1,720,961 research outputs found
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
Euroopa Liit ja inimõigused
Get PDF5.1. Inimõiguste kaitse Euroopa Liidus - mitte nii sirgjooneline ajalugu
5.2. Inimõigused Euroopa Liidus tänapäeval
5.3. Euroopa Liidu inimõiguspraktika peamisi probleemkoht
Mutual Trust and Rule of Law in the EU – An Uneasy Relationship
No full textThis paper discusses the precarious relationship between the principles of mutual trust and therule of law in the EU. It illustrates a tense interaction between the two as, although the principle ofmutual trust has become a tool to tackle rule-of-law failures in Member States, it long before that also created serious rule-of-law problems in the EU itself. However, it has not always possessed the effect and potential to enforce the rule of law and Article 2 TEU values in the Member States. The paper first shows the case-law developments necessary for the instrumentalisation of mutual trust for ruleof-law purposes. It then asks the question whether a lawfulness presumption is at all an adequate principle from a rule-of-law perspective, as such a presumption frustrates effective judicial controls claimed to be of the essence of the rule of law in the EU. As the case-law examples show, mutual-trust presumptions have already had severe rule-of-law ramifications in recent years by allowing, upholding and extra-territorialising alleged manifest errors and non-compliances in practice. Besides the more well-known sensitive areas of fundamental rights pertaining to asylum and criminal law, the paper showcases the more overlooked area of civil-justice case-law. The case-law analysed suggests that it is doubtful whether a lawfulness presumption is an adequate judicial principle from a rule-oflaw standpoint – if compliance presumptions are not receptive to actual facts on the ground for overruling the presumption, they also bring about serious rule-of-law and legality issues. Thus, although it facilitates inter-State co-operation, the effectiveness of EU law and everyday judicial practice, the newly acquired instrumental usage of mutual trust as a vehicle for enforcing Article 2 TEU values andthe rule of law in Member States might be questionable and susceptible to criticism
The principle of mutual trust in EU law : what is in a name?
Get PDFDefence date: 26 February 2021Examining Board: Professor Urška Šadl (European University Institute); Professor Bruno De Witte (European University Institute); Professor Anneli Albi (University of Kent); Michal Bobek (Court of Justice of the European Union)This thesis examines the principle of mutual trust in European Union (EU) law – a nascent legal principle gradually trying to find its place in the EU legal and structural architecture and perhaps even in its constitutional hierarchy. In addition to exploring the principle from a doctrinal standpoint, the work investigates whether the way in which mutual trust has come to function in the Union legal order has the potential to foster actual trust in the EU, and between actors and subjects in the EU legal order. In order to do so, it draws on trust theories proposed by a wide range of social scientists. The doctrinal level of the thesis tracks the historical development and transformation of mutual trust and compartmentalises case law into four distinct jurisprudential generations, each with its specific set of characteristics, terminology, and functions. It does so in a broad manner, touching upon specific policy issues but not constrained by them. In this way, the thesis demonstrates how a principle first deployed in the internal market domain, aiming to encourage Member States to recognise each other’s product inspections not to second guess or duplicate them, became a broad Article 2 value adherence presumption that Member States would live up to ideals such as democracy, rule of law, freedom, and equality, respect for human dignity and human rights. The thesis finds that the prevailing conception of mutual trust as a broad EU law and fundamental rights compliance presumption fails to satisfy even the objective parameters of trust as a concept, meaning that the contexts in which mutual trust is raised are usually not situations which would require an attitude of trust but rather compliance, legality, accountability, and judicial control. The way in which mutual trust has come to operate in the EU is more akin to an undemocratic institutionalisation of trust than the institutionalisation of mistrust the latter being more typical of free and democratic societies. In addition to its critique of the current functioning and understanding of the principle of mutual trust, the thesis offers novel insights toward rethinking and reconstructing the principle in order to better achieve its aspirations.-- Part 1. Introduction and methodology -- Part. 2 Starting with trust – the theoretical framing -- Part 3. Transformation of mutual trust : the making of a principle -- Part 4. But what about trust? – trust in mutual trust -- Part 5. Conclusions -- Part 6. Bibliograph
