1,720,994 research outputs found
Women and Children Last: The Discursive Construction of Weblogs
Full text linkHerring, Susan C.; Kouper, Inna; Scheidt, Lois Ann; Wright, Elijah. (2004). Women and Children Last: The Discursive Construction of Weblogs. Retrieved from the University Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/172825
SEAD Virtual Archive: Thin Layer for Scientific Discovery and Long-Term Preservation
Full text linkMajor research universities are grappling with their response to the deluge of scientific data in its big data and long tail data forms. The latter consist of many diverse and heterogeneous sets, the data are collected via diverse and specialized methods, and are stored in a variety of formats and places. University libraries and their institutional repositories have traditionally been able to handle scientific output. But long-tail scientific data introduce substantial challenges to a traditional document-based repository through its vast heterogeneity, size, and its demands for meaningful discovery and in the case of large data sets, place-based use.
In this presentation we will provide a brief overview of the NSF-funded project "Sustainable Environment - Actionable Data" (SEAD), which addresses the challenges of long-tail scientific data with the focus on sustainability science. We will provide an overview of this project and of its discovery and preservation component, called SEAD Virtual Archive. This component is being developed by the Data to Insight Center team at Indiana University in collaboration with IU and UIUC libraries. We will describe main features and our ongoing work on SEAD Virtual Archive and discuss the value and importance of partnerships between data research centers, such as D2I, and the libraries
Data Curation in Interdisciplinary and Highly Collaborative Research
Full text linkThis paper provides a systematic analysis of publications that discuss data curation in interdisciplinary and highly collaborative research (IHCR). Using content analysis methodology, it examined 159 publications and identified patterns in definitions of interdisciplinarity, projects’ participants and methodologies, and approaches to data curation. The findings suggest that data is a prominent component in interdisciplinarity. In addition to crossing disciplinary and other boundaries, IHCR is defined as curating and integrating heterogeneous data and creating new forms of knowledge from it. Using personal experiences and descriptive approaches, the publications discussed challenges that data curation in IHCR faces, including an increased overhead in coordination and management, lack of consistent metadata practices, and custom infrastructure that makes interoperability across projects, domains, and repositories difficult. The paper concludes with suggestions for future research
Fileset: Diseases across the Top Five Languages in PubMed
No full text<p>This fileset contains two files, a visualization and its desription, which were submitted to the WebSci'14 conference data visualization challenge (http://www.websci14.org/#call-for-data-visualization-challenge). The submission won the best student award. </p>
<p>Suggested citation: Zoss, Angela; Edelblute, Trevor; Kouper, Inna. (2014): Diseases across the Top Five Languages of the PubMed Database: 1961-2012. doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1033878</p
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
Navigating the Challenges of Legacy Data: A Systematic Literature Analysis
Full text linkLegacy data is data collected systematically in the past, for which contemporary use and reuse are at-risk, difficult, or impossible due to issues such as missing metadata, obsolete storage media, outdated file formats, and unsupported software. As we introduced in Buchanan, et al. (2023), there is a demonstrated need for more systematic understanding of legacy research data efforts and the value of these data and efforts as perceived across stakeholder groups. We are conducting a literature analysis of publications on the topics of legacy research data use, preservation, curation, and management. Using an established search query and online literature databases, we retrieved and manually reviewed a pool of 1,338 results and identified 69 papers that fit the following criteria for our study: peer-reviewed articles published in the last 15 years including studies discussing methodologies and best practices; studies that describe repurposing legacy data; studies focusing on storage or archival methods for older data; and studies that discuss software and migration challenges. We are analyzing the sample of papers using content analysis and bibliometric methods, focusing on references to individuals involved, processes, data types, formats, locations, and problems being addressed
Challenges in Curating Interdisciplinary Data in the Biodiversity Research Community
No full textPanelists: James Macklin, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; Anne Thessen, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus; Robbie Burger, University of Kentucky; Ben Norton, North Carolina Museum of Natural SciencesOrganizers: Kimberly Cook, University of Kentucky; Inna Kouper, Indiana UniversityAs research incentives become increasingly focused on collaborative work, addressing the challenges of curating interdisciplinary data becomes a priority. A panel convened at the TDWG 2021 virtual conference on October 19 discussed these issues and provided the space where people with a variety of experience curating interdisciplinary biodiversity data shared their knowledge and expertise.The panel started with a brief introduction to the challenges of interdisciplinary and highly collaborative research (IHCR), which the panel organizers have previously observed (Kouper et