1,720,961 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
The Link between Misinterpretation, Intentionality, and Mental Agency in the Natural Language Interpretation of “Fake”
Full text linkIn formal semantics of natural language, an intersective interpretation works for many adjectives: x is a French lawyer iff x ∈ {x:x is French} {x: x is a lawyer}. For those adjectives for which this does not work, like “excellent”, we still have, at worst, a subsective modification ({x: x is an excellent violinist} ⊂ {x:x is a violinist}). Neither of these applies to “fake”, whose formal interpretation is a traditional challenge. In this paper, I propose an analysis of the semantics of “fake” in which the speaker’s attribution of intentionality (derived or original) to the object or person of which she predicates fakeness is central. In fact, the boundaries between the properties that ‘fake’modifies and those it leaves unchanged are moved in function of this attribution of intentionality. In a famous 1994 paper, Dretske argues that for something to be specifically mental it does not merely need to exhibit original intentionality. It also has to be capable of misrepresentation, i.e. be a structure having a content independent of its causes. I argue that this intuition is implicitly contained in the natural language use of “fake”
Revisiting kind predication in Italian
Full text linkIn this work, I present novel data form Italian, showing that the flavor of generic sentences interacts with mood. Definite plural generics may receive a law-like or an accidental flavor when the subject is modified by a relative in the indicative. However, when the subject is modified by a relative in the subjunctive, it can only receive a law-like reading. I argue that this data is explained if we extend to kinds, standardly seen as intensional plural entities, the tools already used in the treatment of referential plurals, and specifically the distributive operator. I propose that the interaction between the flavor of generic sentences and the presence of the subjunctive is due to a structural ambiguity in Italian definite plural generics. The optional insertion of the distributive operator in plural definite generics gives rise to two LFs. (i) If \u27DIST\u27 is not inserted, the kind is interpreted in the restriction of GEN, and we get the usual LF. The modal nature of this structure yields the law-like reading, and licenses the subjunctive. (ii) If it is inserted, it distributes the predicate over actual members of the kind, yielding the accidental reading. The subjunctive is then not licensed, as it cannot be interpreted in the modal environment provided by the restriction of GEN. This also predicts that singular indefinite generics cannot receive accidental readings, as they don’t denote kinds. I finally argue that a similar reasoning provides a fresh perspective on English bare plurals
Guerrini (2022), `Like a N' constructions and genericity
No full textProceedings of the ESSLLI 2022 Student Session
`Like a N' constructions and genericity
Janek Guerrini
In this work, I examine English V + 'like' constructions. I analyze 'is like xe' as 'shares relevant properties with xe', which coheres with main psychological accounts of similarity (Tversky, 1977). I also examine the readings of indefinites embedded by such constructions ('look like a lawyer'). I argue that in the most salient reading of such constructions the indefinite receives a generic interpretation. This explains why they are non-increasing: from the fact that John looks like a British judge it doesn't follow that he looks like a judge. This also predicts, non-trivially and correctly, quasi-conjunctive narrow readings of disjunction: under the most salient reading of 'John looks like a lawyer or judge', John looks like a lawyer and like a judge. This is explained by the fact that the disjunction can go into the restrictor of a generic quantifier.</p
Distributive kind predication
No full textThis paper makes two contributions to the study of the interpretation of nominals across Germanic and Romance languages. First, it shows that plural kind terms, such as English bare plurals (e.g., lions) and Italian definite plurals (e.g., i leoni), have definite, non-generic uses in sentences expressing generalizations that were traditionally thought to uniformly involve generic quantification. These non-generic uses explain why the distribution of kind-denoting plurals in sentences expressing generalizations is wider than that of singular indefinites, which can only appear in generalizations with a genuinely generic Logical Form (Sects. 3–5). Second, the paper draws on a contrast between English and Italian (and, to a minor extent, French) plural forms, both bare and definite (Sect. 5). This yields a new approach to the mapping between the form and the interpretation of nominals that combines elements from Chierchia’s (Natural Language Semantics 6:339–405, 1998) and Longobardi’s (Natural Language Semantics 9:335–369, 2001) frameworks. On the approach I present, English bare plurals can be mapped either to kinds or to properties; Italian definite plurals, when not referential, can only be mapped to kinds; and Italian bare plurals only to properties. This explains the behavior of these expressions in a wide number of contexts, most importantly in episodic sentences, which raise puzzles for extant accounts
- …
