1,720,956 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
Review of Bader, Baker, Day, and Gordon’s Fear Itself: The Causes and Consequences of Fear in America
No full text
Recommended from our members
Risk Roulette: How Lawyers Make Pretrial Risk Assessment Tools Matter in Criminal Court
No full textScholarly accounts of judicial decision making in the context of pretrial risk assessment tools often explore how judicial adherence to a risk assessment recommendation is shaped by individual-level characteristics like demographics and attitudes toward technology. In focusing on the individual, though, these accounts leave out the formal laws, policies, and procedures that necessarily shape how judges can act on such information. By analyzing ethnographic observations of pretrial hearings, in-depth interviews with defense attorneys and prosecutors, and archival data in New Jersey, this dissertation offers an examination of the ways in which institutional rules developed to accompany the adoption of the risk assessment tool shape judicial action by prompting various actors to develop alternative conceptions of risk that judges must, by law, consider alongside the statistical determinations presented by the risk assessment tool.
Chapter 1 describes the New Jersey context within which this project is situated. It details how the legislature came to develop the Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA), a landmark piece of legislation meant to correct an overwhelmingly unjust pretrial detention system. In an attempt to standardize pretrial detention decisions, the legislature require the use of a risk assessment tool called the Public Safety Assessment (PSA), an algorithm meant to calculate a defendant’s risk. At the same time that the law required the use of the algorithm, it also exhibited an inherent skepticism of the algorithm: rather than require that judges wholly adhere to the risk determinations of the tool, the law mandated that judges consider several alternative conceptions of risk developed by the legislature, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. By law, the judge is required to weigh each of these features to determine a decision. The term recommendation in this context, then, is made up of several competing pieces of information.
Chapter 2 explores two such risk determinations: the PSA as a statistically validated risk assessment tool, and the corresponding policy application called the Decision Making Framework (DMF). While the PSA produces risk scores, the DMF determines release recommendations. While previous literature has treated these concepts as synonymous, I show throughout this chapter that they are empirically distinct: while the PSA score is related to the DMF’s recommendation, the DMF also contains a list of crimes for which recommendations of “No Release” are required, regardless of the PSA score. Using data from over 560 cases, this chapter shows how judges combine information presented in the PSA with information presented in the DMF to come to a release recommendation. Rather than strictly adhere to the risk score or release recommendation, judicial behavior is patterned by discrepancies between the risk determinations presented by the PSA and those presented by the DMF.
Chapter 3 evaluates two other risk determinations: those created by defense attorneys and prosecutors presented through arguments. To substantiate these determinations of risk, lawyers deploy two argumentative strategies to challenge and uphold parts of the PSA and DMF. First, lawyers deploy substantive attacks on the algorithm’s variables, calculations, and accuracy for a given defendant. Next, lawyers use procedural attacks to contest the proper use of the algorithms, even if the calculations are technically correct. Unlike previous literature which has expressed that individuals hold uniform perceptions of algorithms, this chapter argues that lawyers in New Jersey variably interpret and deploy the same tool on a case by case basis to justify their own determinations of risk.
Chapter 4 shows how discrepancies between the PSA and the DMF combine with arguments from lawyers to produce predictable patterns of judicial behavior. Relying upon the rare instances in which lawyers do not deploy arguments, this chapter shows that judges make sense of the discrepancies between the PSA and the DMF through the arguments of lawyers. When lawyers fail to deploy certain argumentative strategies, the anticipated patterns of judicial behavior occur less often.
In all, the story of New Jersey represents an instance of what I term institutional algorithmic aversion, or an inherent skepticism of algorithms that is embedded in the laws, policies, and rules that shape judicial action. Despite their skepticism towards algorithms, institutions that exhibit algorithmic aversion still mandate the use of algorithms, but attempt to curb their authority over important decisions by mandating that decision-makers consider alternative conceptions of risk. While progressive on its surface, laws and policies that exhibit institutional algorithmic aversion grant actors proximate to the judge discretion over these risk determination practices. In so doing, they leave room for these actors to roll back progressive policy reforms
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
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
- …
