1,721,016 research outputs found

    The choice between a panel and cohort study design

    No full text
    Executive SummaryThe UK has a long and rich history of longitudinal studies, including cohort studies and longitudinal panels, and we summarise the main studies and their key features. We go on to identify the key differences between cohort and panel approaches, in the population coverage and whether refreshment samples are expected; what types of questions can be used; the sample design and sample size; and the choice of spacing of waves. Over a long period panels and cohorts collect similar amounts of information, but in a single cohort there is no way to measure the cohort effect separately from time effects. Early in the studies, the differences are greater. Cohort studies can have questionnaires much more tailored to the age and expected life course events of the respondents than a panel study, which must cater for many ages.Accelerated cohort designs offer an intermediate solution, where the collection can be tailored, but where cohort effects can be estimated, as long as there is some overlap between the ages in the cohorts. There are several additional factors to consider in an accelerated cohort design.Making choices about which features are important in a new cohort study depends on the answers to many questions about what the intended analytical outcomes are, and how long the study will run

    Representativeness in six waves of CROss-National online survey (CRONOS) panel

    Get PDF
    Driven by innovations in the digital space, surveys have started to move towards online data collection across the world. However, evidence is needed to demonstrate that online data collection strategy will produce reliable data which could be confidently used to inform policy decisions. This issue is even more pertinent in cross-national surveys, where the comparability of data is of the utmost importance. Due to differences in internet coverage and willingness to participate in online surveys across Europe, there is a risk that any strategy to move existing surveys online will introduce differential coverage and nonresponse bias. This paper explores representativeness across waves in the first cross-national online probability-based panel (CRONOS) by employing R-indicators that summarize the representativeness of the data across a range of variables. The analysis allows comparison of the results over time and across three countries (Estonia, Great Britain and Slovenia). The results suggest that there are differences in representativeness over time in each country and across countries. Those with lower levels of education and those who are in the oldest age category contribute more to the lack of representativeness in the three countries. However, the representativeness of CRONOS panel does not become worse when compared to the regular face-to-face interviewing conducted in the European Social Survey (ESS).</p

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Get PDF
    The 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 PDF
    We 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 PDF
    We 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

    Author Index

    No full text
    Nao informado

    koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist

    No full text
    We 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
    corecore