Septentrio Academic Publishing
Not a member yet
6415 research outputs found
Sort by
Hacia un prototipo de la tercera persona del plural no fórica en español
No full textEn español, la tercera persona plural no fórica es un recurso para desfocalizar al agente, instigador, experimentador o iniciador de la acción. La no identificación de un referente y el hecho de que, si se recupera, éste sea de naturaleza difusa, hacen de estas construcciones un recurso eficiente y claro de impersonalidad o desujetivación. En cualquier caso, el referente inferible de la tercera persona plural es un sujeto humano no referencial que excluye al hablante y al interlocutor o audiencia. Por ello, constituye un recurso para la desubjetivación asociado a la pérdida de la referencialidad del sujeto. Una de las características que condiciona la interpretación no fórica de la tercera persona del plural es la presencia de un participante humano, agente, experimentador o instigador. Esta participación puede realizarse no solo a través de un sujeto, sino también mediante un objeto representado por un morfema de concordancia o clítico. La tercera persona plural no fórica ha sido clasificada tradicionalmente según diferentes valores semántico-pragmáticos. Sin embargo, en esta investigación presentamos un análisis basado en la teoría cognitia de los prototipos. Así, se presenta un modelo prototípico gradual que incluye la construcción prototípica y las variantes periféricas. En dicho modelo intervienen varios elementos lingüísticos y textuales, como la co-ocurrencia de la tercera persona con morfemas de concordancia, así como el tiempo y aspecto verbal.
En español, la tercera persona plural no fórica es un recurso para desfocalizar al agente, instigador, experimentador o iniciador de la acción. La no identificación de un referente y el hecho de que, si se recupera, éste sea de naturaleza difusa, hacen de estas construcciones un recurso eficiente y claro de impersonalidad o desujetivación. En cualquier caso, el referente inferible de la tercera persona plural es un sujeto humano no referencial que excluye al hablante y al interlocutor o audiencia. Por ello, constituye un recurso para la desubjetivación asociado a la pérdida de la referencialidad del sujeto. Una de las características que condiciona la interpretación no fórica de la tercera persona del plural es la presencia de un participante humano, agente, experimentador o instigador. Esta participación puede realizarse no solo a través de un sujeto, sino también mediante un objeto representado por un morfema de concordancia o un clítico. La tercera persona plural no fórica ha sido clasificada tradicionalmente según diferentes valores semántico-pragmáticos. Sin embargo, en esta investigación presentamos un análisis basado en la teoría cognitia de los prototipos. Así, se presenta un modelo prototípico gradual que incluye la construcción prototípica y las variantes periféricas. En dicho modelo intervienen varios elementos lingüísticos y textuales, como la co-ocurrencia de la tercera persona con morfemas de concordancia, así como el tiempo y aspecto verbal.
 
Yo vivo aquí y se vive muy tranquilo: Punto de vista discursivo, función pragmática y colocación de "yo"
No full textThe formulation and placement of Spanish personal pronouns is a traditional topic of research on syntactic variation that has not yet received a comprehensive explanation. The present study focuses on expressed yo ‘I’ as a communicative choice in a corpus of readers’ comments on digital news texts. The first-person pronoun is approached as an element that explicitly anchors discourse in the viewpoint of the speaker, thereby specifying the cognitive domain in which the content is to be interpreted. A distinction is proposed between epistemic contexts, where either a personal stance or behavior is described, and epistemic-evidential ones, aimed at lending support to argumentation based either on personal witnessing or on life experience. Variation between the preverbal and postverbal placement of the pronoun is found to correlate with the different contextual types. Evidential uses exhibit very high frequencies of preverbal yo, in line with the self-attributed authority of the speaker. Conversely, the postverbal pronoun, while still entailing the construction of their viewpoint into discourse, signals the fact that such viewpoint is not the dominant one. This can explain the association of this variant with epistemic contexts where predefined, often hypothetical situations are described. It is concluded that the development of a model based on the construction and interpretation of discourse viewpoint can be very beneficial in advancing knowledge of pronoun variation.La formulación y la colocación variable de los pronombres personales en español es una cuestión tradicional en la investigación en variación sintáctica, pero que aún no ha recibido una explicación exhaustiva. Este trabajo se centra en el yo expreso como elección comunicativa en un corpus de comentarios de lectores a noticias digitales. El pronombre de primera persona se contempla como un elemento que ancla explícitamente el discurso en el punto de vista del hablante, especificando el dominio cognitivo en el que se ha de interpretar el contenido. Se propone una distinción entre contextos epistémicos, en los que se describe una postura o un comportamiento personal, y epistémico-evidenciales, destinados