1,720,958 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
Using artificial intelligence in writing medical ethics essays during medical school education
No full textCiljevi: Cilj prvog istraživanja bio je provesti lingvističku analizu i usporedbu eseja studenata medicine s esejima generiranim pomoću UI-ja (ChatGPT i Bard) na temu etičke, profesionalne ili moralne dileme. Jezične varijable su analizirane uz pomoć LIWC softvera, a izvor eseja je ispitan pomoću softvera za prepoznavanje UI-ja. Hipoteze su pretpostavljale razlike u izražavanju emocija i kognitivnim procesima između studentskih i UI-generiranih eseja. U drugom istraživanju cilj je bio ispitati utjecaj korištenja ChatGPT-a na stavove studenata prema UI-ju, uz predpostavku da će studenti koji sami pišu eseje kao i oni s višom intrizičkom motivacijom pokazati snažniju promjenu postojećih stavova. Ispitanici i postupci: U prvom istraživanju sudjelovali su studenti 5. i 6. godine Medicinskog fakulteta u Splitu koji su napisali reflektivne eseje. Uz pomoć LIWC programa eseji su potom uspoređeni s istim brojem eseja generiranih pomoću ChatGPT-a i Barda. Drugo istraživanje uključivalo je također studente medicinskog fakulteta podijeljenih u dvije skupine: jedna je pisala eseje koristeći ChatGPT, a druga samostalno. Prije i poslije pisanja, studenti su ispunjavali upitnike o stavovima prema UI-ju i o svojoj intrinzičnoj motivaciji. Rezultati: Lingvistička analiza ukazala je da su eseji koje je generirao UI imali višu razinu analitičkog mišljenja, autentičnosti i veću upotrebu dugih riječi u usporedbi s esejima studenata. Studentski eseji pokazivali su više izraza kognitivnih procesa i duže rečenice, kao i veću raznolikost izražavanja neslaganja i kognitivnih procesa. Eseji potencijalno napisani uz pomoć UI-ja pokazivali su mješovite karakteristike, bliže UI-generiranim esejima nego originalnim studentskim esejima. U drugom istraživanju, promjena stavova prema UI-ju nije bila statistički značajna između grupa. Međutim, studenti koji su pisali bez pomoći ChatGPT-a temeljitije su proučili dodijeljeni članak i posvetili više napora u izvršavanju zadatka. Intrinzična motivacija bila je povezana s pozitivnijim stavovima prema UI-ju. Zaključci: Rezultati istraživanja pokazuju da, iako UI vrlo uspješno stvara stilski kvalitetne i sadržajno bogate eseje, i dalje postoje uočljive lingvističke razlike između eseja napisanih od strane studenata i onih kreiranih pomoću UI. Te razlike posebno se očituju u područjima analitičkog razmišljanja, izražavanja emocija i kognitivnih procesa. Iako UI pokazuje izuzetnu sposobnost pisanja, ljudsko pisanje zadržava složenije izražavanje misli i emocija. Korištenje UI alata bilo je povezanom sa načinom na koji studenti pristupaju zadacima, ali nije značajno promijenilo njihove stavove prema UI-ju. Budući izazovi uključuju razvoj novih načina ocjenjivanje studentskog rada, uz etičku upotrebu UI-ja u obrazovanju.Objectives: The first study aimed to conduct a linguistic analysis and comparison of essays written by medical students with essays generated by AI (ChatGPT and Bard) on the topic of an ethical, professional, or moral dilemma. Linguistic variables were analyzed using the LIWC software, and the origin of the essays was examined using AI detection tools. The hypotheses assumed differences in the expression of emotions and cognitive processes between student-written and AI-generated essays. The second study aimed to examine how the use of ChatGPT affects students' attitudes toward AI, with the hypothesis that students who wrote essays independently and those with higher intrinsic motivation would show a stronger change in their existing attitudes. Participans and procedures: In the first study, participants were 5th- and 6th-year medical students from the University of Split School of Medicine who wrote reflective essays. Using the LIWC software, these essays were compared with an equal number of essays generated by ChatGPT and Bard. The second study involved 80 students divided into two groups: one group wrote essays using ChatGPT, while the other wrote independently. Before and after the writing task, students completed questionnaires on their attitudes toward artificial intelligence and their intrinsic motivation. Results: The linguistic analysis showed that AI-generated essays exhibited higher levels of analytical thinking, authenticity, and greater use of long words compared to student