1,720,967 research outputs found

    Data for: Geochemical constraints on Cenozoic intraplate magmatism and their relation to Jurassic dolerites in Tasmania, using Sr-Nd-Pb isotopes

    No full text
    Location (GDA94) and major trace element concentrations in weight% of sampled Tertiary and Jurassic Tasmanian mafic rocks

    Data for: Geochemical constraints on Cenozoic intraplate magmatism and their relation to Jurassic dolerites in Tasmania, using Sr-Nd-Pb isotopes

    No full text
    Table 5: Sr-Nd-Pb isotopes for Cenozoic mafic rocks in Tasmania and standards. * denotes standard reference values by (i) Elburg et al. (2005) (ii) Raczek et al. (2003) (iii

    Data for: Geochemical constraints on Cenozoic intraplate magmatism and their relation to Jurassic dolerites in Tasmania, using Sr-Nd-Pb isotopes

    No full text
    Table 2: XRF trace element analyses in ppm for Cenozoic and Jurassic mafic rocks in Tasmania

    Data for: Geochemical constraints on Cenozoic intraplate magmatism and their relation to Jurassic dolerites in Tasmania, using Sr-Nd-Pb isotopes

    No full text
    Raw trace element data of Cenozoic Tasmanian basalts measured by LA-ICP-MS on lithium tetra-borate fused disc

    Data for: Geochemical constraints on Cenozoic intraplate magmatism and their relation to Jurassic dolerites in Tasmania, using Sr-Nd-Pb isotopes

    No full text
    Table 3: ICP-MS trace element analyses in ppm for Cenozoic and Jurassic mafic rocks in Tasmania. BCR-2* and BHVO-2* are certified and recommended reference value

    LA-ICP-MS trace element data on fused discs of Tasmanian basalts

    No full text
    Trace element data of Tasmanian basalts using LA-ICP-MS on lithium tetra-borate fused disc

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The 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
    corecore