1,720,967 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
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
Recommended from our members
Jurors' Perceptions of the Probative Value of Non-Identifications
Full text linkThere is considerable evidence that jurors attribute significant weight to testimony in which an eyewitness makes a positive identification. By contrast, little empirical research has been conducted on how jurors perceive non-identifications, which is when an eyewitness affirmatively states that the defendant is not the perpetrator. Using a mock juror paradigm, three experiments tested whether jurors are sensitive to non-identification testimony by recruiting participants through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Participants in Study 1 (N = 163) read a court case where the eyewitness identification evidence was manipulated (positive identification vs. non-identification vs. no eyewitness identification evidence). Participants were no more likely to acquit the defendant when presented with non-identification testimony compared to a case that had no eyewitness testimony at all. Study 2 tested one possible explanation for why mock jurors gave no apparent weight to the non-identification: because there was no explanation or elaboration for the non-identification. In Study 2, participants (N = 220) read the same court case and all received non-identification testimony, but the reason surrounding a non-identification decision was manipulated: uninformative explanation (“I know what I saw and I know it’s not the guy”) or informative explanation (“the man I saw had blonde hair and everyone in the lineup had brown hair”) or no explanation provided. The data revealed that an informative explanation reduced conviction rates by half compared to the other conditions, suggesting that jurors have difficulty utilizing the non-identification evidence, unless it is accompanied by an informative explanation.Study 3 (N = 642) tested the possibility that how jurors evaluate a non-identification is contingent upon how it relates to other evidence in the case as a whole. Based on the phenomena of confirmation bias, it was hypothesized that jurors will accord the non-identification testimony little weight when the case evidence is strong (hence the non-identification is inconsistent with the other case evidence) and relatively more weight when the case evidence is weak (hence the non-identification is consistent with the other case evidence). Study 3 manipulated the strength of the case (strong vs. moderate vs. weak) and the type of eyewitness testimony (positive identification vs. non-identification). In addition to the eyewitness testimony, an expert witness testified about the probative value of the eyewitness identification/non-identification to provide a normative benchmark against which to compare jurors’ responses. The data revealed that jurors engage in confirmation bias in the direction hypothesized, whereby the positive identification was accorded more weight when the other case evidence was strong compared to weak, and a non-identification was accorded more weight when the other case evidence was weak relative to strong. The fact that jurors’ evaluation of the eyewitness identification—regardless of type—depended on unrelated case evidence (e.g., repaying a debt to his credit card company) is non-normative.Taken as a whole, these studies suggest that mock jurors do not intuitively ascribe much value to non-identifications, though they do so when there is an elaborate and plausible explanation for the non-identification and if the other case evidence is weak. Directions for future research and implications of these findings for policy are discussed
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
Recommended from our members
On Informing Jurors of Potential Sanctions
Full text linkWith few exceptions, jurors in criminal trials exclusively determine whether the defendant is guilty; they do not determine what the sanction is or even recommend what it should be. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that jurors make assumptions regarding the potential punishment, and that these assumptions inform their verdicts. This is rational behavior according to Decision Theory. Thus, several legal scholars have argued that jurors ought to be informed of the possible punishment that would follow a guilty verdict, in order to disabuse incorrect assumptions and make an informed decision. The present experiments tested: a.) whether jurors do make assumptions about the potential punishment that would follow from a guilty verdict; b.) whether those assumptions influence jurors’ implicit threshold for reasonable doubt; and c.) whether informing jurors of the potential punishment additionally influences their implicit threshold. Experiment 1 manipulated the alleged crime (Grand Theft vs. Manslaughter) holding all other factors constant, and found that mock jurors (n=102, recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk) had different expectations about the relative punishments but that these expectations did not affect their implicit threshold for reasonable doubt. Experiment 2 manipulated the alleged crime as well as a judicial description of the potential punishment (e.g., term of incarceration of 2-6 vs 7-20 years). Again, mock jurors (n=297) were sensitive to the relative punishments, yet their implicit threshold did not differ on this basis. These findings call into question whether jurors should be informed of the potential punishment if the defendant is convicted
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