Mutual Trust and Rule of Law in the EU – An Uneasy Relationship
Get PDFIl presente contributo analizza il rapporto precario tra i principi di fiducia reciproca e stato di diritto nell’Unione Europea. Il quadro che ne emerge è di tensione, in quanto, sebbene il principio di fiducia reciproca si sia affermato come strumento per controbilanciare i coni d’ombra dello stato di diritto negli stati membri, già da tempo aveva rappresentato elemento di interferenza per lo stato di diritto di matrice comunitaria. Inoltre, non sempre ha avuto l’effetto, neanche in potenza, di far rispettare lo stato di diritto e i valori dell’articolo 2 TUE all’interno degli stati membri. Il contributo ripercorre gli sviluppi giurisprudenziali che hanno reso il principio di fiducia reciproca strumentale ai fini dello stato di diritto e si interroga circa l’adeguatezza della presunzione di legittimità nell’ottica dello stato di diritto. Tale presunzione, infatti, vanifica l’efficacia dello scrutinio giurisprudenziale, considerata l’essenza dello stato di diritto di matrice giurisprudenziale. Come dimostrato dalla giurisprudenza, le presunzioni di fiducia reciproca hanno già prodotto negli ultimi anni gravi ramificazioni relative allo stato di diritto per aver consentito, sostenuto ed extra-territorializzato presunti errori manifesti e non-conformità nella prassi. In aggiunta alle più note aree “sensibili” dei diritti fondamentali, relative al diritto d’asilo e alla materia penale, il contributo esamina la più trascura- ta materia civile e relativa giurisprudenza. La giurisprudenza analizzata sembra andare nel senso di dubitare dell’adeguatezza della presunzione di legittimità come principio dello stato di diritto: ove le presunzioni di conformità non siano rapportate alle circostanze di fatto che ne giustificherebbero il superamento, emergono seri dubbi circa il rispetto dello stato di diritto e del principio di legalità. Pertanto, sebbene il recente uso strumentale del principio di fiducia reciproca per garantire il rispetto dell’articolo 2 TUE e dello stato di diritto negli stati membri sia volto a facilitare la cooperazione tra gli stessi, nonché l’efficacia del diritto dell’Unione e della prassi giurisprudenziale, non va esente da critiche.This paper discusses the precarious relationship between the principles of mutual trust and the rule of law in the EU. It illustrates a tense interaction between the two as, although the principle of mutual trust has become a tool to tackle rule-of-law failures in Member States, it long before that also created serious rule-of-law problems in the EU itself. However, it has not always possessed the effect and potential to enforce the rule of law and Article 2 TEU values in the Member States. The paper first shows the case-law developments necessary for the instrumentalisation of mutual trust for rule- of-law purposes. It then asks the question whether a lawfulness presumption is at all an adequate principle from a rule-of-law perspective, as such a presumption frustrates effective judicial controls claimed to be of the essence of the rule of law in the EU. As the case-law examples show, mutual-trust presumptions have already had severe rule-of-law ramifications in recent years by allowing, uphold- ing and extra-territorialising alleged manifest errors and non-compliances in practice. Besides the more well-known sensitive areas of fundamental rights pertaining to asylum and criminal law, the paper showcases the more overlooked area of civil-justice case-law. The case-law analysed suggests that it is doubtful whether a lawfulness presumption is an adequate judicial principle from a rule-of- law standpoint – if compliance presumptions are not receptive to actual facts on the ground for overruling the presumption, they also bring about serious rule-of-law and legality issues. Thus, although it facilitates inter-State co-operation, the effectiveness of EU law and everyday judicial practice, the newly acquired instrumental usage of mutual trust as a vehicle for enforcing Article 2 TEU values and the rule of law in Member States might be questionable and susceptible to criticism.
- …
