1,720,953 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
Relations Between Voting Behavior and Talk Radio
No full textSince talk radio really started to explode in the late 1980's, many people have seen it as a necessary means of obtaining and digesting their political facts and ideas. People like Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Don Imus, and Jerry Falwell have cast their views over our airwaves. There even exists enough room for aging rockers like Ted Nugent to espouse their agendas to the public. Except for Don Imus, all of the aforementioned talk radio hosts throw a conservative slant to their shows and agendas. People who do not listen talk radio often have hard time understanding how there even could be an audience for some of these radio personalities. The question naturally arises, how much, if any, do these hosts of politically orientated talk radio have on the public at large? Are they viewed as entertainment, or do people take them as seriously as if they Jesus were speaking the word of the bible right there in front of them.Senior Political Science Thesis
Relations Between Voting
Behavior and Talk Radio
Alex Feyder
P099-Professor Chris Gilbert
May 14, 1999
"'t'"·
. Gustavus Student Repository
Citizens of the United States of America are guaranteed many rights under the
constitution. Unfortunately some of these rights are not applied equally to all citizens, for
example, some people are still persecuted for their religious beliefs even though this is a
supposedly 'protected right' by the constitution. People are able to receive occupations
because of the color or their skin, the way in which they speak or by some other specific
trait that does not possess the 'true' American style. But one of the great equalizers in the
United States is voting. As long as the participant is 18 years of age, people may exercise
their right to vote. Voting is what makes up much of the substance of this paper. The
following variables that appear are representations of national exit polls, condensed in the
program SYSTAT, that were done during the 1994 elections. All the variables, which
.... will all be defined and explained later, have been compared with talk radio. When people
listen to talk radio, people traditionally think of conservative persons on the air, since
they dominate the talk radio scene, so that is what will be considered in the paper.
Secondly the variables will be defined as they are encountered except for talk radio which
appears as the column variable in all the variables except for the final one union
membership, but that will be defined later. The variable talk radio is defined by the
t •
Gustavus Student Repository
following, the "0" means that the particular person being asked the questions in the
national exit polls does not listen to talk radio, and the variable "l" means that the person
does listen to talk radio.
Since talk radio really started to explode in the late 1980's, many people have
seen it as a necessary means of obtaining and digesting their political facts and ideas.
People like Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Don Imus, and Jerry Falwell have cast
their views over our airwaves. There even exists enough room for aging rockers like Ted
Nugent to espouse their agendas to the public. Except for Don Imus, all of the
aforementioned talk radio hosts throw a conservative slant to their shows and agendas.
People who do not listen talk radio often have hard time understanding how there even
could be an audience for some of these radio personalities. The question naturally arises,
{\'.,...."""""--". .
how much, if any, do these hosts of politically orientated talk radio have on the public at
large? Are they viewed as entertainment, or do people take them as seriously as if they
Jesus were speaking the word of the bible right there in front of them.
What then is the possibility of the influence of talk radio? From the evidence that
is provided from the variables it does show that there is substantial proof that talk radio
can influence the way in which people vote. Analysis of other variables compared with
talk radio shows the strong i111luence that talk radio is mainly a tool of the politically
conservative minded. This paper will show through the extensive investigation of all the
variables combined with talk radio that there is a strong correlation between talk radio
and how people think politically, and how it affects how people vote.
Column percents
SENATVOT (rows) by TALKRAD (columns)
(O=Do not listen) (l=listen to talk radio)
Gustavus Student Repository
0 1 Total N
+-----------------+
DEM 1149.106 36.544 I 47.769 3169
REP 2148.026 60.765 I 49.382 3276
+--------+
Total 100.000 100.000
N 5928 706
Test statistic
Pearson Chi-square
100.000
6634
Value
43.625
df
3.000
Prob
0.000
The first set of variables that will be examined is talk radio versus how people
voted for the senate in 1994 using the number "l" as a representation of democrat and the
number "2" as the representation for republican. Some interesting points arise after
analyzing this correlation. For example, of the people who listen to talk radio there is a
difference of 24% between people who voted for republican and people who voted for
democrat, with the republicans carrying 60.765% and the democrats receiving only
36.544% of the talk show listeners' votes, according to the exit poll. Another point that
also supports the argument of talk radio being influential is that 12.5% more of the
population was likely to vote for the republican side (60.765%) that listened to talk radio
than those who did not listen to talk radio, 48.026%. Conversely, the exact opposite
happened for democrats; the saihe 12.5% of the population who did not listen to talk
radio voted democratic, 49.106%, as opposed to 36.544% who did listen voted
democratic. A possible idea that appears from these statistics is that people who vote for
republicans could be influenced by what they hear on talk radio, and consequently there
appears a greater percentage along those lines. The near 50/50 split along the lines of
non-listeners who voted 49.106% for democrats and 48.026% for republicans is quite
Gustavus Student Repository
interesting. Common opinion of what this variable initially indicated is that the nonlisteners
would be much stronger in the democratic vote area.
