Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Li, K."
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Wu, C.; Yan, E.; Zhu, Y.; Li, K.: Gender imbalance in the productivity of funded projects : a study of the outputs of National Institutes of Health R01 grants (2021) 0.01 
    0.010307828 = product of:
  0.020615656 = sum of:
    0.020615656 = product of:
      0.04123131 = sum of:
        0.04123131 = weight(_text_:c in 391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04123131 = score(doc=391,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18031284 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052273605 = queryNorm
            0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 391, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=391)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  2. Yan, E.; Chen, Z.; Li, K.: Authors' status and the perceived quality of their work : measuring citation sentiment change in nobel articles (2020) 0.01 
    0.0090022795 = product of:
  0.018004559 = sum of:
    0.018004559 = product of:
      0.072018236 = sum of:
        0.072018236 = weight(_text_:authors in 5670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072018236 = score(doc=5670,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052273605 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 5670, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5670)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  3. Li, K.; Jiao, C.: ¬The data paper as a sociolinguistic epistemic object : a content analysis on the rhetorical moves used in data paper abstracts (2022) 0.01 
    0.008589855 = product of:
  0.01717971 = sum of:
    0.01717971 = product of:
      0.03435942 = sum of:
        0.03435942 = weight(_text_:c in 560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03435942 = score(doc=560,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18031284 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052273605 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 560, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=560)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  4. Ma, R.; Li, K.: Digital humanities as a cross-disciplinary battleground : an examination of inscriptions in journal publications (2022) 0.01 
    0.0075018997 = product of:
  0.015003799 = sum of:
    0.015003799 = product of:
      0.060015198 = sum of:
        0.060015198 = weight(_text_:authors in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060015198 = score(doc=461,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23830564 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052273605 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Inscriptions are defined as traces of scientific research production that are embodied in material artifacts and media, which encompass a wide variety of nonverbal forms such as graphs, diagrams, and tables. Inscription serves as a fundamental rhetorical device in research outputs and practices. As many inscriptions are deeply rooted in a scientific research paradigm, they can be used to evaluate the level of scientificity of a scientific field. This is specifically helpful to understand the relationships between research traditions in digital humanities (DH), a highly cross-disciplinary between various humanities and scientific traditions. This paper presents a quantitative, community-focused examination of how inscriptions are used in English-language research articles in DH journals. We randomly selected 252 articles published between 2011 and 2020 from a representative DH journal list, and manually classified the inscriptions and author domains in these publications. We found that inscriptions have been increasingly used during the past decade, and their uses are more intensive in publications led by STEM authors comparing to other domains. This study offers a timely survey of the disciplinary landscape of DH from the perspective of inscriptions and sheds light on how different research approaches collaborate and combat in the field of DH.

Authors

Themes