1,720,965 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
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
Income intervention quick scan: farmer field schools : Farmer Income Lab Intervention Quick Scan
No full textThis quick scan, commissioned by the Farmer Income Lab, is part of a wider research effort looking at, “What are the most effective actions that lead buyers can take to enable smallholder farmers in global supply chains to meaningfully increase their incomes?”. The quick scan provides an overview of the publicly available evidence on the impact of farmer field schools have had on raising farmer income. Such subsidies have had little positive effect on farmer income, are not notably beneficial for women nor is this effect long-term. They have been applied at large scale. This quick scan is part of a series of 16, contributing to a synthesis report “What Works to Raise Farmer’s Income: a Landscape Review”
Making evaluations matter : A practical guide for evaluators
Full text linkXII, 118 p. : ill.Libro ElectrónicoThis guide is primarily for evaluators working in the international development sector. It is also useful for commissioner of evaluations, evaluation managers and M&E officers. The guide explains how to make evaluations more useful. It helps to better understand conceptual issues and appreciate how evaluations can contribute to changing mindsets and empowering stakeholders. On a practical level, the guide presents core guiding principles and pointers on how to design and facilitate evaluations that matter. Furthermore, it shows how to get primary intended users and other key stakeholders to contribute effectively to the evaluation process.Table of contents
A letter to the reader
ix
Introduction xi
1
Core principles for guiding evaluations that matter
1:13
1.1 Utilization-focused, influence- and consequence-aware . 1:14
1.2 Stakes, stakeholder engagement and learning 1:19
1.3 Situational responsiveness . 1:19
1.4 Multiple evaluator and evaluation roles 1:21
1.5 Some key points on core principles for guiding evaluations that matter . 1:22
2
Suggested steps for designing and facilitating evaluations that matter
2:23
2.1 Establish ability and readiness for evaluation . 2:26
2.2 Focus the evaluation . 2:30
2.3 Implement the evaluation . 2:45
2.4 Evaluate the evaluation 2:59
2.5 Some key points on suggested steps for designing and facilitating
evaluations that matter 2:60
3
Getting stakeholders to contribute successfully
3:61
3.1 Who the stakeholders are . 3:61
3.2 What are the stakes and who has these stakes? 3:62
3.3 Why encourage stakeholder engagement? . 3:63
3.4 How much engagement? 3:63
3.5 Who to engage and what are the consequences of these choices? . 3:66
3.6 Evaluation roles needed in balancing content and people processes 3:70
3.7 Engaging stakeholders effectively . 3:76
3.8 Strategies for addressing group issues 3:77
3.9 Some key points on getting stakeholders to contribute successfully . 3:78
4
Turning evaluation into a learning process
4:79
4.1 Learning in evaluative practice 4:80
4.2 Experiential learning cycle 4:81
4.3 Single, double and triple loop learning . 4:83
4.4 Key learning moments during the evaluation process 4:85
4.5 Enhancing learning . 4:87
v
4.6 Dealing with diversity in learning processes . 4:88
4.7 Some key points on turning evaluation into a learning process 4:89
5
Thinking through the possible influences and consequences of evaluation
on change processes
5:91
5.1 How change happens 5:93
5.2 Some key points on thinking through the possible influences and
consequences of evaluation on the change process 5:96
Conclusion: Evaluations matter
97
Annex A: xamples of (Learning) Purposes, Assessment Questions, Users and Uses
E
of an Evaluation for a Food Security Initiative 99
Annex B: Contrasts between Traditional Evaluation and Complexity-Sensitive
Developmental Evaluation 101
References 105
Glossary . 111
Acronyms and abbreviations . 114
Index
. 115
List of figures
Figure 2.1 Flow Chart – Evaluation Design and Facilitation . 2:24
Figure 2.2 A Theory of Change for Agri-ProFocus (APF) 2:38
Figure 3.1 Influence Matrix of Stakeholders on an Evaluation . 3:69
Figure 3.2 Life-Cycle: Stages of Group Formation 3:76
Figure 4.1 Stages of the Experiential Learning Cycle . 4:81
Figure 4.2 Single, Double and Triple Loop Learning 4:84
Figure 5.1 Matrix Showing Factors Promoting Transformation at the Individual,
Relationship, Cultural and Systems Levels 5:94
List of tables
Table 1.1 Consequences of Evaluation Use 1:18
Table 2.1 Criteria for Assessing Ability and Readiness for Evaluation . 2:27
Table 2.2 Example of Stakeholder Participation in Evaluation 2:43
Table 2.3 Example of an Evaluation Matrix for an Agricultural Development Initiative
for Improved Livelihoods . 2:49
vi
Table 3.1 Examples of Situational Factors in Evaluation that Can Affect Stakeholders’
Participation and Use 3:66
Table 3.2 Examples of Situations that Pose Special Challenges to Evaluation Use
and the Evaluator’s Role 3:73
Table 3.3 Stages of Group Formation, Group Characteristics and Expectations,
and Role of the Evaluator/Manager . 3:77
List of boxes
Box 1.1 Threats to Utility . 1:15
Box 1.2 Being Clear about Your Own Principles for Evaluation 1:16
Box 2.1 Readiness for Evaluation . Readiness for Change? . 2:28
Box 2.2 Adding Rigour to the Evaluation Process 2:28
Box 2.3 Standards for Evaluation . 2:33
Box 2.4 Definition of Key Evaluation Areas 2:40
Box 2.5 Evaluation / Performance / Learning Questions 2:41
Box 2.6 Examples of Evaluation Questions in Relation to Key Evaluation Areas 2:41
Box 2.7 Suggested Outline for a Work Plan for an Evaluation . 2:47
Box 2.8 Sample Format for Terms of Reference . 2:47
Box 2.9 Measuring Change with an Open Mind - Most Significant Change (MSC)
Technique and Participatory Video in Zanzibar 2:51
Box 2.10 Poor Feedback with Serious Consequences 2:57
Box 2.11 Ten Guidelines for Useful and Practical Recommendations 2:58
Box 3.1 Multiple Stakes in a Street Kids’ Programme . 3:63
Box 3.2 Empowering Stakeholders through Evaluation 3:64
Box 3.3 Integrating Self-assessment in Evaluation: A Story from the Centre for
Development Innovation . 3:65
Box 3.4 Stakeholder Participation in Data Collection and Analysis – Mixed Feelings
About Consequences . 3:70
Box 3.5 Essential Competencies for Programme Evaluators . 3:72
Box 3.6 Changing the Focus of an Evaluation Half-Way through the Process 3:74
Box 4.1 An Example of the Experiential Learning Cycle Applied to an Evaluation 4:82
Box 4.2 Selected Barriers to Learning . 4:85
Box 4.3 Critical Reflection Questions 4:86
Box 4.4 Factors Affecting Learning from an Evaluation 4:88
Box 5.1 An Evaluation Process that Influenced Change Processes . 5:92
Box 5.2 Possible Reactions of Stakeholders to Change . 5:93
Box 5.3 Learning-Based Change and the Learning Organisation’s Characteristics 5:9
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