Column percents
GOVVOT (rows) by TALKRAD (columns)
0 1 Total N
+-----------+
1 140.596 27.258 j 39.260 2473
2154.393 66.403 j 55.596 3502
+-----------------+
Total 100.000 100.000
N 5668 631
Test statistic
Pearson Chi-square
100.000
6299
Value
43.108
df Prob
4.000 0.000
How people voted for their particular state governor in 1994 is the next variable
that was analyzed with talk radio. The variables are represented by the following: "l"
signifies democrat vote and "2" signifies a republican vote for governor. This variable
showed even stronger signs of more influence by talk radio on the republican voters. For
example 66.403% of the people who listen to talk radio voted republican, which is 6
percentage points higher than jt was for the vote for the senate. On the other end of the
spectrum, 27 .258% of the people who listened to talk radio voted democratic. The one
aspect that makes these variables contradictory to the ones of the senate vote comes when
it applies to people who did not listen to talk radio and they voted. In the senate vote the
people who did not listen to talk radio were evenly split on their vote between republican
and democrat, 48.026% to 49.106% respectively, but this is in sharp contrast to the
governor vote. Of the people who did not listen to talk radio, 54.393% voted republican
Gustavus Student Repository
as opposed to 40.596% democrat. What caused such a sharp distinction between the
two?
Column percents
HOUSEVOT (rows) by TALKRAD (columns)
0 1 Total N
+-----------+
1 j47.205 34.615 j 45.934 4734
2 j50.842 63.750 j 52.144 5374
+-----------------+
Total 100.000 100.000
N 9266 1040
Test statistic
Pearson Chi-square
100.000
10306
Value
62.637
df
2.000
Prob
0.000
The vote for the House of Representatives in 1994 bears similarities to both the
ways the senate and the governor variables appeared. Like the first two variables "l"
means democratic vote and "2" represents a republican vote. First, for the house vote
63.750% of the people who listen to talk radio voted republican as opposed to 34.615%
who voted democrat. The non-listener variable to talk radio was a mix of the senate and
governor vote. In the senate ti1re existed on! y 1 percentage point difference in favor
democrats on the way that they voted, but in the governor vote there exists a 14
percentage point difference in favor of republicans. In the variables for house vote there
is roughly a 3.5 percentage point difference in the favor of republicans (50.842%) to
democrats (47.2405%) in the area of non-listener.
Gustavus Student Repository
Overall, these variables senate vote, governor vote, and house vote all show some
interesting consistencies that cannot be ignored. For all of the variables there is an
overwhelming favor in republican voting amongst people who listen to talk radio. But
another interesting fact that arises from these three variables is for people who do not
listen to talk radio that there are still strong showings of people still voting along the
republican lines. Only in the variable of SENATVOT do people who do not listen to talk
radio vote more for democrats, but only by one percentage point. All the others have
republicans receiving a higher percentage of the votes. These variables all show a strong
possibility that talk radio can have a definite influence on how people vote. But the
curious fact is people who do not listen to talk radio still seem to vote along republican
lines. One reason for this apparent discrepancy can be analyzed through the context in
which these exit polls were taken. The year was 1994, and this was the year of the
'republican revolution' of congress. For the first time in nearly forty years the
republicans were able to take control of both the House of Representatives and the
Senate. What could be happening in these variables is a backlash of the people at the
disgust of the job that Bill Clinton was doing up until that point. Further conclusions
may become clearer when looking at how people voted in 1992.
