1,720,971 research outputs found
EURAMET supplementary comparison between INRiM and UME in Rockwell hardness scales (HRA - HRBW - HRC) - EURAMET.M.H-S1.a.b.c
Full text linkThis report describes a bilateral EURAMET Supplementary Comparison on Rockwell hardness scales of two national metrology institutes of Italy and Turkey, INRiM and UME, respectively. The pilot laboratory is INRiM in the comparison where three sets of hardness reference blocks for the Rockwell Hardness scales of HRA, HRBW and HRC were used. Each set of blocks consists of four hardness reference blocks for HRA and HRBW and five blocks for HRC hardness scales. The comparison was realized as planned in the Technical Protocol with some delay. The measurement results and uncertainty assessments declared by INRiM and UME are in consistency with each other
Result analysis of EURAMET Brinell comparison between INRiM, UME and PTB (EURAMET.M.H–S2.A.B)
Full text linkA EURAMET supplementary comparison between INRiM (National Metrology Institute of Italy), UME (National Metrology Institute of Republic of Turkey) and PTB (National Metrology Institute of Germany) had been decided to be organized in the field of Hardness Metrology to determine the consistency of the national hardness standards in these three countries realizing Brinell Hardness measurements in accordance with ISO 6506–1:2014 [1] and ISO 6506–3:2014 [2] standards. Widely used Brinell Hardness scales such as HBW 1/30 and HBW 2.5/187.5 constitute the scope of the comparison. In this paper the procedure and comparison results are explained
Result analysis of EURAMET Vickers comparison between INRiM and UME (EURAMET.M.H-K1.b.c)
Full text linkA bilateral key comparison between INRiM (National Metrology Institute of Italy) and TUBITAK UME (National Metrology Institute of Turkey) had been decided to be organized in the field of Hardness Metrology to determine the consistency of the national hardness standards in both countries realizing Vickers Hardness measurements in accordance with ISO 6507–1:2018 [1] and ISO 6507–3:2018 [2] standards. Widely used Vickers Hardness scales such as HV1 and HV30 constitute the scope of the comparison which was piloted by INRiM. In this paper the procedure and measurement results of the bilateral EURAMET key comparison between the two laboratories are explained
Preliminary results of EURAMET Rockwell comparison between INRiM and UME (EURAMET.M.H-S1.A.B.C)
Full text linkA bilateral supplementary comparison between INRiM (National Metrology Institute of Italy) and UME (National Metrology Institute of Turkey) had been decided to be organized in the field of Hardness Metrology to determine the consistency of the national hardness standards in both countries realizing Rockwell Hardness measurements in accordance with ISO 6508-1:2016 [1] and ISO 6508-3:2015 [2] standards. In this paper the procedure and preliminary measurement results of the bilateral EURAMET supplementary comparison between the two laboratories are explained
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
- …
