1,720,956 research outputs found
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
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
Eksistensi Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Setelah Perubahan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara RI Tahun 1945 Dalam rangka Penataan Tertib Peraturan Perundang-Undangan di Indonesia
No full textThe amendment of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD NRI 1945) has resulted in fundamental changes to Indonesia’s constitutional system compared to the pre-amendment period. One of the most significant changes is the transformation of the state\u27s organizational structure from a distribution of power model—where the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) functioned as the embodiment of popular sovereignty—toward a separation of powers model based on the principle of checks and balances. This shift is particularly evident in the provisions of Article 1(2) in conjunction with Article 3 of the 1945 Constitution. The redefinition of the MPR’s position, functions, duties, and authorities has legal implications for the status and hierarchy of MPR decrees (TAP MPR) within the national legal system. The reinstatement of certain TAP MPR following the constitutional amendments was formalized through Article I of the Supplementary Provisions of the 1945 Constitution and later reaffirmed in TAP MPR No. I/MPR/2003 concerning the Existence of TAP MPR: Review of the Material and Legal Status of Decrees of the Provisional People\u27s Consultative Assembly and the People\u27s Consultative Assembly from 1960 to 2002. From a positive legal perspective, the existence of TAP MPR is officially recognized as a category of legislation and incorporated into the legal hierarchy. However, from a legislative science perspective, the legal norm established in Article I of the Supplementary Provisions of the 1945 Constitution is problematic and unconstitutional, as it contradicts the 1945 Constitution itself. This issue has broader implications for the validity of TAP MPR as part of the national legal framework and necessitates a systematic approach to ensuring a more coherent and orderly legislative system in the future. This study seeks to address the following research questions: Is the existence of TAP MPR, as currently in effect, constitutionally valid?
What legal measures should be taken regarding the continued validity of TAP MPR in the effort to establish a coherent legislative system in Indonesia?
This research adopts a normative legal approach utilizing doctrinal normology, with historical and juridical-analytical methodologies. The data used in this study consist of secondary data sources, including primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials. The key findings of this study are as follows: The Legal Status of TAP MPR: From a juridical perspective, the existence of TAP MPR/MPRS is based on Article I of the Supplementary Provisions of the 1945 Constitution. However, from a legislative science perspective, the formulation of this legal norm is unconstitutional, as it contradicts Article 1(2) in conjunction with Article 3 of the 1945 Constitution. Given that the legal basis for recognizing TAP MPR is unconstitutional, its regulation in lower-ranking legislation—namely, TAP MPR No. I/MPR/2003 and Law No. 12 of 2011—is also unconstitutional by extension (mutatis mutandis). The unconstitutional nature of Article I of the Supplementary Provisions has, in effect, allowed the MPR to engage in legal maneuvering, resulting in the issuance of TAP MPR No. I/MPR/2003. Consequently, TAP MPR No. I/MPR/2003 itself must also be deemed unconstitutional. Furthermore, the existence of TAP MPR as a component of positive law has been formalized in Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Formation of Laws and Regulations, which recognizes TAP MPR as a category of legislation and includes it within the legal hierarchy. However, the juridical recognition of TAP MPR within this law is also unconstitutional, as it is derived from an unconstitutional legal foundation. Legal Measures for Legislative Reform in Indonesia: First, the MPR should amend the 1945 Constitution by removing Article I of the Supplementary Provisions to eliminate the unconstitutional basis for TAP MPR. Second, the MPR should conduct a legislative review of TAP MPR No. I/MPR/2003 by issuing an MPR decision to revoke and declare it null and void. This can be further reinforced through legislative review and judicial review (i.e., a constitutional challenge) against Law No. 12 of 2011 to ensure its alignment with the constitutional framework. By implementing these legal measures, Indonesia can establish a more structured and constitutionally sound legislative system, ensuring consistency with the principles enshrined in the 1945 Constitution.Perubahan (amandemen) UUD NRI Tahun 1945 mengakibatkan terjadinya perubahan yang sangat fundamental terhadap sistem ketatanegaraan Indonesia bila dibandingkan dengan sebelum perubahan dilakukan. Salah satunya adalah perubahan desain organisasi negara dari konsep distribusi kekuasaan (distribution of power) oleh MPR sebagai penjelmaan kedaulatan rakyat ke arah konsep pemisahan kekuasaan (separation of power) dengan prinsip checks and balances. Hal ini antara lain terlihat dari ketentuan Pasal 1 ayat (2) jo. Pasal 3 UUD NRI Tahun 1945. Berubahnya posisi MPR dalam hal kedudukan,fungsi, tugas dan wewenangnya membawa implikasi hukum terhadap status dan posisi Ketetapan MPR sebagaimana diatur dalam jenis dan hierarki peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku. Berlakunya kembali TAP MPR tertentu paska Perubahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 berdasarkan Pasal I Aturan Tambahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 yang kemudian ditegaskan kembali dalam TAP MPR No.I/MPR/2003 tentang Eksistensi TAP MPR Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Republik Indonesia Tentang Peninjauan Terhadap Materi dan Status Hukum Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Sementara dan Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Tahun 1960 Sampai Dengan Tahun 2002. Dalam perpektif hukum positif kemudian eksistensi TAP MPR diakui sebagai salah satu jenis dan ditempatkan dalam hierarki peraturan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku. Dalam perspektif ilmu perundang-undangan, maka rumusan norma hukum Pasal I Aturan Tambahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 diindikasikan cenderung bermasalah dan bertentangan dengan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 (inkonstitusional). Hal ini berimplikasi terhadap eksistensi TAP MPR yang diakomodir dalam peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku agar di masa depan tercipta tertib peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia. Rumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini adalah: Pertama, Apakah Eksistensi TAP MPR yang masih berlaku saat ini sah secara konstitusional?, IKedua, Bagaimana langkah hukum yang harus dilakukan terhadap TAP MPR yang masih berlaku dalam rangka penataan tertib peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia?. Penelitian ini termasuk penelitian hukum normatif menggunakan metode doktrinal normologi, dengan menggunakan pendekatan penelitian secara historis dan yuridis analitis. Adapun jenis data yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini berupa data sekunder yang terdiri atas Bahan hukum primer, bahan hukum sekunder dan bahan hukum tersier. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah: Pertama, Eksistensi TAP MPR/MPRS secara yuridis didasarkan pada Pasal I Aturan Tambahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945, namun dalam perpspektif ilmu perundang-undangan rumusan norma hukum Pasal I Aturan Tambahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 justru bertentangan secara konstitusi (inkonstitusional) dengan Pasal 1 ayat (2) jo. Pasal 3 UUD NRI Tahun 1945. Mengingat payung hukum diakuinya TAP MPR inkostitusional, maka pengaturan mengenai eksistensi dalam peraturan perundang-undangan dibawahnya dalam TAP MPR No.I/MPR/2003 jo. UU No.12 Tahun 2011 secara mutatis mutandis juga bertentangan dengan konstitusi (inkonstitusional). dalam jenis dan hierarki peraturan perundangan sebagaimana Rumusan norma hukum Pasal I Aturan Tambahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 yang inkonstitusional tersebut justru menjadi dasar dan digunakan oleh MPR untuk melakukan penyelundupan hukum sehingga dikeluarkanlah TAP MPR No.I/MPR/2003.Oleh karena itu TAP MPR No.I/MPR/2003 juga inskonstitusional. Eksistensi TAP MPR sebagai hukum positif kemudian diatur dalam UU No.12 Tahun 2011 tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan, pengakuan terhadap TAP MPR sebagai salah satu jenis peraturan perundang-undangan dan ditempatkan dalam hierarki peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku secara yuridis juga inkonstitusional. Kedua, Upaya hukum yang dilakukan untuk menata tertib peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia antara lain: Pertama, MPR melakukan Perubahan (amandemen) UUD NRI Tahun 1945 dengan cara menghapus Pasal I Aturan Tambahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945; Kedua, MPR melakukan “legislative Review” terhadap TAP MPR No.I/MPR.2003 dengan cara membuat Putusan MPR mencabut dan menyatakan tidak berlaku lagi serta melalui legislative review dan gugatan hak menguji peraturan perundang-undangan terhadap UU No. 12 Tahun 2011
Perundang-Undangan di Bidang Peternakan Era Reformasi Dalam Upaya Mencapai Tujuan Nasional
No full textThe Development of constitutional authority of constitutional court based on the decision
No full text- …