·-.,,
Column percents
VOTE92 (rows) by TALKRAD (columns)
0 1 Total N
+--
Clinton 1 144.429 32.084 I 43.152 4562
Bush 2137.075 48.355 I 38.243 4043
Perot 3113.600 15.722 I 13.820 1461
Other 4 I 1.129 0.731 I 1.088 115
No Vote 5 I 3.767 3.108 I 3.698 391
---------------+
Gustavus Student Repository
Total 100.000 100.000
N 9478 1094
100.000
10572
Test statistic
Pearson Chi-square
Value
73.041
df
4.000
Prob
0.000
The variable of how people voted in 1992 against talk radio can provide some
insight into the consistencies behind people's vote. So far it has appeared that the
republicans are the ones most influenced by the effects of talk radio. This variable is
coded with the row variables being l =Bill Clinton, 2=George Bush, 3=Ross Perot,
4=Someone Else, 5=Did Not Vote. Solely looking at the race between Clinton and Bush,
some of the same themes appear again. For listeners of talk radio there exists a 16
percentage point gap between those who voted for Bush, republican, (48.355%) and those
who voted Clinton democratic, (32.084% ). Compare this with the way non-listeners
voted in the election of 1992 and the gap shrinks significantly between the republican and
democrat votes with the democrats possessing 44.429% of the vote as opposed to
37 .075% of the vote for republicans.
The variable of VOTE92 as compared with the first three variables of
.-.:S,
HOUSEVOT, GOVVOT, and SENATVOT goes to strengthen the idea that in 1994
people were not happy with the way that Bill Clinton was running the country. In the
1992 variable, the people who do not listen to talk radio overwhelmingly voted for
Clinton, by a margin of nearly 12 percentage points. As for the people who voted for
Bush there was an 11 percentage point difference in favor of the people who listened to
talk radio. This variable seems to follow much more closely the idea of people who
Gustavus Student Repository
listen to talk radio tend to be more conservative, therefore people who do not listen to
talk radio tend to be more liberal. The puzzle that is talk radio is now starting to have a
much clearer picture.
Column percents
SEX (rows) byTALKRAD (columns)
0 1 Total N
+-----------+
1 J47.446 54.827 J 48.171 5385
2 J52.554 45.173 J 51.829 5794
+---------+
Total 100.000 100.000
N 10081 1098
Test statistic
Pearson Chi-square
100.000
11179
Value
21.608
df
1.000
Prob
0.000
The variables of sex, whether the participant is male of female, does provide some
information, but not as much that would have been anticipated. For example, men are
constituted by the number 1 in the rows, females being the number 2. The most
surprising aspect of this variable is that under the non-listener area there exists only a
five-point gap between men (47.446%) and women (52.827%). The gap is much larger
4 when comes to listeners with the men holding a 9.5% edge, 54.827% to 45.173%. A
pattern is starting to emerge as who the stereotypical listener might be, and this variable
has added fuel to the fire by pointing out that men are much more likely to listen to talk
radio than women are. Men are traditionally more conservative than women and thus
listening to talk radio in greater numbers would make sense. Again, this variable of SEX
appears to show what has consistently been shown with the other variables. Men tend to
Gustavus Student Repository
' ' .
be more conservative than women, and this variable shows that, because men were much
more likely to listen to talk radio than women.
Column percents
BILLAPP (rows) by TALKRAD (columns)
0 1 Total N
+-----------------+
1148.131 31.402 I 46.393 4778
2151.869 68.598 I 53.607 5521
+-----------------+
Total 100.000 100.000
N 9229 1070
Test statistic
Pearson Chi-square
100.000
10299
Value
107.897
df Prob
1.000 0.000
The next variable that appears is approval of Bill Clinton. The variable is defined
as the number "l" meaning the person approves of the job that President Clinton is doing
and the number "2" represents a disapproving vote of the job that Clinton is doing office.
As with what has been consistent in the other variables of people who listen to talk radio
Clinton has a poor showing amongst listeners, there exists a 37% difference in the
approvals. Of listeners, 68.598% have a disapproving job of the work that Clinton has
-.
done in office as compared with 31.402% of talk radio listeners who believe that Clinton
is doing a satisfactory job in office. The surprising vote comes with non-listeners of talk
radio, over half also believe that Clinton is doing a poor job in office (51.869% ).
Clinton only receives 48.131 % of an approval rating with non-listeners. This variable is
somewhat surprising because most non-listeners have leaned more towards the liberal
Gustavus Student Repository
side of issues and this variable is direct contrast to how the non-listeners believe, but the
gap of disapproval is even stronger for listeners.
