1,720,959 research outputs found

    gnuradio/volk: Release v2.2.0

    No full text
    Hi everyone, we have a new VOLK release v2.2.0! We want to thank all contributors. This release wouldn't have been possible without them. We're curious about VOLK users. Especially we'd like to learn about VOLK users who use VOLK outside GNU Radio. If you have ideas for VOLK enhancements, let us know. Start with an issue to discuss your idea. We'll be happy to see new features get merged into VOLK. The v2.1.0 release was rather large because we had a lot of backlog. We aim for more incremental releases in order to get new features out there. Highlights VOLK v2.2.0 updates our build tools and adds support functionality to make it easier to use VOLK in your projects. Dropped Python 2 build support Removed Python six module dependency Use C11 aligned_alloc whenever possible MacOS posix_memalign fall-back MSVC _aligned_malloc fall-back Add VOLK version in volk_version.h (included in volk.h) Improved CMake code Improved code with lots of refactoring and performance tweaks Contributors Carles Fernandez [email protected] Gwenhael Goavec-Merou [email protected] Albin Stigo [email protected] Johannes Demel [email protected] [email protected] Michael Dickens [email protected] Valerii Zapodovnikov [email protected] Vasil Velichkov [email protected] ghostop14 [email protected] rear1019 [email protected] Changes CMake Fix detection of AVX and NEON Fix for macOS lib/CMakeLists: use asm instead of asm for ARM tests lib/CMakeLists: fix detection when compiler support NEON but nor neonv7 nor neonv8 lib/CMakeLists.txt: use VOLK_ASM instead of asm__ lib/CMakeLists.txt: let VOLK choose preferred neon version when both are supported lib/CMakeLists.txt: simplify neon test support. Unset neon version if not supported For attribute, change from clang to "clang but not MSC" Readme logo: Add logo at top of README.md Build dependencies python: Drop Python2 support python: Reduce six usage python: Move to Python3 syntax and modules six: Remove build dependency on python six Allocation alloc: Use C11 aligned_alloc alloc: Implement fall backs for C11 aligned_alloc alloc: Fix for incomplete MSVC standard compliance alloc: update to reflect alloc changes Library usage Fixup VolkConfigVersion add volk_version.h Refactoring qa_utils.cc: fix always false expression volk_prefs.c: check null realloc and use temporary pointer volk_profile.cc: double assignment and return 0 volk_32f_x2_pow_32f.h: do not need to _mm256_setzero_ps() volk_8u_conv_k7_r2puppet_8u.h: d_polys[i] is positive kernels: change one iteration for's to if's kernels: get rid of some assignments qa_utils.cc: actually throw something qa_utils.cc: fix always true code rotator: Refactor AVX kernels rotator: Remove unnecessary variable kernel: Refactor square_dist_scalar_mult square_dist_scalar_mult: Speed-Up AVX, Add unaligned square_dist_scalar_mult: refactor AVX2 kernel kernel: create AVX2 meta intrinsics CI appveyor: Test with python 3.4 and 3.8 appveyor: Add job names appveyor: Make ctest more verbose Performance Improve performance of generic kernels with complex multiply square_dist_scalar_mult: Add SSE version Adds NEON versions of cos, sin and ta

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Get PDF
    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

    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 PDF
    We 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 PDF
    We 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

    Author Index

    No full text
    Nao informado
    corecore