1,720,958 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
The Good-Faith Doubt Test and the Revival of \u3cem\u3eJoy Silk\u3c/em\u3e Bargaining Orders
Full text linkThe last fifty-two years have borne witness to the swift degradation and virtual irrelevance of the bargaining order. By the end of the twentieth century even pro-enforcement officials in the NLRB were acknowledging the difficulty of obtaining an enforceable bargaining order, and the remedy rarely appears these days in the agency’s published decisions.
This is not the product of the usual economic or political factors cited as reasons for the labor movement’s and its attendant regulating schema’s diminishment. Rather, the decline of the bargaining order can be explained almost entirely by the disappearance of the so-called Joy Silk doctrine from the labor law landscape in 1969. Under Joy Silk, the NLRB would order an employer to recognize and bargain with a labor union if the union represented a majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit at the time it requested recognition, and the employer denied the request while lacking a good faith doubt as to the union’s majority status and took action calculated to dissipate that majority status. Under closer examination, it has become clear that the NLRB’s abandonment of the good-faith doubt test in favor of the misconduct-centric analysis enunciated in Gissel Packing is intimately connected to the agency’s inability to enforce the law and, as a result, fulfill its statutory mission of encouraging collective bargaining.
This Article addresses the primary objections to the NLRB’s use of the good-faith doubt test in the realm of union requests for recognition that were raised in its heyday and elucidates their lack of historical, legal, and practical foundations. The NLRB’s inquiry into motive in the pre-recognition context was statutorily permissible, logically consistent, and effectively deterrent. Reviving the good-faith doubt test of Joy Silk and enforcing Section 8(a)(5) of the NLRA as written would better encapsulate the bargaining orders envisioned in past Supreme Court precedent and equip the NLRB with a tool historically proven to prevent misconduct in elections
Recommended from our members
Whither the Wagner Act: On the Waning View of Labor Law and Leviathan
No full textThe National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) well-documented weaknesses in substance and enforcement, combined with legislators’ inability to adapt the Act to the modern economy, have understandably created many cynics in the field of labor law. For several decades, legal scholars have almost unanimously derided the NLRA and the agency which administers it, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), for failing to prevent rampant anti-union conduct by employers and the collapse of the union formation process through the Board’s election machinery. This “ossification” of the law, as it has come to be known, is considered to be a key contributor to the United States’ private-sector unionization rate declining from its mid-century high of 35 percent to a mere six percent in recent years. While most scholars have generally lamented the diminishing relevance of the NLRA or the squandering of its transformational potential, others have questioned the labor movement’s preoccupation with obtaining favorable federal legislation. This clustering of academics and activists are skeptical not only of unions’ current reliance on the state for assistance in reversing its fortunes, but of the very decision of New Deal-era politicians to pass the NLRA amidst the high point of worker insurgency and radical organizing in the 1930s.
This Article seeks to correct this narrative. It argues that Senator Robert Wagner was justified in crafting a national labor policy from the barbaric conditions which accompanied pre-New Deal union organizing. Wagner’s crusade to convert the state from an impediment to a facilitator of collective bargaining was “the most dramatic statutory assault on corporate prerogatives in American history,” and it represents the rare instance where a political elite pursued an ambitious economic agenda on behalf of labor and succeeded in the teeth of ferocious internal and industrial opposition. Although this Article takes no position on any recommended path forward, the story of the NLRA’s creation and an examination of the NLRB’s early history casts significant doubt on any theory of union growth that treats the state as a uniformly enervating force on the American labor movement
Burying Lochner: Why Courts Should Reject Coming Attempts to Revive Economic Due Process
Full text linkWhither the Wagner Act: On the Waning View of Labor Law and Leviathan
No full textThe National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) well-documented weaknesses in substance and enforcement, combined with legislators’ inability to adapt the Act to the modern economy, have understandably created many cynics in the field of labor law. For several decades, legal scholars have almost unanimously derided the NLRA and the agency which administers it, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), for failing to prevent rampant anti-union conduct by employers and the collapse of the union formation process through the Board’s election machinery. This “ossification” of the law, as it has come to be known, is considered to be a key contributor to the United States’ private-sector unionization rate declining from its mid-century high of 35 percent to a mere six percent in recent years. While most scholars have generally lamented the diminishing relevance of the NLRA or the squandering of its transformational potential, others have questioned the labor movement’s preoccupation with obtaining favorable federal legislation. This clustering of academics and activists are skeptical not only of unions’ current reliance on the state for assistance in reversing its fortunes, but of the very decision of New Deal-era politicians to pass the NLRA amidst the high point of worker insurgency and radical organizing in the 1930s.
This Article seeks to correct this narrative. It argues that Senator Robert Wagner was justified in crafting a national labor policy from the barbaric conditions which accompanied pre-New Deal union organizing. Wagner’s crusade to convert the state from an impediment to a facilitator of collective bargaining was “the most dramatic statutory assault on corporate prerogatives in American history,” and it represents the rare instance where a political elite pursued an ambitious economic agenda on behalf of labor and succeeded in the teeth of ferocious internal and industrial opposition. Although this Article takes no position on any recommended path forward, the story of the NLRA’s creation and an examination of the NLRB’s early history casts significant doubt on any theory of union growth that treats the state as a uniformly enervating force on the American labor movement
Whither the Wagner Act: On the Waning View of Labor Law and Leviathan
Full text linkThe National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) well-documented weaknesses in substance and enforcement, combined with legislators’ inability to adapt the Act to the modern economy, have understandably created many cynics in the field of labor law. For several decades, legal scholars have almost unanimously derided the NLRA and the agency which administers it, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), for failing to prevent rampant anti-union conduct by employers and the collapse of the union formation process through the Board’s election machinery. This “ossification” of the law, as it has come to be known, is considered to be a key contributor to the United States’ private-sector unionization rate declining from its mid-century high of 35 percent to a mere six percent in recent years. While most scholars have generally lamented the diminishing relevance of the NLRA or the squandering of its transformational potential, others have questioned the labor movement’s preoccupation with obtaining favorable federal legislation. This clustering of academics and activists are skeptical not only of unions’ current reliance on the state for assistance in reversing its fortunes, but of the very decision of New Deal-era politicians to pass the NLRA amidst the high point of worker insurgency and radical organizing in the 1930s.
This Article seeks to correct this narrative. It argues that Senator Robert Wagner was justified in crafting a national labor policy from the barbaric conditions which accompanied pre-New Deal union organizing. Wagner’s crusade to convert the state from an impediment to a facilitator of collective bargaining was “the most dramatic statutory assault on corporate prerogatives in American history,” and it represents the rare instance where a political elite pursued an ambitious economic agenda on behalf of labor and succeeded in the teeth of ferocious internal and industrial opposition. Although this Article takes no position on any recommended path forward, the story of the NLRA’s creation and an examination of the NLRB’s early history casts significant doubt on any theory of union growth that treats the state as a uniformly enervating force on the American labor movement
- …