The variable of BIILAPP will also help to clarify the picture if we look at it in
conjunction with the SENATVOT, HOUSEVOT, GOVVOT, and VOTE92 . Again this
variable supports the argument that people were not happy with Bill Clinton because
even of the people that did not listen to talk radio, they still gave Clinton a disapproval
rating 51.869% to 48.131 %. This type of information correlates directly of the findings
in the first three variables of SENATVOT, HOUSEVOT, and GOVVOT. It also
contradicts the findings in VOTE92, which would help to support the findings that people
were fed up Clinton in 1994 and also as much as people may not want to believe it that
talk radio may also influence the way in which people believe and vote.
Column percents
FINANSIT (rows) by TALKRAD (columns)
0 1 Total N
+-------------+
1 127.266 22.698 I 26.340 1425
2122.119 21.621 I 23.235 1251
3150.614 49.681 I 50.425 2728
+--------+
Total
N
100.000 100.000
4313 1097
Test statistic
Pearson Chi-square
100.000
5410
Value
18.473
df
2.000
Prob
0.000
The variable for financial situation (FINANSIT) versus talk radio does not deliver
the proof that talk radio sways people in any general direction. For the variables of
Gustavus Student Repository
financial situation the number "1" represents the person being better off financially, "2"
represents worse off financially and "3" represents the same financial standing. For
listeners and non-listeners there is a flip-flop of the percentages in how people feel.
There is only a five-percentage point difference between listeners and non-listeners who
feel they are better off or worse off in their financial standing. 27 .266% of non-listeners
believed they are better off financially now than in the past, as opposed to 22.698% who
do not listen to talk radio and believed they were not financially better off. Essentially
the opposite was true with listeners, 22.698% believed they were better off financially
and 27 .621 % believed they were worse off. As for people who feel their financial
situation is the same there is roughly a 50/50 split between listeners (49.681 %) and nonlisteners
(50.614%). This variable did not produce the results that could have been
predicted, for example that people who listened to talk radio could possibly have been
predicted to have a much higher value for a worse financial situation.
Column percents
USARIGHT (rows) by TALKRAD (columns)
0 1 Total N
+-----------------+
1 142.979 30.950 I 40 .. 611 2193
2157.021 69.050 I 59.389 3207
Total 100.000 100.000
N 4337 1063
Test statistic
Pearson Chi-square
100.000
5400
Value
51.219
df
1.000
Prob
0.000
Gustavus Student Repository
The variable of US ARIGHT has the following definition, the number" l" says
whether people believe the US is going in the right direction and the number "2"
says whether people believe the US is going in the wrong direction. What is
exactly is the "right direction, wrong direction" is something that is open to lots of
interpretation, it is an extremely vague variable, but some important points can be
drawn from it nonetheless. It could be concluded that people who tend to be more
on the conservative side of issues would believe that the country is headed in the
wrong direction, and for listeners of talk radio it seems to support that statement.
An overwhelming 69.050% of the people polled who listen to talk radio believe
that the United States is headed in the wrong direction, whereas only 30.950% of
listeners believe we are headed in the right direction. But a not so surprising fact
is encountered with non-listeners. The variables show that of non listeners a
disproportional number believe the country is heading in the wrong direction
(57 .021 % ) as compared with only 42.979% of the people who do not listen to talk
radio believing the country is heading in the right direction.
The idea that the timing of this poll, being the year 1994, has anything to
do with how people feel about the given variables is again strengthened by the
variable USARIGHT. 'This variable proves the point that has been made
throughout this paper. There is an substantial difference of non-listeners, 14%,
believing that the country is headed in the wrong direction. This would sit well
with what has been said about variables SENATVOT, HOUSEVOT, GOVVOT,
and would contrast directly with what was said in the variable of VOTE92. Of
course, from what has been seen there exists a tremendous gap of listeners of talk
Gustavus Student Repository
radio and what direction they believe the country is going. They believe the
country going in the wrong direction and the gap between the two is 38
percentage points.
