1,721,024 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
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
The Effect of Using Worn Osseodensification Drills on Bone An Ex-Vivo Study
No full textIntroduction: The use of osseodensification drills to increase implant stability, and expand edentulous ridges is now considered mainstream. These drills are used in reverse to compact, and displace, instead of removing the bone. It is suggested to limit their use to 20 osteotomies, however, as the mode of function does not include cutting, the importance of maintaining drill sharpness is questionable.
Materials and Methods: Bovine tibial plateau and ribs were used in this study. New, and worn drills were used to perform osteotomies and place implants. Wear protocol consisted of 15 cycles of sterilization, and 100 osteotomies half clockwise, and half counterclockwise. The primary outcome in this study was temperature increase, and secondary outcomes included the time to complete each osteotomy, bone expansion coronally, and apically, and primary implant stability measured with resonance frequency analysis. A non-inferiority study design was utilized, with preset clinically acceptable margins. (2.0��C, 4.0s, 0.2mm, 5 ISQ). The t-test was conducted for the outcome of temperature, and time-to-complete, whereas the non-parametric Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test was used for the other outcomes.
Results: Mean temperature increases were 10.81 (��2.09) for the new, and 10.96 (��2.61) for the worn drills. Mean time-to-complete was 14.44 (��5.43) and 14.33 (��5.12) for new and worn drills. Mean primary stability was 83.17 (��3.31) and 82.04 (��1.81) for the new and worn drills. For the outcome of expansion, mean expansion at the coronal portion was 0.47(��2.80) for the new drills, and 0.51 (��2.80) for the worn drills, whereas, for the apical portion was 0.43 (��0.33) and 0.30 (��0.16) for the new and worn drills respectively. Non-inferiority was established for temperatures increases (1.75, 95%CI: 0.013 ��� inf, p=0.049), for time-to-complete (1.91, 95%CI: 0.414 to inf, p=0.035), for primary stability (p<0.001), and for coronal expansion (p=0.034). The null hypothesis that there was no difference between groups was not rejected for the outcome of apical expansion (p=0.36)
Discussion: Within the limitations of this study, the use of osseodensification drills in reverse may still be safe, and effective after repeated usage, in terms of expected temperature increases, time efficiency, primary stability achieved, and bone expansion
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
Comparison of Marginal Bone Loss in Conventional Versus Osseodensification Implant Site Preparation: A Retrospective Study
Full text linkIntroduction: Marginal bone loss is a multifactorial problem affecting the health and longevity of dental implants placed throughout the world. A novel drilling system has been developed that allows for the densification of bone around dental implants through a non-subtractive drilling protocol which allows for higher initial insertion torques. Materials and Methods: Patients with implants that were placed with either conventional or osseodensification drilling protocols that had been restored for at least 1 year were radiographically and clinically re-evaluated. Radiographic marginal bone levels were measured on the mesial and distal of implants and compared from the time of restoration to ���12 months post-loading. Pocket probing depth (PD), presence/absence of plaque, presence/absence of bleeding on probing (BoP), and keratinized mucosa (KM) were recorded. Results: Twenty-two patients with 39 implants were evaluated. The groups were not significantly different in the amount of marginal bone loss present at baseline (p > 0.05). The conventional drilling group had a mean marginal bone loss of 0.17 mm �� 0.65 between when the implant was restored and the follow-up appointment, while the osseodensification group had a mean marginal bone loss of 0.096 mm �� 0.66 during the same period. The difference between the groups was not significantly different (p > 0.05). The clinical parameters assessed were not significantly different between the groups. Conclusion: Osseodensification drilling protocols do not lead to an increase in marginal bone loss around dental implants that have been in function for at least 1-year compared to conventional drilling protocols
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
