1,721,060 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
Cross-lingual Semantic Specialization via Lexical Relation Induction
Get PDFSemantic specialization integrates structured linguistic knowledge from external resources (such as lexical relations in WordNet) into pretrained distributional vectors in the form of constraints. However, this technique cannot be leveraged in many languages, because their structured external resources are typically incomplete or non-existent. To bridge this gap, we propose a novel method that transfers specialization from a resource-rich source language (English) to virtually any target language. Our specialization transfer comprises two crucial steps: 1) Inducing noisy constraints in the target language through automatic word translation; and 2) Filtering the noisy constraints via a state-of-the-art relation prediction model trained on the source language constraints. This allows us to specialize any set of distributional vectors in the target language with the refined constraints. We prove the effectiveness of our method through intrinsic word similarity evaluation in 8 languages, and with 3 downstream tasks in 5 languages: lexical simplification, dialog state tracking, and semantic textual similarity. The gains over the previous state-of-art specialization methods are substantial and consistent across languages. Our results also suggest that the transfer method is effective even for lexically distant source-target language pairs. Finally, as a by-product, our method produces lists of WordNet-style lexical relations in resource-poor languages
統計的構文解析における構文的統計情報と語彙的統計情報の統合について
Get PDF本論文では，構文解析の曖昧性解消を行うために，構文的な統計情報と語彙的な統計情報を統合する手法を提案する．我々が提案する統合的確率言語モデルは，構文的優先度などの構文的な統計情報を反映する構文モデルと，単語の出現頻度や単語の共起関係などの語彙的な統計情報を反映する語彙モデルの２つの下位モデルから成る．この統計的確率言語モデルは，構文的な統計情報と語彙的な統計情報を同時に学習する過去の多くのモデルと異なり，両者を個別に学習する点に特徴がある．構文的な統計情報と語彙的な統計情報を独立に取り扱うことにより，それぞれの統計情報を異なる言語資源から独立に学習することができるだけでなく，それぞれの統計情報が曖昧性解消においてどのような効果を果たすのかを容易に分析することができる．この統計的確率言語モデルを評価するために，日本語文の文節の係り受け解析を行った．構文モデルを用いたときの文節の正解率は73.38％となり，ベースラインに比べて11.70％向上した．また，構文モデルと語彙モデルを組み合わせることにより，文節の正解率はさらに10.96％向上し84.34％となった．この結果，本研究で提案する枠組において，語彙的な統計情報は構文的な統計情報と同程度に曖昧性解消に貢献することを確認した． : In this paper, we propose a new framework of statistical language modeling integrating syntactic statistics and lexical statistics. Our model consists of two submodels, the syntactic model and lexical model. The syntactic model reflects syntactic statistics, such as structural preferences, whereas the lexical model reflects lexical statistics, such as occurrence of each word and word collocations. One of the characteristics of our model is that it learns both types of statistics separately, although many previous models learn them simultaneously. Learning each submodel separately enables us to use a different language source for different submodels, and to make understanding of each submodel's behavior much easier. We conducted a preliminary experiment, where our model was applied to the disambiguation of dependency structures of Japanese sentences. The syntactic model achieved 73.38% in Bunsetu phrase accuracy, which is 11.70 points above the baseline, and when incorporating the lexical model with the syntactic model, further 10.96 point gain was achieved, to 84.34%. Thus the contribution of lexical statistics for disambiguation is as great as that of syntactic statistics in our framework
Do We Really Need Fully Unsupervised Cross-Lingual Embeddings?
Get PDFRecent efforts in cross-lingual word embedding (CLWE) learning have predominantly focused on fully unsupervised approaches that project monolingual embeddings into a shared cross-lingual space without any cross-lingual signal. The lack of any supervision makes such approaches conceptually attractive. Yet, their only core difference from (weakly) supervised projection-based CLWE methods is in the way they obtain a seed dictionary used to initialize an iterative self-learning procedure. The fully unsupervised methods have arguably become more robust, and their primary use case is CLWE induction for pairs of resource-poor and distant languages. In this paper, we question the ability of even the most robust unsupervised CLWE approaches to induce meaningful CLWEs in these more challenging settings. A series of bilingual lexicon induction (BLI) experiments with 15 diverse languages (210 language pairs) show that fully unsupervised CLWE methods still fail for a large number of language pairs (e.g., they yield zero BLI performance for 87/210 pairs). Even when they succeed, they never surpass the performance of weakly supervised methods (seeded with 500-1,000 translation pairs) using the same self-learning procedure in any BLI setup, and the gaps are often substantial. These findings call for revisiting the main motivations behind fully unsupervised CLWE methods
- …
