1,721,900 research outputs found
Statins as modulators of bone formation
No full textThe use of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) to reduce serum cholesterol is well described. However, the recent finding that statins have direct effects on bone was unexpected. A number of epidemiological studies have recently been published that explore the effects of statins on bone mineral density and risk of fracture in humans. Statins may act by directly stimulating the expression of bone morphogenetic protein-2 and increasing osteoblast differentiation or, like nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates, may have effects on the mevalonate pathway that leads to inhibition of osteoclast activity and osteoblast apoptosis. In addition, the demonstration that statins can inhibit inflammation and encourage angiogenesis offers other possibilities for action
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
Beyond the gene roundtable discussion
No full textThis virtual discussion between biomedical researchers and academics in the literary humanities took place in June–July 2013, through the medium of blog and email. The participants are Tim Spector (Genetic Epidemiology), Karen Temple (Medical Genetics), Angelique Richardson (Literary Studies), Deborah J.G. Mackay (Human Genetics) and Peter Garratt (Literary Studies). The conversation was initiated and convened by Mandy Bloomfield (Literary Studies). What develops in the course of the discussion is a sense of the ways in which biomedical researchers working on genetics are discovering new complexities with profound cultural and philosophical implications, whilst those working in the humanities are considering what those implications might be, but from a position on the edges of specialist scientific knowledge and modes of thinking. Perhaps inevitably, we sometimes find we are not speaking quite the same language. And this question of language – of metaphors, varieties of meaning, precision and indeterminacy – crops up time and again in this discussion. Perhaps it is in these frictive edges between disciplines that productive dialogue can happen, and we can learn from the differences between perspectives. For example, in this discussion the ‘nurture–nature’ dichotomy is interrogated in different ways, but with equivalent levels of reflective rigour, by researchers in the biomedical and humanities disciplines alike. What do we really mean by those terms? What are the historical components of this conceptual divide? Is it even possible to separate ‘nurture’ from ‘nature’? If a consensus emerges from this discussion, it is that current research in both the sciences and the humanities is blurring the distinctions between such dichotomous constructions as ‘nature vs. nurture’ in ways that are changing thinking and practices across the disciplines. Whether this takes us to a revaluation of Victorian understandings of organism and environment, or into ever-more complicated relationships between medical practitioners and their patients, we are, as one participant puts it, ‘in for an interesting time'
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
- …
