1,721,188 research outputs found
Personal Papers (MS 80-0002)
No full textLetter from M. M. Feld to Isaac H. Kempner discussing the California dates he sent the latter
Personal Papers (MS 80-0002)
No full textLetter from A. H. Blackshear, Jr. to M. M. Feld discussing Feld's letter to I. H. Kempner on August 29
Personal Papers (MS 80-0002)
No full textLetter from M. M. Feld to I. H. Kempner discussing the financing of a fraternity house for Jewish medical students
Personal Papers (MS 80-0002)
No full textLetter from I. H. Kempner to M. M. Feld discussing Herbert Kempner's high voltage treatment and mentioning Feld should visit Galveston
Personal Papers (MS 80-0002)
No full textLetter from Isaac H. Kempner to M. M. Feld discussing the dates the latter sent him and thanking him for the tie
Personal Papers (MS 80-0002)
No full textLetter from I. H. Kempner to M. M. Feld discussing the funding for a Jewish fraternity house at the University of Texas Medical School
Personal Papers (MS 80-0002)
No full textLetter from M. M. Feld to I. H. Kempner discussing the funding for a Jewish fraternity house at the University of Texas Medical School
Personal Papers (MS 80-0002)
No full textLetter from I. H. Kempner to M. M. Feld discussing the funding for a Jewish fraternity at the University of Texas Medical School
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
- …