Column percents
TRUSTGOV (rows) by TALKRAD (columns)
0 1 Total N
11 2.494 1.828 I 2.365 133
2124.112 11.459 I 22.866 1286
3 165.453 69.470 I 66.234 3725
4 I 1.881 11.243 I 8.535 480
+-----------------+
Total 100.000 100.000
N 4530 1094
Test statistic
Pearson Chi-square
100.000
5624
Value
32.842
df
3.000
Prob
0.000
The above variable refers to how often people trust the government with the
numbers indicating the following: " l " just about always, "2" most of the time, "3" only
some of the time, "4" never. Some of the themes that appear are people who do not listen
to talk radio appear to be more,_trusting of government even though the numbers are not
overwhelming. For instance, 24.172% of the people who do not listen to talk radio say
they trust the government "most of the time." The interesting area of this variable is the
fact that 65.453% of non-listeners of talk radio and 69.470% of listeners of talk radio
both say that they only trust the government "only some of the time." Again, it is
evident the level of disenchantment that exists with the group of politicians that were
holding office in 1994.
Gustavus Student Repository
It can lie hypothesized that people who do not always trust the government would
be the same ones who would listen to talk radio. These would be the same people who
do not approve of the job that Bill Clinton was doing in office at the time of this poll.
According to this variable of the people who listen to talk radio, 69% of them listen trust
the government some of the time, which is close to non-listeners at 65%. But the people
who trust the government most of the time, 24% do not listen to talk radio, as opposed to
I 7 .5%. This variable does not correlate as well as the other variables that have been
already analyzed. Using what has been discovered in variables such as SENATVOT,
HOUSEVOT, and GOVVOT, it would be thought that the people who trust the
government most of the time would have their percentages lower for non-listeners.
People who do not listen to talk radio would be unsatisfied with what Clinton
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
Author Under Sail The Imagination of Jack London, 1893-1902
No full textIn Author Under Sail, Jay Williams offers the first complete literary biography of Jack London as a professional writer engaged in the labor of writing. It examines the authorial imagination in London's work, the use of imagination in both his fiction and nonfiction, and the ways he defined imagination in the creative process in his business dealings with his publishers, editors, and agents. In this first volume of a two-volume biography, Williams traverses the years 1893 to 1902, from London's "Story of a Typhoon" to The People of the Abyss. The Jack London who emerges in the pages of Author Under Sail is a writer whose partnership with publishers, most notably his productive alliance with George Brett of Macmillan, was one of the most formative in American literary history. London pioneered many author models during the heyday of realism and naturalism, blurring the boundaries of these popular genres by focusing on absorption and theatricality and the representation of the seen and unseen. London created an impassioned, sincere, and extremely personal realism unlike that of other American writers of the time. Author Under Sail is a literary tour de force that reveals the full range of London as writer, creative citizen, and entrepreneur at the same time it sheds light on the maverick side of machine-age literature.Intro -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Dedication -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- 1. Spirit Truth -- 2. From Absorption to Theatricality and Back Again -- 3. "I Will Build a New Present" -- 4. Sons as Authors -- 5. Fathers as Publishers -- 6. The Daughter as Author -- 7. Lovers as Authors -- 8. At Sea with the Family -- 9. Yellow News, Yellow Stories -- 10. The Return Home -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index -- About Jay WilliamsIn Author Under Sail, Jay Williams offers the first complete literary biography of Jack London as a professional writer engaged in the labor of writing. It examines the authorial imagination in London's work, the use of imagination in both his fiction and nonfiction, and the ways he defined imagination in the creative process in his business dealings with his publishers, editors, and agents. In this first volume of a two-volume biography, Williams traverses the years 1893 to 1902, from London's "Story of a Typhoon" to The People of the Abyss. The Jack London who emerges in the pages of Author Under Sail is a writer whose partnership with publishers, most notably his productive alliance with George Brett of Macmillan, was one of the most formative in American literary history. London pioneered many author models during the heyday of realism and naturalism, blurring the boundaries of these popular genres by focusing on absorption and theatricality and the representation of the seen and unseen. London created an impassioned, sincere, and extremely personal realism unlike that of other American writers of the time. Author Under Sail is a literary tour de force that reveals the full range of London as writer, creative citizen, and entrepreneur at the same time it sheds light on the maverick side of machine-age literature.Description based on publisher supplied metadata and other sources.Electronic reproduction. Ann Arbor, Michigan : ProQuest Ebook Central, YYYY. Available via World Wide Web. Access may be limited to ProQuest Ebook Central affiliated libraries
- …
