1,721,043 research outputs found

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The 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

    An aesthetically possible alternative approach for craniomaxillofacial trauma: the "pretrichial incision".

    No full text
    Frontal sinus and supraorbital rim fractures are common in facial trauma patients. Coronal incision is the standard approach for surgical management of these injuries. Nevertheless, with this incision, complications can occur as wide scars and alopecia. Because surgical repair of fronto-orbital fractures is often indicated for aesthetic reasons, surgical incision might be an "aesthetic incision." So we have adopted the pretrichial incision, already used in brow-lift and foreheadplasty but never described in craniomaxillofacial trauma surgery. Nineteen upper-third facial trauma patients were treated: five cases were approached via an existing laceration, four cases via a coronal incision, and 10 cases via a unilateral zigzag pretrichial incision. To assess the postsurgical scar, the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale was used and the scar's width was measured. In all cases, a wide surgical field was obtained to perform correct fracture reduction. Unlike straight or stealth coronal incisions, with pretrichial incision no wide scar or alopecia was registered. We think that pretrichial incision is an aesthetically reasonable alternative to the standard coronal approach for craniomaxillofacial trauma patients.Frontal sinus and supraorbital rim fractures are common in facial trauma patients. Coronal incision is the standard approach for surgical management of these injuries. Nevertheless, with this incision, complications can occur as wide scars and alopecia. Because surgical repair of fronto-orbital fractures is often indicated for aesthetic reasons, surgical incision might be an "aesthetic incision." So we have adopted the pretrichial incision, already used in brow-lift and foreheadplasty but never described in craniomaxillofacial trauma surgery. Nineteen upper-third facial trauma patients were treated: five cases were approached via an existing laceration, four cases via a coronal incision, and 10 cases via a unilateral zigzag pretrichial incision. To assess the postsurgical scar, the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale was used and the scar's width was measured. In all cases, a wide surgical field was obtained to perform correct fracture reduction. Unlike straight or stealth coronal incisions, with pretrichial incision no wide scar or alopecia was registered. We think that pretrichial incision is an aesthetically reasonable alternative to the standard coronal approach for craniomaxillofacial trauma patients
    corecore