1,721,008 research outputs found

    Bell (Adrian R.), Brooks (Chris) & Dryburgh (Paul R.). The English Wool Market, c. 1230-1327, 2007

    No full text
    Kusman David. Bell (Adrian R.), Brooks (Chris) & Dryburgh (Paul R.). The English Wool Market, c. 1230-1327, 2007. In: Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, tome 91, fasc. 2, 2013. Histoire médiévale, moderne et contemporaine Middeleeuwse, moderne en hedendaagse geschiedenis. pp. 532-533

    Bell (Adrian R.), Brooks (Chris) & Dryburgh (Paul R.). The English Wool Market, c. 1230-1327, 2007

    No full text
    Kusman David. Bell (Adrian R.), Brooks (Chris) & Dryburgh (Paul R.). The English Wool Market, c. 1230-1327, 2007. In: Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, tome 91, fasc. 2, 2013. Histoire médiévale, moderne et contemporaine Middeleeuwse, moderne en hedendaagse geschiedenis. pp. 532-533

    Waging war in the fourteenth century

    No full text
    The papers in this special issue exemplify how, through the study of sources beyond the chronicles which have tended to dominate historical writing about fourteenth-century military history in western Europe, we can advance our knowledge on how war was waged by the English - and on some occasions by their enemies too

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The 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
    corecore