1,721,399 research outputs found
Introduction to the Special Section on Theory and Data in Categorization: Integrating Computational, Behavioral, and Cognitive Neuroscience Approaches
No full textThis special section brings together behavioral, computational, mathematical, and neuroimaging approaches to understand the processes underlying category learning. Over the past decade, there has been growing convergence in research on categorization, with computational mathematical models influencing the interpretation of brain imaging and neuropsychological data, and with cognitive neuroscience findings influencing the development and refinement of models. Classic debates between single-system and multiple-memory-system theories have become more nuanced and focused. Multiple brain areas and cognitive processes contribute to categorization, but theories differ markedly in whether and when those neurocognitive components are recruited for different aspects of categorization. The articles in this special section approach this issue from several diverse angles.</p
Pillars of judgment : how memory abilities, task feedback, and cognitive load guide judgment strategies
Full text linkMaking judgments is an essential part of everyday life and how people form a
judgment has instigated a plethora of research. Research in judgment and categorization has
particularly contrasted two types of judgment strategies: rule-based and similarity-based
strategies. Recent research suggests that people can make use of both rule- and similaritybased
strategies and frequently shift between these strategies. To select between strategies,
contingency approaches propose that people trade off the strategies’ accuracy against the
effort needed to execute strategy so that the selected strategy matches the demands of the task
environment and the capabilities of the decision maker. This dissertation presents three papers
investigating how accuracy-effort trade-offs between rule-based and similarity-based
judgment strategies change strategy selection in judgment and categorization tasks.
The first paper studies how reducing working memory by imposing a cognitive load
may foster shifts to a less demanding similarity-based strategy and, in turn, enhances
judgment performance in tasks well solved by a similarity-based strategy, but not in tasks for
which rules are better suited. The second paper compares judgment strategies to strategies
people apply in categorization. It shows that the same task characteristics, namely the number
of cues and the functional relationship between cues and criterion, foster shifts between rulebased
and similarity-based strategies in judgment and categorization. The third manuscript
explores which memory abilities underlie rule-based and similarity-based judgments.
Specifically, it shows that working memory predicts to a stronger degree how well people
solve rule-based judgment tasks, whereas episodic memory is more closely linked to
judgment performance in similarity-based tasks. Furthermore, episodic memory also predicts
selecting a similarity-based strategy, but not working memory
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
- …
