3,465 research outputs found
Coauthor prediction for junior researchers
No full textResearch collaboration can bring in different perspectives and generate more productive results. However, finding an appropriate collaborator can be difficult due to the lacking of sufficient information. Link prediction is a related technique for collaborator discovery; but its focus has been mostly on the core authors who have relatively more publications. We argue that junior researchers actually need more help in finding collaborators. Thus, in this paper, we focus on coauthor prediction for junior researchers. Most of the previous works on coauthor prediction considered global network feature and local network feature separately, or tried to combine local network feature and content feature. But we found a significant improvement by simply combing local network feature and global network feature. We further developed a regularization based approach to incorporate multiple features simultaneously. Experimental results demonstrated that this approach outperformed the simple linear combination of multiple features. We further showed that content features, which were proved to be useful in link prediction, can be easily integrated into our regularization approach. © 2013 Springer-Verlag
Our collaborators, Instructions for the author, Revue objectives, Life Proyect
No full textNuestros Colaboradores, Instrucciones para el Autor, Objetivos de la Revista y Proyecto de Vida de la Revista Páginas No.89Our collaborators, Instructions for the author, Revue objectives, Life Proyect of the Revue Páginas No.8
Types of Scientific Collaborators: A Perspective of Author Contribution Network
No full textThe purpose of this study is to investigate interaction between collaborators within individual studies by measuring how they made contributions to their studies. Author contribution network is constructed based on the author contribution statements of 140,000 full-text articles in PloS by viewing every collaborator as a node and a shared contribution as an edge. Three types of contributors are identified: general team-players, factotums, and mavericks. The preliminary result suggests that division of labor widely exists in scientific re-search and the latter two types of collaborators are common in small teams.Made available in DSpace on 2018-07-12T15:28:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2
Lu-Chao_20180417_V01.pdf: 365239 bytes, checksum: 8e321b79b4d7f4e401a356426425f971 (MD5)
license.txt: 4802 bytes, checksum: 58353f9dd6876860dd5221f3d7872a95 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 201
Our collaborators, Instructions for the author, Revue objectives, Institucional repositories and 40 years of the UCP
No full textNuestros Colaboradores, Instrucciones para el Autor, Objetivos de la Revista, Repositorios Institucionales y Los 40 años de la UCP de la Revista Páginas No. 98Our collaborators, Instructions for the author, Revue objectives, Institucional repositories and 40 years of the UCP of the Revue Páginas No.9
The Hymn of the UCPR, Our collaborators, Revue objectives and Instructions for the author
No full textEl Himno de la Universidad Católica Popular del Risaralda, Nuestros Colaboradores, Objetivos de la Revista y Instrucciones para el Autor de la Revista Páginas No.78The Hymn of the Universidad Católica Popular del Risaralda, Our collaborators, Revue Objectives and Instructions for the author of the Revue Páginas No.7
Our collaborators, Instructions for the author, Revue objectives, Institucional repositories and 40 years of the UCP
No full textNuestros Colaboradores, Instrucciones para el Autor, Objetivos de la Revista, Repositorios Institucionales y Los 40 años de la UCP de la Revista Páginas No. 98Our collaborators, Instructions for the author, Revue objectives, Institucional repositories and 40 years of the UCP of the Revue Páginas No.9
Should I Include Co-Investigators or Collaborators?
No full textWorkshop materials; tips & strategies for SSHRC grant proposal development
"Collaborators’ Bill of Rights"
No full textCuratorial note from Digital Pedagogy in the Humanities: Teamwork and collaboration are key components of any project, particularly digital ones. However, clear models for recognizing team-member contributions to digital projects are not present within the humanities, what with its historical emphasis on the single author. As a result, the participants in the “Off the Tracks—Laying New Lines for Digital Humanities Scholars” workshop developed the “Collaborators’ Bill of Rights” with the fundamental principle that “all kinds of work on a project are equally deserving of credit” (par. 1). Anyone starting a digital project with other individuals will want to refer to this document to guide discussions about the different ways to recognize effort within the project. It could also serve as a foundational document for the development of project charters (see “Toward a Project Charter” and “The Iterative Design of a Project Charter for Interdisciplinary Research” as well as the Center for Digital Humanities’ “Student Collaborators’ Bill of Rights,” which is an artifact included in the keywords “Labor” and “Collaboration”)
The provision of epilepsy care across Europe 2017 : a 17-year follow-up survey
No full textOBJECTIVE: To assess the resources available in the provision of epilepsy care across Europe and the developments since the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) survey published in 2003 (data collected in 2000).METHODS: An updated online version of the European Epilepsy Services Inventory was distributed to all European chapters of the ILAE (N = 47) and responses were obtained from 33 chapters (response rate 70%). To assess trends and allow comparisons with the survey published in 2003, the responding countries were divided into 4 groups (Western, Central, Southern, and Eastern). Responses from European Union (EU) member states are reported as a subgroup (N = 23), since the current survey is a part of the EU‐funded European Study on the Burden and Care of Epilepsy (ESBACE, www.esbace.eu).RESULTS: The total number of physicians involved in epilepsy care had increased since 2000, with the largest increase seen for neurologists. The gap between the best‐ and the least‐provided areas with regard to the competence of the providers had diminished. However, the density of comprehensive multidisciplinary epilepsy teams had not changed to any greater degree. The main problems reported by the chapters were to a large extent the same as in 2000 and included lack of specialists and specialist care, lack or underuse of epilepsy surgery, and problems regarding financing and resource allocation. Several chapters also highlighted problems with healthcare structure and organization.SIGNIFICANCE: Although there have been some improvements concerning the availability of care for people with epilepsy in Europe over the last 17 years, there are still a number of problem areas with little improvement or where there are important regional differences.European Union (Directorate General for
Health and Food safety), Grant/Award
Number: 2014/1/1995648peer-reviewe
- …
