131,491 research outputs found
McClean - William A. McClean
No full textA.B.; Phi Kappa Psi; Philomathaean. Entered Preparatory, 1876. LL.B., U. of Ga., 1883. Born Feb. 6, 1864, Gettysburg. Parents, Hon. William and Fannie R. (Riggin). For relatives see W.M., ex. 1851. Practicing Law, Gettysburg, 1885- . Publisher, Gettysburg Compiler, 1902-27. Married Oct. 6, 1886, Mary King, Gettysburg. Children: Frances Topper; Sara, b. 1893, d. 1895. Address: Gettysburg. Handwritten on back: ""Yours in '82, Wm Archibald McClean, [illegible], Pa"
Communicating Chemical Congregation: A Molecular AND Logic Gate with Three Chemical Inputs as a �Lab-on-a-Molecule� Prototype
No full textPT: J; CR: ABBOTT EA, 1950, FLATLAND ROMANCE MAN AMENDOLA V, 2001, ACCOUNTS CHEM RES, V34, P488 BADJIC JD, 2004, SCIENCE, V303, P1845 BAG B, 2005, CHEM COMMUN 0128, P513 BALZANI V, 2003, MOL DEVICES MACHINES BHATTACHARYA S, 2003, CHEM COMMUN, P1158 BISSELL RA, 1992, J CHEM SOC P2, P1559 CALLAN JF, 2004, CHEM COMMUN, P2048 CHANG CJ, 2004, CHEM BIOL, V11, P203 DESILVA AP, 1993, NATURE, V364, P42 DESILVA AP, 1997, CHEM REV, V97, P1515 DESILVA AP, 1997, J AM CHEM SOC, V119, P7891 DESILVA AP, 1999, J AM CHEM SOC, V121, P1393 DESILVA AP, 2001, ELECT TRANSFER CHEM, V5, P156 DESILVA AP, 2001, MOL SWITCHES, P339 DESILVA AP, 2004, CHEM-EUR J, V10, P574 DESILVA SA, 2002, CHEM COMMUN, P1360 FABBRIZZI L, 1999, ACCOUNTS CHEM RES, V32, P846 FARINAS J, 1999, J BIOL CHEM, V274, P7603 GUNNLAUGSSON T, 2003, ORG BIOMOL CHEM, V1, P3265 GUNNLAUGSSON T, 2003, ORG LETT, V5, P4065 GUNNLAUGSSON T, 2004, TETRAHEDRON, V60, P11239 GUO XF, 2004, ADV MATER, V16, P125 HE HR, 2003, ANAL CHEM, V75, P549 HE HR, 2003, J AM CHEM SOC, V125, P1468 HERNANDEZ JV, 2004, SCIENCE, V306, P1532 HIRSCH ED, 2002, NEW DICT CULTURAL LI IZATT RM, 1976, J AM CHEM SOC, V98, P7626 IZATT RM, 1985, CHEM REV, V85, P271 KOSKELA SJM, 2004, CHEM COMMUN, P945 LANKSHEAR MD, 2006, CHEM COMMUN 0214, P612 LIM NC, 2004, CHEM COMMUN 0507, P1094 MARGULIES D, 2004, J AM CHEM SOC, V126, P15400 MARGULIES D, 2005, NAT MATER, V4, P768 MILLMAN J, 1988, MICROELECTRONICS NICOLL D, 2004, DIAGNOSTIC TESTS RAYMO FM, 2002, ADV MATER, V14, P401 SAUVAGE JP, 1998, ACCOUNTS CHEM RES, V31, P611 SMITH RM, 1974, CRITICAL STABILITY C STOJANOVIC MN, 2003, NAT BIOTECHNOL, V21, P1069 TSIEN RY, 1992, AM J PHYSIOL, V263, C723 TUSA JK, 2005, J MATER CHEM, V15, P2640 UCHIYAMA S, 2004, J AM CHEM SOC, V126, P3032 UCHIYAMA S, 2005, J AM CHEM SOC, V127, P8920 WANG HM, 2004, CHEM COMMUN 0321, P670 WISKUR SL, 2001, ACCOUNTS CHEM RES, V34, P963 WOODROOFE CC, 2003, J AM CHEM SOC, V125, P11458; NR: 47; TC: 10; J9: J AM CHEM SOC; PG: 2; GA: 034GNSource type: Electronic(1
Shorter High-Intensity Cycling Intervals Reduce Performance and Perceived Fatigability at Work-Matched but not Task Failure
No full textMeSH term explosion and author rank improve expert recommendations
No full textInformation overload is an often-cited phenomenon that reduces the productivity, efficiency and efficacy of scientists. One challenge for scientists is to find appropriate collaborators in their research. The literature describes various solutions to the problem of expertise location, but most current approaches do not appear to be very suitable for expert recommendations in biomedical research. In this study, we present the development and initial evaluation of a vector space model-based algorithm to calculate researcher similarity using four inputs: 1) MeSH terms of publications; 2) MeSH terms and author rank; 3) exploded MeSH terms; and 4) exploded MeSH terms and author rank. We developed and evaluated the algorithm using a data set of 17,525 authors and their 22,542 papers. On average, our algorithms correctly predicted 2.5 of the top 5/10 coauthors of individual scientists. Exploded MeSH and author rank outperformed all other algorithms in accuracy, followed closely by MeSH and author rank. Our results show that the accuracy of MeSH term-based matching can be enhanced with other metadata such as author rank
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
No full textThe 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
"Closing the R&D Gap, Evaluating the Sources of R&D Spending"
No full textBoth spending and tax policies have been implemented in the United States with the goal of stimulating private sector research and development (R&D). Karier questions whether current R&D policy, especially the research and experimentation tax credit, can contribute to closing the gap between nondefense expenditures on R&D in the United States and such expenditures in other countries, such as Japan and Germany. He also explores possible changes to our current R&D policy to make it more effective.
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
No full textWe 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
Scholarly Communication and Publishing Lunch and Learn Talk #11: The ULS Open Access Author Fee Fund
No full textAt the May 2014 talk, you will learn about the ULS Open Access Author Fee Fund--what it is, why we do it, how it works, and how the program is going so far
- …