a apoyar una argumentación por medio del testimonio personal o la experiencia vital. La variación entre la colocación preverbal y posverbal del pronombre se correlaciona con estos tipos de contextos. Los usos evidenciales presentan frecuencias muy altas del yo preverbal, en consonancia con la autoridad que se autoatribuye el hablante. Por el contrario, el pronombre posverbal, aunque sigue implicando la construcción del mismo punto de vista, señala que este no es el dominante en el discurso. Esto puede explicar la asociación de esta variante con contextos epistémicos en que se describen situaciones predefinidas, a menudo hipotéticas. Se concluye que el desarrollo de un modelo basado en la construcción y la interpretación del punto de vista del discurso puede ser muy beneficioso para avanzar en la comprensión de la variación asociada a los pronombres
The development of preventive municipal interventions targeting the mental health of young people: -Leaders\u27 Perspectives on a Practice-Based Research Project
No full textDenne artikel beskriver hvordan en intervention til fremme af mental sundhed hos unge i 7-9 klasse i en dansk kommune blev udviklet igennem en samskabende proces samt undersøger forskellige kommunale ledernes perspektiv på deres involvering i denne proces. Interventionsudviklingen var del af et forsknings-praksissamarbejde mellem kommunen og forskere på Aalborg Universitet og tog afsæt i det britiske medicinske forskningsråds (the Medical Research Council) anbefalinger, som bla. har fokus på involvering af interessenter. Forskernes rolle var at bidrage til at interventionen blev baseret på relevante teorier og den seneste forskning samt at bidrage til udarbejdelse af en programteori, mens de kommunale ledere og forskellige fagprofessionelle indenfor skoleområdet, sundhedsplejen, fritidstilbud og tandpleje bidrog med indsigt i organisatoriske forhold og politiske prioriteringer samt fagindsigt. Der blev udviklet to relaterede interventioner, en stilet mod forældre til børn i 7. klassetrin og en stilet mod at styrke medarbejderes viden og mentale sundhedskompetencer ift. at fremme mental sundhed i skolen. Den efterfølgende evaluering vil vise hvorvidt indsatsen skal revideres før videre implementering.This article describes the leader’s perspective on a practice-research project aiming to promote young people’s mental health in a Danish municipality. In this article we present how promoting interventions were developed and explore leader’s perspective on their involvement and the co-production of these interventions. The project took place as a research-practice collaboration between a municipality in the Northern part of Denmark and Aalborg University. The researcher’s role was to contribute to knowledge in developing health promoting interventions based on current research and support the formulation of a program theory for interventions. The co-production process was inspired by the Medical Research Councils framework using the core element involving key stakeholders. The leaders together with relevant professionals took part in co-production of two interventions: one targeting competence development of parents to children in 7th grade and one targeting coworkers at the municipal schools and professionals employed at children’s health, teeth and leisure facilities. The following evaluation will show us if the intervention needs further revision before implementation.Denne artikel beskriver hvordan en intervention til fremme af mental sundhed hos unge i 7-9 klasse i en dansk kommune blev udviklet igennem en samskabende proces samt undersøger forskellige kommunale ledernes perspektiv på deres involvering i denne proces. Interventionsudviklingen var del af et forsknings-praksissamarbejde mellem kommunen og forskere på Aalborg Universitet og tog afsæt i det britiske medicinske forskningsråds (the Medical Research Council) anbefalinger, som bla. har fokus på involvering af interessenter. Forskernes rolle var at bidrage til at interventionen blev baseret på relevante teorier og den seneste forskning samt at bidrage til udarbejdelse af en programteori, mens de kommunale ledere og forskellige fagprofessionelle indenfor skoleområdet, sundhedsplejen, fritidstilbud og tandpleje bidrog med indsigt i organisatoriske forhold og politiske prioriteringer samt fagindsigt. Der blev udviklet to relaterede interventioner, en stilet mod forældre til børn i 7. klassetrin og en stilet mod at styrke medarbejderes viden og mentale sundhedskompetencer ift. at fremme mental sundhed i skolen. Den efterfølgende evaluering vil vise hvorvidt indsatsen skal revideres før videre implementering
How Open is Research Data in the Engineering and Natural Sciences? A Norwegian Case Study Using Data Availability Statements
No full textPolicies that mandate the sharing of research data connected to academic publications have been in effect for the past years across research fields. Several funding agencies, research-performing organizations, and publishers now require that the data supporting an academic article are made available to the highest possible extent. Following this development, most journals ask that authors include a statement describing the availability of the data used in their study. However, there is limited information on the extent to which the data used in articles within the Engineering and Natural Sciences are actually made available, and how.
