1,721,011 research outputs found
Trust, rejection and structural impairment : atypical reactions on a social exchange game
No full texteingereicht von: Max Benjamin SchönMasterarbeit Universität Innsbruck 202
Trust, rejection and structural impairment : atypical reactions on a social exchange game
No full texteingereicht von: Max Benjamin SchönMasterarbeit Universität Innsbruck 202
Trust, rejection and structural impairment : atypical reactions on a social exchange game
No full texteingereicht von: Max Benjamin SchönMasterarbeit Universität Innsbruck 202
Opossum
No full textOpossum
Opossum is an optimization plug-in for Grasshopper (for Rhino) that implements model-based and evolutionary optimization algorithms for single- and multi-objective problems. The plugin integrates GUI components into Grasshopper to configure runs, visualize results, and persist optimizer state inside Grasshopper documents.
This repository contains a .NET/Grasshopper plugin project targeting .NET Framework 4.8.
Highlights
Model-based single-objective optimization (RBFOpt)
Evolutionary single-objective optimizer (CMA-ES)
Multi-objective RBFMOpt optimizer
Multiple multi-objective algorithms via pygmo
Interactive Grasshopper window and result serialization
Notable folders and classes
Opossum2_0_Proto_A/ — main plugin project. Contains component classes, UI windows, serialization utilities, and resources.
OptComponent.cs — main Grasshopper component implementation: UI hooks, serialization/deserialization, and component registration.
Resources/ — embedded icons, images, and other resource files used by the plugin.
Solver/ — optimization solver interface and implementations (RBFOpt, pygmo, etc.).
Requirements and dependencies
Development / build
Microsoft Visual Studio (2017, 2019, or 2022) with .NET Framework 4.8 targeting pack installed.
The Grasshopper and Rhino SDK (or runtime assemblies) to resolve references to Grasshopper.dll, GH_IO.dll, and RhinoCommon.dll.
Runtime
Rhino with a matching version of Grasshopper (the plugin runs inside Grasshopper).
Opossum installed via Food4Rhino or PackageManager to obtain Python backend and dependencies.
The plugin expects to be loaded inside Grasshopper; it does not run as a standalone .NET application.
Build instructions
Open the solution in Visual Studio.
Ensure project references to Rhino/Grasshopper assemblies are valid (point to the installed Rhino/Grasshopper runtime or SDK). These references are typically not committed and must be resolved on your machine.
Restore NuGet packages.
Build the Opossum2_0_Proto_A project in Debug or Release configuration.
The produced assembly will generally be a .dll file or .gha (Grasshopper plugin), depending on how the project is configured.
Install and run
Install Opossum from Food4Rhino or PackageManager.
Copy the built .gha/.dll to Grasshopper's Components folder.
Restart Rhino/Grasshopper.
The plugin registers its component(s) under the category set in the component registration (for example Params -> Util).
Usage notes
OptComponent manages component serialization (stores GUIDs of linked variables, simulators, and objectives) so saved Grasshopper files keep references and results across sessions.
Results can be serialized into the Grasshopper document and later reloaded. The component distinguishes whether results were produced by the optimizer or loaded from a file.
If your installation uses an external Python optimizer, verify that the Python environment is accessible from the host machine and any interop code is configured to find the Python interpreter and libraries.
Development notes
To debug the plugin, run Rhino and attach the Visual Studio debugger to the Rhino process.
When changing serialization formats (chunk names, GUIDs, or data layout), be careful to preserve compatibility with existing saved Grasshopper documents or provide migration logic.
UI classes (windows) are created at runtime and registered with Grasshopper's FormShepard; ensure proper disposal to avoid resource leaks.
</ul
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
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe 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
- …
