1,720,965 research outputs found
BigDataGrapes D8.2 - Experimental Protocols and Evaluation Methodology
No full textThe deliverable D8.2, “Experimental Protocols and Evaluation Methodology”, aims to define the experimental protocols and specify the evaluation methodologies that will be activated for each measurement during the execution of the application pilots. A report describing the experiments to be conducted and their parameters, along with the methodology for assessing the results of the experiments in accordance with the piloting plan. In conjunction with the activities of D8.1 “Piloting Plan”, the objective of this deliverable is to provide, in the first part, the experimental protocols to all the pilots, which will constitute instantiations of the use cases already been identified in WP2, and their evaluation methodologies.
Deliverable D8.2, “Experimental Protocols and Evaluation Methodology”, is based on the individual experimental protocols and evaluation methodologies of the following pilots: Table and Wine Grapes Pilot (AUA), Wine Making Pilot (INRA), Farm Management Pilot (ABACO & Geocledian), Natural Cosmetics Pilot (SYMBEEOSIS) and Food Protection Pilot (AGROKNOW). This document reports a detailed overview of the individual experimental protocols and evaluation methodologies for each of the five pilots. Information was directly provided by the pilot leaders to ensure the specificity of the guidelines, the smooth progress and evaluation of the measurements to be conducted.
This deliverable is to be periodically updated to take account of additional protocols and methodologies, measurements and data adopted during the project’s lifetime. This is the 2 nd version of the deliverable D8.2
BigDataGrapes D8.5 - Evaluation Report and KPI Assessment
No full textThe deliverable D8.5, “Evaluation Report and KPI Assessment”, aims to provide a report on the results of the application piloting sessions, in line with the defined experimental protocols and in accordance with the evaluation methodology. Based on the experimental and evaluation protocols defined in the context of T8.2, pilot partners monitor the execution of the application pilots and evaluate their results qualitatively and quantitatively against the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) defined by the relevant protocols. The objective of this deliverable is to provide, in the first part, an overview and a first evaluation regarding each of the five pilots’ progress, stating and explaining the current status of development, the successfulness of implementation and the achieved performance of the BigDataGrapes Pilots. This is the updated and final version of this deliverable, including the evaluation of the pilots.
Deliverable D8.5, “Evaluation Report and KPI Assessment”, is based on the individual Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluations of the following pilots: Table and Wine Grapes Pilot (AUA), Wine Making Pilot (INRAE), Farm Management Pilot (ABACO & Geocledian), Natural Cosmetics Pilot (Symbeeosis) and Food Protection Pilot (Agroknow). This document reports an overview of the application piloting sessions’ results, both qualitatively and quantitatively against the defined KPIs, for each of the five pilots. Information was directly provided by the pilot leaders to ensure the specificity of the guidelines and the smooth progress and evaluation of all piloting sessions.
The document is structured as follows: Chapter 1 serves as an introduction to the deliverable whereas Chapter 2 provides an overview of the five pilots’ Qualitative and Quantitative evaluation. Each of the pilots’ Qualitative Evaluation Summary is divided in five sections: the pilot’s evaluation summary, plan progress, status of implementation, impact and potential pilot modification or required plans for improvement. For the Quantitative evaluation a KPIs list along with baseline values have been defined, including the Domain Specific KPIs only for those pilots that this applies and the Technological KPIs for all pilots. This part of the deliverable provides tangible results. Chapter 3 presents the structure of the BigDataGrapes Survey, the planning of the questionnaire, which was distributed to the end-users between the Intermediate and Summative phases (M30 - M34). Finally, the last chapter of the deliverable consists of the overall conclusions regarding the evaluation of the pilots, including discussion and suggestions that could improve their impact
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe 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
BigDataGrapes D8.1 - Piloting Plan
No full textThe deliverable D8.1, “Piloting Plan”, aims to give a general scope of the activities that will be undertaken during the project lifetime under the pilots, a report documenting the plan for the development and execution of the pilots and the methodology and materials for the pilot trials. The objective of this deliverable is to provide, in the first part, generic guidelines to all the pilots that will constitute instantiations of the use cases that have already been identified in WP2. Updated versions of this deliverable, including refined piloting plans, are due to M15 and M24 of the project lifetime. Deliverable D8.1, “Piloting Plan”, is based on the individual plans of the following pilots: Table Grapes Pilot (AUA), Wine Making Pilot (INRA), Farm Management Pilot (ABACO & Geocledian), and Natural Cosmetics Pilot (APIGEA). This document reports tailored guidelines and concludes with a detailed overview of the planning for each of the four pilots. Information was directly provided by the pilot leaders to ensure the specificity of the guidelines and the smooth progress of the operations. The document is structured as follows. Chapter 1 serves as an introduction to the deliverable whereas Chapter 2 provides an overview of the four piloting plans containing important information regarding them, in order to describe the importance of these pilot trials and the methodology and materials that will be used. Each of these pilot plans is separated in four sections: the introduction and its specific goals, the technical guidelines and methodology to be used, the measurements to be performed and the envisaged outcomes. The introduction describes the importance of the pilot trials proposed and contains information to clearly identify why the pilot is being conducted and what the pilot is intended to accomplish, along with any assumptions being made. In the technical guidelines section, the site description where the pilot trials will take place, the equipment and methods used, along with a detailed description of all resources necessary to fully conduct the pilot, and the expected timeline are included. Finally, the envisaged outcomes part constitutes a description of how the collected data and datasets will be used to operate in favour of the BigDataGrapes project. Chapter 3 illustrates the connection of the pilots to the use cases identified in WP2 and Chapter 4 contains the conclusions regarding the pilot planning
Variations on the Author
Full text link“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
Full text linkWe 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
Full text linkWe 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
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
- …