This paper addresses this gap in our knowledge by analyzing the data availability statements from a sample of relevant articles, with at least one Norwegian institution contributing to the article. Our focus on Engineering and Natural Sciences is due to the critical importance of these fields in helping solve the complex problems of today’s society, for example how to achieve successful transitions to sustainable practices across industries. The focus on articles with at least one contributing institution from Norway is due to the country’s increasing contribution to publications in this area.
We are also interested in exploring the differences across subfields within the Engineering and Natural Sciences with respect to research data sharing (e.g. Biosciences and ICT), following the classification provided by the Norwegian Publication Indicator.
To examine these issues, we use a sample of 600 academic articles published in 2024, obtained from the Scopus database. In the sample, we kept the distribution of articles per subfield similar to that of the population (N=10.770 articles), which is the number of articles published in 2024 in the Engineering and Natural Sciences with at least one Norwegian institution contributing to the study. We evaluate that our sample is a good representation of this population.
We managed to retain a sufficient number of articles per subfield, except for the subfield “Electrical Engineering” which corresponded to a small percentage of the total number of articles. Thus, we combined this subfield with “Energy”. This was appropriate because these two fields have an overlap in terms of research focus (e.g. power systems and grids). Then, we selected ten journals from each subfield from which we randomly selected the needed number of articles, observing the distribution of articles per subfield.
The next step is to analyze the data availability statements of the articles in our sample (mode of data sharing and degree of data openness), and to record the metadata provided by Scopus in our analysis table (e.g. title and abstract). Then, we will analyze whether the degree of data openness differs across subfields in the Engineering and Natural Sciences. We expect to find systematic differences across these subfields and that domain-specific traditions have an important role in this regard
Transparency in epidemiological analyses of cohort data: A case study of the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child cohort study (MoBa)
No full textEpidemiological research is central to our understanding of health and disease. Secondary analysis of cohort data is an important tool in epidemiological research, but is vulnerable to practices that can reduce the validity and robustness of results. As such, implementing measures to increase the transparency and reproducibility of secondary data analysis is paramount to ensuring the robustness and usefulness of findings. The adoption of such practices has not yet been systematically assessed.
Using the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort study (MoBa; Magnus et al., 2006, 2016) as a case study, we assessed the prevalence of the following reproducible practices in publications between 2007-2023: preregistering secondary analyses, sharing of synthetic data, additional materials, and analysis scripts, conducting robustness checks, directly replicating previously published studies, declaring conflicts of interest and publishing publicly available versions of the paper.
Preregistering secondary data analysis was only found in 0.4% of 733 eligible articles. No articles used synthetic data sets. Sharing practices of additional data (2.3%), additional materials (3.4%) and analysis scripts (4.2%) were rare. Several practices, including data and analysis sharing, preregistration and robustness checks became more frequent over time. Based on these assessments, we present a practical example for how researchers might improve transparency and reproducibility of their research.
