1,721,152 research outputs found

    M. Lapidge et R. Sharpe. A Bibliography of Celtic-Latin Literature. Dublin, Royal Irish Academy, 1986

    No full text
    Fleuriot Léon. M. Lapidge et R. Sharpe. A Bibliography of Celtic-Latin Literature. Dublin, Royal Irish Academy, 1986. In: Etudes Celtiques, vol. 24, 1987. pp. 347-348

    Michael Lapidge (Éd.), Archbishop Theodore. Commemorative studies on his life and influence, ed. by M. Lapidge

    No full text
    Flusin Bernard. Michael Lapidge (Éd.), Archbishop Theodore. Commemorative studies on his life and influence, ed. by M. Lapidge. In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 54, 1996. pp. 298-299

    Michael Lapidge (Éd.), Archbishop Theodore. Commemorative studies on his life and influence, ed. by M. Lapidge

    No full text
    Flusin Bernard. Michael Lapidge (Éd.), Archbishop Theodore. Commemorative studies on his life and influence, ed. by M. Lapidge. In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 54, 1996. pp. 298-299

    The World of Anglo-Saxon Learning

    No full text
    A complete revised and upgraded version of the essay which collects and discusses different forms of learning (not necessarily bookish) in Anglo-Saxon Englan

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    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
    corecore