1,721,794 research outputs found
Proof and Trust in the OpenAGRIS Implementation
Get PDFThe AGRIS repository is a bibliographic database covering almost forty years of agricultural
research. Following the conversion of its indexing thesaurus AGROVOC into a concept-based
vocabulary, the decision was made to express the entire AGRIS repository in RDF as Linked
Open Data. As part of this exercise, a semantic mashup named OpenAGRIS was developed in
order to access the records and use them to dynamically display related data from external
systems through both SPARQL queries and traditional web services. The overall process raised
numerous issues regarding the relative lack of administrative metadata required to compellingly
address the top proof and trust layers of the semantic web stack, both within the AGRIS
repository and in external data dynamically pulled into OpenAGRIS. The team began by
disambiguating the journals in which the articles were published and converting them into RDF
but quickly realized this was only the beginning of a series of necessary steps in moving from a
closed to an open world paradigm. Further disambiguation of institutions, authors and AGRIS
Centres as well as the use of the VoiD vocabulary and of quality indicator models are discussed
and evaluated
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
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
HaSpeeDe3 at EVALITA 2023: Overview of the Political and Religious Hate Speech Detection task
Full text linkThe Hate Speech Detection (HaSpeeDe3) task is the third edition of a shared task on the detection of hateful content in Italian tweets. It differs from the previous editions while maintaining continuity in analysing and contrasting hate speech (HS) on social media. While HaSpeeDe and HaSpeeDe2 were focused on HS against immigrants, Muslims and Roms, HaSpeeDe3 explores hate speech in strong polarised debates, concerning in particular politics and religion. It is articulated in two different tasks: A) In-domain political hate speech detection and B) Cross-domain hate speech detection about political and religious tweets. Task A consists in two different subtasks for which participants i) can only use the provided textual content of the tweet, or ii) can additionally employ contextual information about the tweet and its author. In Task B, that consists in two subtasks, participants are allowed to use any kind of external data for detecting hate speech in tweets about i) politics and ii) religion. Six teams from both academia and industry participated in the evaluation, with a total of 13 submitted runs for Task A and 16 for Task B
- …
