1,720,990 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
Boys”‘Stones, G., El Murr, D. and Gill, C. (eds.). (2013). The Platonic Art of Philosophy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Full text linkCompte”‘rendu: Boys”‘Stones, G., El Murr, D. and Gill, C. (eds.). (2013). The Platonic Art of Philosophy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Pres
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
Relativism and Theaetetus 171a-b: Post-truth and Populist Demagogy
Full text linkThis paper offers a reading of Theaetetus 171a-b in the context of Plato’s critique of Protagorean relativism. It analyses the structure and philosophical significance of the so-called “self-refutation” (peritropê) argument, following the interpretations of Burnyeat and Erginel. It aims to show that Plato’s argument is not a mere logical paradox but a dialectical refutation revealing the impossibility for the relativist to defend their own position rationally: by acknowledging the truth of the belief that relativism is false, the relativist undermines the validity of their own doctrine. This dialectical impossibility exposes a constitutive weakness of relativism, which cannot be formulated, communicated, or sustained without presupposing a shared space of discourse and common criteria of truth. The final section draws a parallel between this Platonic analysis and contemporary phenomena of post-truth and populist demagogy, both grounded in the dissolution of the common world and the replacement of facts by convictions. Plato thus appears not as the defender of archaic dogmatism but as the thinker of the very conditions of rational disagreement and a shared world.This paper offers a reading of Theaetetus 171a-b in the context of Plato’s critique of Protagorean relativism. It analyses the structure and philosophical significance of the so-called “self-refutation” (peritropê) argument, following the interpretations of Burnyeat and Erginel. It aims to show that Plato’s argument is not a mere logical paradox but a dialectical refutation revealing the impossibility for the relativist to defend their own position rationally: by acknowledging the truth of the belief that relativism is false, the relativist undermines the validity of their own doctrine. This dialectical impossibility exposes a constitutive weakness of relativism, which cannot be formulated, communicated, or sustained without presupposing a shared space of discourse and common criteria of truth. The final section draws a parallel between this Platonic analysis and contemporary phenomena of post-truth and populist demagogy, both grounded in the dissolution of the common world and the replacement of facts by convictions. Plato thus appears not as the defender of archaic dogmatism but as the thinker of the very conditions of rational disagreement and a shared world.Cet article propose une relecture du passage 171a-b du Théétète de Platon à la lumière de la critique platonicienne du relativisme protagoréen. Il examine la structure et la portée de l’argument dit de l’« auto-réfutation » (peritrope), en suivant les analyses de Burnyeat et de Erginel. L’étude montre que cet argument ne consiste pas en une contradiction logique, mais en une réfutation dialectique qui met en évidence l’impossibilité pour le relativiste de défendre rationnellement sa propre position : en admettant la vérité de l’opinion selon laquelle le relativisme est faux, il détruit la validité de sa doctrine. Cette impossibilité dialectique révèle une fragilité constitutive du relativisme : celui-ci ne peut être formulé, transmis ni soutenu sans présupposer un espace commun de discours et des critères partagés de vérité. Dans la dernière partie, une mise en parallèle sera suggérée entre l’analyse platonicienne et les phénomènes contemporains de la post-vérité et du populisme démagogique, qui reposent sur la dissolution de cet espace commun et sur la substitution des faits par des croyances. Platon apparaît ainsi non comme le défenseur d’un dogmatisme archaïque, mais comme le penseur des conditions de possibilité du désaccord rationnel et du monde commun.This paper offers a reading of Theaetetus 171a-b in the context of Plato’s critique of Protagorean relativism. It analyses the structure and philosophical significance of the so-called “self-refutation” (peritropê) argument, following the interpretations of Burnyeat and Erginel. It aims to show that Plato’s argument is not a mere logical paradox but a dialectical refutation revealing the impossibility for the relativist to defend their own position rationally: by acknowledging the truth of the belief that relativism is false, the relativist undermines the validity of their own doctrine. This dialectical impossibility exposes a constitutive weakness of relativism, which cannot be formulated, communicated, or sustained without presupposing a shared space of discourse and common criteria of truth. The final section draws a parallel between this Platonic analysis and contemporary phenomena of post-truth and populist demagogy, both grounded in the dissolution of the common world and the replacement of facts by convictions. Plato thus appears not as the defender of archaic dogmatism but as the thinker of the very conditions of rational disagreement and a shared world.This paper offers a reading of Theaetetus 171a-b in the context of Plato’s critique of Protagorean relativism. It analyses the structure and philosophical significance of the so-called “self-refutation” (peritropê) argument, following the interpretations of Burnyeat and Erginel. It aims to show that Plato’s argument is not a mere logical paradox but a dialectical refutation revealing the impossibility for the relativist to defend their own position rationally: by acknowledging the truth of the belief that relativism is false, the relativist undermines the validity of their own doctrine. This dialectical impossibility exposes a constitutive weakness of relativism, which cannot be formulated, communicated, or sustained without presupposing a shared space of discourse and common criteria of truth. The final section draws a parallel between this Platonic analysis and contemporary phenomena of post-truth and populist demagogy, both grounded in the dissolution of the common world and the replacement of facts by convictions. Plato thus appears not as the defender of archaic dogmatism but as the thinker of the very conditions of rational disagreement and a shared world
Deux versions du modèle dans le Timée
No full textThe purpose of this article is to emphasize two alternatives introduced by Plato in the Timaeus in order to describe the model. In her argumentation developed in Nature and Divinity in Plato\u27s Timaeus, S. Broadie affirms that a metaphysical reading of the Timaeus should be rejected in favor of a cosmological interpretation. To justify this idea, Broadie distinguishes between two ways of understanding what could be the model at which the demiurge looks in order to shape the cosmos, namely an original or a plan. According to Broadie, since it is the second alternative that is present in the Timaeus, and since this alternative is closely related to a cosmological interpretation of the dialogue, then it would be a mistake to offer a metaphysical reading of Timaeus’ discourse. However, as we shall see, the Timaeus associates the model not only with a plan but also with an original, which suggests that the cosmological reading of this dialogue should be connected with a metaphysical interpretation. Far from leading to a contradiction, the fact that Plato offers two versions of the model could mean that the question of the nature of Forms is not completely absent from the dialogue. In providing a double description of the model, and in offering metaphysical considerations within his cosmological discourse, Plato seems to provide an account of the nature of the intelligible and its explanatory role with regards to an understanding of what is the universe in all its complexity, for the two versions will allow to justify 1) the nature of cosmos as the best possible realization and 2) the ontological status of the sensible which possesses its own degree of being. Are these two versions fully compatible? We will suggest in our conclusion that the tension induced by their presence in the same dialogue actually allows a better understanding of Timaeus’ speech.
A Forma da Cama na República de Platão
Full text linkA principal tese que pretendo defender aqui é que, apesar de a Forma da Cama, na discussão da República, ser considerada inteligível, não é intenção de Platão incluir Formas de objetos artificiais em sua hipótese metafísica. A consideração do contexto permite entender por que a Forma da Cama é necessária para a argumentação do livro X, ainda que, como tal, não se deva assumir como parte da família das Formas. Em vez disso, sugiro que a crítica das artes imitativas no livro X, em última análise, depende da existência do inteligível como tal e não de certas Formas específicas
- …