essays. Student essays demonstrated greater expression of cognitive processes and longer sentence lengths. Furthermore, student essays showed greater variation in the expression of disagreement and cognitive processes. Essays potentially written with AI assistance exhibited mixed characteristics, being more similar to AI-generated essays than to original student essays. In the second study, changes in attitudes toward AI were not statistically significant between groups. However, students who wrote essays without the help of ChatGPT engaged more thoroughly with the assigned article and demonstrated greater effort in completing the task. Intrinsic motivation was associated with more positive attitudes toward AI. Conclusions: The results indicate that although AI is highly successful in producing stylistically polished and content-rich essays, recognizable linguistic differences still exist between student-written and AI-generated texts. These differences are particularly evident in aspects of analytical thinking, emotional expression, and cognitive processing. While AI demonstrates exceptional writing capabilities, human writing retains a more complex expression of thoughts and emotions. The use of AI tools influenced the way students approached academic tasks but did not significantly alter their attitudes toward AI. Future challenges include developing new methods for assessing student work, alongside promoting the ethical use of AI in education
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
Using artificial intelligence in writing medical ethics essays during medical school education
No full textCiljevi: Cilj prvog istraživanja bio je provesti lingvističku analizu i usporedbu eseja studenata medicine s esejima generiranim pomoću UI-ja (ChatGPT i Bard) na temu etičke, profesionalne ili moralne dileme. Jezične varijable su analizirane uz pomoć LIWC softvera, a izvor eseja je ispitan pomoću softvera za prepoznavanje UI-ja. Hipoteze su pretpostavljale razlike u izražavanju emocija i kognitivnim procesima između studentskih i UI-generiranih eseja. U drugom istraživanju cilj je bio ispitati utjecaj korištenja ChatGPT-a na stavove studenata prema UI-ju, uz predpostavku da će studenti koji sami pišu eseje kao i oni s višom intrizičkom motivacijom pokazati snažniju promjenu postojećih stavova. Ispitanici i postupci: U prvom istraživanju sudjelovali su studenti 5. i 6. godine Medicinskog fakulteta u Splitu koji su napisali reflektivne eseje. Uz pomoć LIWC programa eseji su potom uspoređeni s istim brojem eseja generiranih pomoću ChatGPT-a i Barda. Drugo istraživanje uključivalo je također studente medicinskog fakulteta podijeljenih u dvije skupine: jedna je pisala eseje koristeći ChatGPT, a druga samostalno. Prije i poslije pisanja, studenti su ispunjavali upitnike o stavovima prema UI-ju i o svojoj intrinzičnoj motivaciji. Rezultati: Lingvistička analiza ukazala je da su eseji koje je generirao UI imali višu razinu analitičkog mišljenja, autentičnosti i veću upotrebu dugih riječi u usporedbi s esejima studenata. Studentski eseji pokazivali su više izraza kognitivnih procesa i duže rečenice, kao i veću raznolikost izražavanja neslaganja i kognitivnih procesa. Eseji potencijalno napisani uz pomoć UI-ja pokazivali su mješovite karakteristike, bliže UI-generiranim esejima nego originalnim studentskim esejima. U drugom istraživanju, promjena stavova prema UI-ju nije bila statistički značajna između grupa. Međutim, studenti koji su pisali bez pomoći ChatGPT-a temeljitije su proučili dodijeljeni članak i posvetili više napora u izvršavanju zadatka. Intrinzična motivacija bila je povezana s pozitivnijim stavovima prema UI-ju. Zaključci: Rezultati istraživanja pokazuju da, iako UI vrlo uspješno stvara stilski kvalitetne i sadržajno bogate eseje, i dalje postoje uočljive lingvističke razlike između eseja napisanih od strane studenata i onih kreiranih pomoću UI. Te razlike posebno se očituju u područjima analitičkog razmišljanja, izražavanja emocija i kognitivnih procesa. Iako UI pokazuje izuzetnu sposobnost pisanja, ljudsko pisanje zadržava složenije izražavanje misli i emocija. Korištenje UI alata bilo je povezanom sa načinom na koji studenti pristupaju zadacima, ali nije značajno promijenilo njihove stavove prema UI-ju. Budući izazovi uključuju razvoj novih načina ocjenjivanje studentskog rada, uz etičku upotrebu UI-ja u obrazovanju.Objectives: The first study aimed to conduct a