1,721,071 research outputs found
Weizenbaum Panel: Politische Partizipation in Deutschland 2019–2023, WP1-19–WP5-23 [Public Use File, Version 1.0]
No full textDieser Datensatz enthält die kumulierten Befragungsdaten der Wellen 1–5 des Weizenbaum Panels zur öffentlichen Nachnutzung (Public Use). Das Weizenbaum Panel ist eine jährlich durchgeführte Telefonbefragung der deutschsprachigen Bevölkerung in Deutschland ab 16 Jahren zu den Themen Mediennutzung, politische Einstellungen und politische Partizipation. Der Datensatz umfasst 5.039 Fälle und 636 Variablen. Aus Gründen der Anonymisierung wurden ausgewählte Variablen in diesem Datensatz aggregiert oder gelöscht.
Der vollständige Datensatz zur wissenschaftlichen Nachnutzung (Scientific Use) kann auf Anfrage von den Datengeber:innen bereitgestellt werden. Bitte wenden Sie sich dazu an: [email protected].
Alle **Fragebögen** und **Methodenberichte** zu diesem Datensatz sowie eine **Variablenübersicht** und eine Errata-Liste finden Sie unter: https://www.weizenbaum-library.de/handle/id/35
---
##### Rollen
- – Erhebungsinstitute: Freie Universität Berlin / Weizenbaum-Institut; Institut für Umfragen, Analysen und DataScience GmbH (UADS)
- – Kontaktperson: Emmer, Martin
- – Projekleitung: Emmer, Martin (2019–)
- – Projektmanagement: Strippel, Christian (2021–); Porten-Cheé, Pablo (2019–2021)
- – Projektmitarbeit: Heger, Katharina (2021–); Jokerst, Sofie (2023); Leißner, Laura (2019–2022); Schätz, Nadja (2019–2020); Strippel, Christian (2019–2020)
- – Datenkuratierung: Heger, Katharina (2021–)
- – Forschungsgruppe: Weizenbaum Panel (2022–); Digital Citizenship (2019–2022)Das Weizenbaum Panel wird gefördert durch das BMBF – Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
Sharing is caring: Addressing shared issues and challenges in hate speech research
Full text linkThis book is the result of a conference that could not take place. It is a collection of 26 texts that address and discuss the latest developments in international hate speech research from a wide range of disciplinary perspectives. This includes case studies from Brazil, Lebanon, Poland, Nigeria, and India, theoretical introductions to the concepts of hate speech, dangerous speech, incivility, toxicity, extreme speech, and dark participation, as well as reflections on methodological challenges such as scraping, annotation, datafication, implicity, explainability, and machine learning. As such, it provides a much-needed forum for cross-national and cross-disciplinary conversations in what is currently a very vibrant field of research
Hate and harm
Full text linkFrom a psychological point of view, hate speech can be conceptualized as harmful intergroup communication. In contrast to other forms of incivility, hate speech is directed toward individuals because of their (perceived) social identity. This explains why the harm of hate speech can extend to entire social groups and societies. Hate speech therefore cannot be separated from pre-existing power structures and resource inequalities, as its harm is particularly severe when coping resources are already deprived. Psychological research on the perpetrators of hate speech links hate speech to a lack of empathy and the acceptance of, or even desire for social inequalities. In summary, hate speech jars the norms of democratic discourses by denying fellow humans basic respect and violating the democratic minimal consent of human equality. Overall, the chapter demonstrates the usefulness of a (social) psychological perspective on the harms of hate speech for both researchers and practitioner
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
- …