The present assessment demonstrates that some reproducible practices are more common than others, with some practices being virtually absent. In line with a broader shift towards open science, we observed an increasing use of reproducible research practices in recent years. Nonetheless, the large amount of analytical flexibility offered by cohorts such as MoBa places additional responsibility on researchers to adopt such practices with urgency, to both ensure the robustness of their findings and earn the confidence of those using them. A particular focus in future efforts should be put on practices that help mitigating bias due to researcher degrees of freedom – namely, preregistration, transparent sharing of analysis scripts, and robustness checks. We demonstrate by example that challenges in implementing reproducible research practices in analysis of secondary cohort data - even including those associated with data sharing - can be meaningfully overcome
From academia to the grassroots – open access, knowledge sharing and politics in Pacific Islands agriculture
No full text(Watch the RECORDING.)
This paper will take you through a story of how decades-long obstacles were overcome to create a knowledge sharing platform, one that meets all expectations and thus could be considered a success. And yet whilst the story does demonstrate success, it also harbours the possibility of failure. There are lessons to be shared.
This story is about an open agricultural knowledge sharing platform in the Pacific Islands, designed to serve the interests of the real grassroots – the farmers, foresters and fishers – as well as policy makers, planners, researchers, technical advisors and community workers.
As a case study, the development and operationalisation of the Pacific Agricultural Information System (PAIS) exemplifies the role of agency, one that helps bridge the gap between a particular situation, and the technology, services, skills, processes and procedures that could contribute to a solution. PAIS was built as an idea from the late 1980s that came out of discussions on the one hand among librarians and libraries, and on the other among soil scientists to address the needs of information access that would underpin research, as well as communicate research results more widely.
The choice of applications, the procedures developed, the training provided, the strategies to acquire and document content, the metadata deployed – all this led to the successful realisation of a discovery and sharing platform fit for purpose.
However, sustainability has not been assured. This is despite declarations of the value and importance of PAIS to the region, and even allocation of some funds to pay for platform hosting going forward. What has not happened is the wholesale buy-in by the management of university departments, research institutes and ministries of agriculture. Commitments were given, but not backed up by policy changes, fund allocations, strategic investments, and staff availability and training. The attitudes and actions of funding bodies in the region have not been helpful. Thus the lesson learned is that without political will, good ideas and strong motivation will wither on the vine
Making diamond OA journals visible: How CRAFT-OA empowers open infrastructure
No full text(Watch the RECORDING.)
Diamond Open Access journals are a vital part of scholarly communication but they often lack the technical capacity to meet visibility standards set by major aggregators, indexes, and funders. With limited staff and budgets, many editorial teams face systemic barriers to interoperability, discoverability, and compliance with open science policies. The EU-funded CRAFT-OA project aims to address this by strengthening the most widely used open-source journal software in the Diamond ecosystem: Open Journal Systems (OJS).
Our team at Masaryk University Press contributes to CRAFT-OA as both developers and end users—drawing on over a decade of experience running the MUNI Journals platform (https://journals.muni.cz/), which now supports 48 Diamond OA journals across disciplines and offers full editorial support, integration with global databases, stable hosting, and custom development. This practical environment has proven invaluable for testing new tools and co-designing improvements with real-world users. We are now helping develop and pilot the following OJS innovations within CRAFT-OA: OJS Core Enhancements (GDPR compliance features; Multilingual metadata improvements; Metadata quality tools) and OJS Diamond Plugins (OpenAIRE Graph Connector; EOSC Interoperability Toolkit; OpenAIRE Broker Plugin; Discoverability Companion plugin; JATS/TEI Interoperability plugins).
All tools are developed according to FAIR principles, aiming to make Diamond journals not only free to read and publish in, but also visible, reusable, and robustly networked in the open science ecosystem. Our role ensures these developments are both technically sound and practical for real editors, based on continuous feedback from the MUNI Journals community. By aligning open infrastructure with the daily realities of under-resourced journals, we aim to repair a critical gap: the technical invisibility of high-quality, community-led scholarly publishing. The result is a more equitable, sustainable, and interconnected research infrastructure—one that recognizes the full value of Diamond OA
Title pages and extracts from French dictionaries printed in the first half of the eighteenth century
No full textThe following dictionaries are included:
Antoine Furetière’s Dictionnaire universel edited by Henri Basnage de Beauval’s (1701), title page and pages with description of the Aurore, taken from the Gallica database of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Antoine Furetière’s Dictionnaire universel edited by Jean-Baptiste Brutel de la Rivière (1727), title page and page with description of the Aurore, taken from the Gallica database.
