1,720,994 research outputs found
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe 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
Get PDF“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
Get PDFWe 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
Get PDFWe 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
Examining discourses on the ethics and public understanding of cognitive enhancement with methylphenidate
Get PDFL’émergence de l’utilisation du méthylphénidate (MPH; Ritalin) par des étudiants universitaires afin d’améliorer leur concentration et leurs performances universitaires suscite l’intérêt du public et soulève d’importants débats éthiques auprès des spécialistes. Les différentes perspectives sur l’amélioration des performances cognitives représentent une dimension importante des défis sociaux et éthiques autour d’un tel phénomène et méritent d’être élucidées. Ce mémoire vise à examiner les discours présents dans les reportages internationaux de presse populaire, les discours en bioéthique et en en santé publique sur le thème de l’utilisation non médicale du méthylphénidate. Cette recherche a permis d’identifier et d’analyser des « lacunes » dans les perspectives éthiques, sociales et scientifiques de l’utilisation non médicale du méthylphénidate pour accroître la performance cognitive d’individus en santé.
Une analyse systématique du contenu des discours sur l’utilisation non médicale du méthylphénidate pour accroître la performance cognitive a identifié des paradigmes divergents employés pour décrire l’utilisation non médicale du méthylphénidate et discuter ses conséquences éthiques. Les paradigmes « choix de mode de vie », « abus de médicament » et « amélioration de la cognition » sont présents dans les discours de la presse populaire, de la bioéthique et de la santé publique respectivement. Parmi les principales différences entre ces paradigmes, on retrouve : la description de l’utilisation non médicale d’agents neuropharmacologiques pour l’amélioration des performances, les risques et bénéfices qui y sont associés, la discussion d’enjeux éthiques et sociaux et des stratégies de prévention et les défis associés à l’augmentation de la prévalence de ce phénomène.
La divergence de ces paradigmes reflète le pluralisme des perceptions de l’utilisation non médicale d’agents neuropharmacologiques Nos résultats suggèrent la nécessité de débats autour de l’amélioration neuropharmacologique afin de poursuivre l’identification des enjeux et de développer des approches de santé publique cohérentes.The non-medical use of neuropharmaceuticals has sparked ethical debates. For example, there is mounting evidence that methylphenidate (MPH; Ritalin) is being used by healthy university students to improve concentration, alertness, and academic performance, a phenomenon known as cognitive enhancement. The different perspectives on the ethics of cognitive enhancement represent an important dimension of the social and ethical challenges related to such practices but have yet to be examined thoroughly. This thesis aimed to assess existing positive and negative reports in international print media, bioethics literature, and public health literature on the use of MPH to identify and analyze gaps in the ethical, social, and scientific perspectives about the non-medical use of MPH for cognitive enhancement in healthy individuals.
A systematic content analysis of discourses on the non-medical use of methylphenidate for cognitive enhancement identified divergent frameworks employed to describe the non-medical use of methylphenidate and discuss its ethical implications: The frameworks of “lifestyle choice”, “prescription drug abuse” and “cognitive enhancement” are present in print media, bioethics, and public health discourses respectively. Important differences between frameworks include the description of the non-medical use of neuropharmaceuticals for cognitive enhancement, associated risks and benefits, discussion of ethical and social issues surrounding the phenomenon and the prevention strategies and challenges to the widespread use of neuropharmaceuticals for cognitive enhancement.
Diverging frameworks reflect pluralism in perceptions if the non-medical use of neuropharmaceuticals for cognitive enhancement. At this time, unacknowledged pluralism and implicit assumptions about cognitive enhancement may impede public health interventions and ethics discussions
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
Examining discourses on the ethics and public understanding of cognitive enhancement with methylphenidate
Get PDFL’émergence de l’utilisation du méthylphénidate (MPH; Ritalin) par des étudiants universitaires afin d’améliorer leur concentration et leurs performances universitaires suscite l’intérêt du public et soulève d’importants débats éthiques auprès des spécialistes. Les différentes perspectives sur l’amélioration des performances cognitives représentent une dimension importante des défis sociaux et éthiques autour d’un tel phénomène et méritent d’être élucidées. Ce mémoire vise à examiner les discours présents dans les reportages internationaux de presse populaire, les discours en bioéthique et en en santé publique sur le thème de l’utilisation non médicale du méthylphénidate. Cette recherche a permis d’identifier et d’analyser des « lacunes » dans les perspectives éthiques, sociales et scientifiques de l’utilisation non médicale du méthylphénidate pour accroître la performance cognitive d’individus en santé.
Une analyse systématique du contenu des discours sur l’utilisation non médicale du méthylphénidate pour accroître la performance cognitive a identifié des paradigmes divergents employés pour décrire l’utilisation non médicale du méthylphénidate et discuter ses conséquences éthiques. Les paradigmes « choix de mode de vie », « abus de médicament » et « amélioration de la cognition » sont présents dans les discours de la presse populaire, de la bioéthique et de la santé publique respectivement. Parmi les principales différences entre ces paradigmes, on retrouve : la description de l’utilisation non médicale d’agents neuropharmacologiques pour l’amélioration des performances, les risques et bénéfices qui y sont associés, la discussion d’enjeux éthiques et sociaux et des stratégies de prévention et les défis associés à l’augmentation de la prévalence de ce phénomène.
La divergence de ces paradigmes reflète le pluralisme des perceptions de l’utilisation non médicale d’agents neuropharmacologiques Nos résultats suggèrent la nécessité de débats autour de l’amélioration neuropharmacologique afin de poursuivre l’identification des enjeux et de développer des approches de santé publique cohérentes.The non-medical use of neuropharmaceuticals has sparked ethical debates. For example, there is mounting evidence that methylphenidate (MPH; Ritalin) is being used by healthy university students to improve concentration, alertness, and academic performance, a phenomenon known as cognitive enhancement. The different perspectives on the ethics of cognitive enhancement represent an important dimension of the social and ethical challenges related to such practices but have yet to be examined thoroughly. This thesis aimed to assess existing positive and negative reports in international print media, bioethics literature, and public health literature on the use of MPH to identify and analyze gaps in the ethical, social, and scientific perspectives about the non-medical use of MPH for cognitive enhancement in healthy individuals.
A systematic content analysis of discourses on the non-medical use of methylphenidate for cognitive enhancement identified divergent frameworks employed to describe the non-medical use of methylphenidate and discuss its ethical implications: The frameworks of “lifestyle choice”, “prescription drug abuse” and “cognitive enhancement” are present in print media, bioethics, and public health discourses respectively. Important differences between frameworks include the description of the non-medical use of neuropharmaceuticals for cognitive enhancement, associated risks and benefits, discussion of ethical and social issues surrounding the phenomenon and the prevention strategies and challenges to the widespread use of neuropharmaceuticals for cognitive enhancement.
Diverging frameworks reflect pluralism in perceptions if the non-medical use of neuropharmaceuticals for cognitive enhancement. At this time, unacknowledged pluralism and implicit assumptions about cognitive enhancement may impede public health interventions and ethics discussions
- …