linguistic analysis and comparison of essays written by medical students with essays generated by AI (ChatGPT and Bard) on the topic of an ethical, professional, or moral dilemma. Linguistic variables were analyzed using the LIWC software, and the origin of the essays was examined using AI detection tools. The hypotheses assumed differences in the expression of emotions and cognitive processes between student-written and AI-generated essays. The second study aimed to examine how the use of ChatGPT affects students' attitudes toward AI, with the hypothesis that students who wrote essays independently and those with higher intrinsic motivation would show a stronger change in their existing attitudes. Participans and procedures: In the first study, participants were 5th- and 6th-year medical students from the University of Split School of Medicine who wrote reflective essays. Using the LIWC software, these essays were compared with an equal number of essays generated by ChatGPT and Bard. The second study involved 80 students divided into two groups: one group wrote essays using ChatGPT, while the other wrote independently. Before and after the writing task, students completed questionnaires on their attitudes toward artificial intelligence and their intrinsic motivation. Results: The linguistic analysis showed that AI-generated essays exhibited higher levels of analytical thinking, authenticity, and greater use of long words compared to student essays. Student essays demonstrated greater expression of cognitive processes and longer sentence lengths. Furthermore, student essays showed greater variation in the expression of disagreement and cognitive processes. Essays potentially written with AI assistance exhibited mixed characteristics, being more similar to AI-generated essays than to original student essays. In the second study, changes in attitudes toward AI were not statistically significant between groups. However, students who wrote essays without the help of ChatGPT engaged more thoroughly with the assigned article and demonstrated greater effort in completing the task. Intrinsic motivation was associated with more positive attitudes toward AI. Conclusions: The results indicate that although AI is highly successful in producing stylistically polished and content-rich essays, recognizable linguistic differences still exist between student-written and AI-generated texts. These differences are particularly evident in aspects of analytical thinking, emotional expression, and cognitive processing. While AI demonstrates exceptional writing capabilities, human writing retains a more complex expression of thoughts and emotions. The use of AI tools influenced the way students approached academic tasks but did not significantly alter their attitudes toward AI. Future challenges include developing new methods for assessing student work, alongside promoting the ethical use of AI in education
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
Using artificial intelligence in writing medical ethics essays during medical school education
No full textCiljevi: Cilj prvog istraživanja bio je provesti lingvističku analizu i usporedbu eseja studenata medicine s esejima generiranim pomoću UI-ja (ChatGPT i Bard) na temu etičke, profesionalne ili moralne dileme. Jezične varijable su analizirane uz pomoć LIWC softvera, a izvor eseja je ispitan pomoću softvera za prepoznavanje UI-ja. Hipoteze su pretpostavljale razlike u izražavanju emocija i kognitivnim procesima između studentskih i UI-generiranih eseja. U drugom istraživanju cilj je bio ispitati utjecaj korištenja ChatGPT-a na stavove studenata prema UI-ju, uz predpostavku da će studenti koji sami pišu eseje kao i oni s višom intrizičkom motivacijom pokazati snažniju promjenu postojećih stavova. Ispitanici i postupci: U prvom istraživanju sudjelovali su studenti 5. i 6. godine Medicinskog fakulteta u Splitu koji su napisali reflektivne eseje. Uz pomoć LIWC programa eseji su potom uspoređeni s istim brojem eseja generiranih pomoću ChatGPT-a i Barda. Drugo istraživanje uključivalo je također studente medicinskog fakulteta podijeljenih u dvije skupine: jedna je pisala eseje koristeći ChatGPT, a druga samostalno. Prije i poslije pisanja, studenti su ispunjavali upitnike o stavovima prema UI-ju i o svojoj intrinzičnoj motivaciji. Rezultati: Lingvistička analiza ukazala je da su eseji koje je generirao UI imali višu razinu analitičkog