1,720,977 research outputs found
Prefazione
No full textIl volume contestualizza le ampie notizie raccolte da Luigi Mannocchi ai recenti studi dell'età risorgimentale
Sviluppo e valutazione di pratiche soglie per separare le piogge erosive responsabili di processi interrill e rill
No full textFor the experimental station Masse threshold levels able to separate interrill erosive
events from non erosive events were developed and tested. The Masse database
was composed of 258 rainy events (189 non-erosive events and 70 interrill erosive
events). Thresholds for separating erosive-interrill events from erosive-rill events
were developed and verified at Sparacia analysing 77 erosive events (64 interrill and
13 rill). At Masse the threshold in terms of event rainfall depth, Pe, was, among the
analyzed variables, the most effective one to distinguish between non-erosive and
erosive interrill rainfall events. The rainfall events with a total depth Pe > 13 mm are
identified as interrill erosive events. This value is very similar to the 12.7 mm selected
by Wischmeier and Smith (1958) that propose a compound criterion (Pe > 12.7 mm or
I15 > 6,35 mm in 15 minutes). In our case the compound criterion does not guarantee an improvement in the effectiveness of the single threshold. At Sparacia the threshold I15 > 8,75 mm in 15 min is the most effective, among those analyzed, to select erosive
rill events from all erosive events
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
- …