The “Dictionnaire de Trévoux” edited by a group of Jesuits (editions from 1704, 1721, 1732, 1743), title pages and descriptions of the Aurore, taken from the Gallica database.
The Dictionnaire de l’Académie françoise (third edition, 1740), title page and description of the Aurore Boréale, taken from the Gallica database.
For an explanation of the context, see the introductory essay by Muriel Brot and Per Pippin Aspaas
Solving the “file drawer problem”: How researchers, institutions, publishers and funders can reduce publication bias
No full textIn 1979, psychologist Robert Rosenthal proposed that “journals are filled with the 5% of the studies that show Type I errors, while the file drawers are filled with the 95% of the studies that show nonsignificant results” (1). Despite being identified 45 years ago, the “file drawer problem” persists today. Failure to publish null and negative results has inflated reported efficacy in social sciences as well as translational and clinical medicine. This, in turn, leads to misleading or exaggerated effect sizes in meta-analyses, as well as a risk that future studies will be underpowered or based on irrelevant or insignificant findings.
Why are researchers relegating their null and negative results to the file drawer? Investigators might be reluctant to submit work they think has a higher chance of being rejected. There is evidence from clinical medicine that reviewers are indeed more critical of manuscripts that report null results. Funding agencies and commercial interests can introduce bias into the types of research questions that are investigated and how these results are framed. Finally, the “publish or perish” culture endemic in academia has also been blamed for driving the preference for reporting positive or confirmatory results.
Given the risk that publication bias poses to the advancement of knowledge, as well as the entrenched behaviours that drive it, what roles and responsibilities do researchers, institutions, funders and publishers have in addressing this problem? This workshop will bring experts from these fields together with participants to develop actionable recommendations for improving the dissemination of null and negative results and reducing publication bias.
It aims to raise awareness of the persistent “file drawer problem” and its impact on scientific advancement, while exploring the roles and responsibilities of researchers, institutions, funders and publishers in addressing publication bias.
Workshop structure:
The workshop will begin with short presentations from various stakeholders—researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers—on their perspectives and initiatives addressing publication bias against null and negative results. Participants will then engage in role-playing exercises, collaborative strategy development, and group presentations, culminating in a synthesis session to identify shared challenges. The workshop will conclude with a focus on actionable next steps that participants can implement in their professional contexts.
Target Audience:
This workshop is designed for anyone committed to improving the dissemination of null and negative results. We hope that attendees from the stakeholder groups mentioned above will participate
How journal submission and hosting systems influence the level of open metadata in Crossref
No full text(Watch the RECORDING.)
The importance of open research information, including publication metadata, is widely recognised. Crossref is an important infrastructure for registering open metadata as part of DOI registration. However, the metadata of many publications in Crossref is far from complete, with many publishers making certain metadata elements openly available, but failing to do so for other metadata elements.
Publishers\u27 ability to register this metadata with Crossref depends on their capacity to capture and retain this data in their production workflows. Submission systems seem to be an important, yet largely overlooked, factor in the extent to which publishers make metadata available through Crossref.
In this presentation, we present the results of a large-scale analysis investigating the correlation between the level of metadata that publishers deposit with Crossref and the submission and hosting systems that they deploy for their journals.
We look at the 150 publishers with the largest amounts of publications in Crossref in recent years, and concentrate on commonly used systems, including Editorial Manager, ScholarOne, Open Journal Systems (OJS), and eJournalPress. Information on submission and hosting systems is validated through a survey sent out to the 150 publishers in scope of this analysis.
We will show that some submission systems appear better suited to capturing certain metadata elements. However, there are always cases where publishers using the same system differ widely in the level of metadata they register, suggesting that technology is not the only prohibiting factor, but that other considerations, probably commercial, are at play