al. 2021). In addition to varying definitions that focus on crossing the disciplinary boundaries or synthesizing knowledge, IHCR is characterized by an increasing emphasis on computation, integration of heterogeneous data sources, and work with multiple stakeholders. As such, IHCR data does not fit with traditional lifecycle models as it requires more iterations, coordination, and shared language.Narrowing the scope to biodiversity data, the panelists acknowledged that biodiversity is a truly interdisciplinary domain where researchers and practitioners bring their diverse expertise to take care of data. The domain has a variety of contributors, including data producers, users, and curators. While they share common goals, these contributors are often fragmented in separate projects that prioritize academic disciplines or public engagement. Lack of knowledge and awareness about contributors and their projects and expertise as well as a certain vulnerability in branching out into new areas, are among the factors that make it difficult to tear down silos. As James Macklin put it, "... you're crossing a boundary into a place you don't maybe know a lot about, and for some people, that's hard to do. Right? It takes a lot of listening and thinking."Due to their complex and interactive nature, IHCR projects almost always have a higher overhead in terms of communication, coordination, and management. Panelists agreed that for such projects there needs to be a collaboration handbook that assigns roles and responsibilities and establishes rules for various aspects of collaboration, including authorship and handling disagreements. Successful IHCR projects create such handbooks at the beginning and revisit them regularly. Another useful strategy mentioned was to hold debriefing sessions that evaluate what went well and what didn't.Strong leadership that takes IHCR complexities into account and builds a network of capable facilitators and "bridge-builders" or "translators" is a big factor that makes projects succeed. Recognizing and encouraging the role of facilitators from the onset of the project helps to develop productive relationships across disciplines and areas of expertise. It also enables everyone to focus on their strengths and build trust.Data and metadata integration is one of the big challenges in biodiversity, although it is not unique to it. Biodiversity brings together many disciplines and each of them identifies its own problems and collects data to address them. Data silos stem from disciplinary silos, and it will take a different, more integrated, kind of cyberinfrastructure and modeling to bring these pieces together. Creating such infrastructures and standards around interdisciplinary data and metadata are serious needs, although they are not valued and rewarded enough compared to, say publishing academic papers.Lack of standardization and infrastructure also stands in the way of improving the quality of data in biodiversity. To evaluate the quality of data and to trust its creators, data users need to know who gathered and processed the data and how. When the data is re-used within a collaborative project, there is an opportunity to ask questions and find out why, for example, someone had certain naming conventions or processing and analytical approaches. Long-term data such as species' life history traits, however, can be collected over long periods of time. Improving the quality of biodiversity data requires going beyond interpersonal communication and addressing the issues of metadata and standards more systematically.Panelists also discussed the issue of openness in connection to biodiversity data. Openness contributes to the improved quality of data and an increased return on public investment in science and research. Panelists' positions diverged in the degree to which biodiversity data should be open and approaches to address competitiveness and sensitivity in research. On one hand, they acknowledged the need for some form of embargo on data sharing to allow data originators to benefit from their effort; on the other, they argued that lack of openness promotes silos and diminishes the quality of research and its reproducibility. Panelists briefly discussed the COVID pandemic data as an example of how lack of openness and silos can be detrimental to finding solutions:"COVID has given us the best example we have of how silos do damage to things that could have gone better. ... the data wasn't available, if it had been open or not even necessarily open but had anybody had any idea that it existed somewhere, that would have helped a lot. … We are learning those lessons, governments are changing the way they do business because of it. And so for us, I mean, our community, I think this has been one of the best things that could have happened to us in some ways, simply because it forced a change of mindset. And it has forced citizens to get engaged." [James Macklin]The panelists, who brought a wide range of expertise to the discussion, including semantic and digitization technologies, agricultural data, evolutionary biology, and mineralogy among others, discussed projects they work on, which engaged the audience and stimulated a discussion among all participants about the role of end users in biodiversity data curation, non-traditional careers in biodiversity, and approaches to reviewing data similar to traditional research publications. Panelists and the audience also discussed the differences between "cleaning" and "annotating" data, making annotations part of the biodiversity record and data reviews. These productive discussions provide a foundation for further developments in the research and practice of curating biodiversity data and building strong interdisciplinary communities
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
- …