mišljenja, autentičnosti i veću upotrebu dugih riječi u usporedbi s esejima studenata. Studentski eseji pokazivali su više izraza kognitivnih procesa i duže rečenice, kao i veću raznolikost izražavanja neslaganja i kognitivnih procesa. Eseji potencijalno napisani uz pomoć UI-ja pokazivali su mješovite karakteristike, bliže UI-generiranim esejima nego originalnim studentskim esejima. U drugom istraživanju, promjena stavova prema UI-ju nije bila statistički značajna između grupa. Međutim, studenti koji su pisali bez pomoći ChatGPT-a temeljitije su proučili dodijeljeni članak i posvetili više napora u izvršavanju zadatka. Intrinzična motivacija bila je povezana s pozitivnijim stavovima prema UI-ju. Zaključci: Rezultati istraživanja pokazuju da, iako UI vrlo uspješno stvara stilski kvalitetne i sadržajno bogate eseje, i dalje postoje uočljive lingvističke razlike između eseja napisanih od strane studenata i onih kreiranih pomoću UI. Te razlike posebno se očituju u područjima analitičkog razmišljanja, izražavanja emocija i kognitivnih procesa. Iako UI pokazuje izuzetnu sposobnost pisanja, ljudsko pisanje zadržava složenije izražavanje misli i emocija. Korištenje UI alata bilo je povezanom sa načinom na koji studenti pristupaju zadacima, ali nije značajno promijenilo njihove stavove prema UI-ju. Budući izazovi uključuju razvoj novih načina ocjenjivanje studentskog rada, uz etičku upotrebu UI-ja u obrazovanju.Objectives: The first study aimed to conduct a linguistic analysis and comparison of essays written by medical students with essays generated by AI (ChatGPT and Bard) on the topic of an ethical, professional, or moral dilemma. Linguistic variables were analyzed using the LIWC software, and the origin of the essays was examined using AI detection tools. The hypotheses assumed differences in the expression of emotions and cognitive processes between student-written and AI-generated essays. The second study aimed to examine how the use of ChatGPT affects students' attitudes toward AI, with the hypothesis that students who wrote essays independently and those with higher intrinsic motivation would show a stronger change in their existing attitudes. Participans and procedures: In the first study, participants were 5th- and 6th-year medical students from the University of Split School of Medicine who wrote reflective essays. Using the LIWC software, these essays were compared with an equal number of essays generated by ChatGPT and Bard. The second study involved 80 students divided into two groups: one group wrote essays using ChatGPT, while the other wrote independently. Before and after the writing task, students completed questionnaires on their attitudes toward artificial intelligence and their intrinsic motivation. Results: The linguistic analysis showed that AI-generated essays exhibited higher levels of analytical thinking, authenticity, and greater use of long words compared to student essays. Student essays demonstrated greater expression of cognitive processes and longer sentence lengths. Furthermore, student essays showed greater variation in the expression of disagreement and cognitive processes. Essays potentially written with AI assistance exhibited mixed characteristics, being more similar to AI-generated essays than to original student essays. In the second study, changes in attitudes toward AI were not statistically significant between groups. However, students who wrote essays without the help of ChatGPT engaged more thoroughly with the assigned article and demonstrated greater effort in completing the task. Intrinsic motivation was associated with more positive attitudes toward AI. Conclusions: The results indicate that although AI is highly successful in producing stylistically polished and content-rich essays, recognizable linguistic differences still exist between student-written and AI-generated texts. These differences are particularly evident in aspects of analytical thinking, emotional expression, and cognitive processing. While AI demonstrates exceptional writing capabilities, human writing retains a more complex expression of thoughts and emotions. The use of AI tools influenced the way students approached academic tasks but did not significantly alter their attitudes toward AI. Future challenges include developing new methods for assessing student work, alongside promoting the ethical use of AI in education
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
- …
