination of variables related to the model characteristics, group member's expertise and the properties intrinsic to each programming paradigm. Further research is needed to extend the analysis of how the decision on the paradigms should be related to the SDM characteristics, the time available, and the modeling group member's expertise.
650 $adynamic models
650 $aMathematical models
650 $aModelo Matemático
653 $aAgricultural models
653 $aModelo dinâmico
653 $aModelos agrícolas
653 $aObjected-oriented programming
653 $aProgramação orientada a objetos
700 1 $aBARIONI, L. G.
700 1 $aVILAMIU, R. G. d'A.
700 1 $aDIAS, F. R. T.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Agricultura Digital (CNPTIA) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
Fechar
|
| Nenhum registro encontrado para a expressão de busca informada. |
|
|
