Search (58 results, page 3 of 3)

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=3317,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Citations from patents to scientific publications provide useful evidence about the commercial impact of academic research, but automatically searchable databases are needed to exploit this connection for large-scale patent citation evaluations. Google covers multiple different international patent office databases but does not index patent citations or allow automatic searches. In response, this article introduces a semiautomatic indirect method via Bing to extract and filter patent citations from Google to academic papers with an overall precision of 98%. The method was evaluated with 322,192 science and engineering Scopus articles from every second year for the period 1996-2012. Although manual Google Patent searches give more results, especially for articles with many patent citations, the difference is not large enough to be a major problem. Within Biomedical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Pharmacology & Pharmaceutics, 7% to 10% of Scopus articles had at least one patent citation but other fields had far fewer, so patent citation analysis is only relevant for a minority of publications. Low but positive correlations between Google Patent citations and Scopus citations across all fields suggest that traditional citation counts cannot substitute for patent citations when evaluating research.

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 4225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=4225,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4225, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4225)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

National governments would like to preside over an expanding and increasingly high-impact science system but are these two goals largely independent or closely linked? This article investigates the relationship between changes in the share of the world's scientific output and changes in relative citation impact for 2.6 million articles from 26 fields in the 25 countries with the most Scopus-indexed journal articles from 1996 to 2015. There is a negative correlation between expansion and relative citation impact, but their relationship varies. China, Spain, Australia, and Poland were successful overall across the 26 fields, expanding both their share of the world's output and its relative citation impact, whereas Japan, France, Sweden, and Israel had decreased shares and relative citation impact. In contrast, the USA, UK, Germany, Italy, Russia, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Finland, and Denmark all enjoyed increased relative citation impact despite a declining share of publications. Finally, India, South Korea, Brazil, Taiwan, and Turkey all experienced sustained expansion but a recent fall in relative citation impact. These results may partly reflect changes in the coverage of Scopus and the selection of fields.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 4972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=4972,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 4972, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4972)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Sentiment analysis is concerned with the automatic extraction of sentiment-related information from text. Although most sentiment analysis addresses commercial tasks, such as extracting opinions from product reviews, there is increasing interest in the affective dimension of the social web, and Twitter in particular. Most sentiment analysis algorithms are not ideally suited to this task because they exploit indirect indicators of sentiment that can reflect genre or topic instead. Hence, such algorithms used to process social web texts can identify spurious sentiment patterns caused by topics rather than affective phenomena. This article assesses an improved version of the algorithm SentiStrength for sentiment strength detection across the social web that primarily uses direct indications of sentiment. The results from six diverse social web data sets (MySpace, Twitter, YouTube, Digg, Runners World, BBC Forums) indicate that SentiStrength 2 is successful in the sense of performing better than a baseline approach for all data sets in both supervised and unsupervised cases. SentiStrength is not always better than machine-learning approaches that exploit indirect indicators of sentiment, however, and is particularly weaker for positive sentiment in news-related discussions. Overall, the results suggest that, even unsupervised, SentiStrength is robust enough to be applied to a wide variety of different social web contexts.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 2900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=2900,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2900, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Statistics are essential to many areas of research and individual statistical techniques may change the ways in which problems are addressed as well as the types of problems that can be tackled. Hence, specific techniques may tend to generate high-impact findings within science. This article estimates the citation advantage of a technique by calculating the average citation rank of articles using it in the issue of the journal in which they were published. Applied to structural equation modeling (SEM) and four related techniques in 3 broad fields, the results show citation advantages that vary by technique and broad field. For example, SEM seems to be more influential in all broad fields than the 4 simpler methods, with one exception, and hence seems to be particularly worth adding to statistical curricula. In contrast, Pearson correlation apparently has the highest average impact in medicine but the least in psychology. In conclusion, the results suggest that the importance of a statistical technique may vary by discipline and that even simple techniques can help to generate high-impact research in some contexts.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 3349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=3349,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 3349, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3349)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The large multidisciplinary academic social website ResearchGate aims to help academics to connect with each other and to publicize their work. Despite its popularity, little is known about the age and discipline of the articles uploaded and viewed in the site and whether publication statistics from the site could be useful impact indicators. In response, this article assesses samples of ResearchGate articles uploaded at specific dates, comparing their views in the site to their Mendeley readers and Scopus-indexed citations. This analysis shows that ResearchGate is dominated by recent articles, which attract about three times as many views as older articles. ResearchGate has uneven coverage of scholarship, with the arts and humanities, health professions, and decision sciences poorly represented and some fields receiving twice as many views per article as others. View counts for uploaded articles have low to moderate positive correlations with both Scopus citations and Mendeley readers, which is consistent with them tending to reflect a wider audience than Scopus-publishing scholars. Hence, for articles uploaded to the site, view counts may give a genuinely new audience indicator.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 4015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=4015,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 4015, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4015)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Within science, citation counts are widely used to estimate research impact but publication delays mean that they are not useful for recent research. This gap can be filled by Mendeley reader counts, which are valuable early impact indicators for academic articles because they appear before citations and correlate strongly with them. Nevertheless, it is not known how Mendeley readership counts accumulate within the year of publication, and so it is unclear how soon they can be used. In response, this paper reports a longitudinal weekly study of the Mendeley readers of articles in 6 library and information science journals from 2016. The results suggest that Mendeley readers accrue from when articles are first available online and continue to steadily build. For journals with large publication delays, articles can already have substantial numbers of readers by their publication date. Thus, Mendeley reader counts may even be useful as early impact indicators for articles before they have been officially published in a journal issue. If field normalized indicators are needed, then these can be generated when journal issues are published using the online first date.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=2495,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In theory, articles can attract readers on the social reference sharing site Mendeley before they can attract citations, so Mendeley altmetrics could provide early indications of article impact. This article investigates the influence of time on the number of Mendeley readers of an article through a theoretical discussion and an investigation into the relationship between counts of readers of, and citations to, 4 general library and information science (LIS) journals. For this discipline, it takes about 7 years for articles to attract as many Scopus citations as Mendeley readers, and after this the Spearman correlation between readers and citers is stable at about 0.6 for all years. This suggests that Mendeley readership counts may be useful impact indicators for both newer and older articles. The lack of dates for individual Mendeley article readers and an unknown bias toward more recent articles mean that readership data should be normalized individually by year, however, before making any comparisons between articles published in different years.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=3764,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Patents sometimes cite webpages either as general background to the problem being addressed or to identify prior publications that limit the scope of the patent granted. Counts of the number of patents citing an organization's website may therefore provide an indicator of its technological capacity or relevance. This article introduces methods to extract URL citations from patents and evaluates the usefulness of counts of patent web citations as a technology indicator. An analysis of patents citing 200 US universities or 177 UK universities found computer science and engineering departments to be frequently cited, as well as research-related webpages, such as Wikipedia, YouTube, or the Internet Archive. Overall, however, patent URL citations seem to be frequent enough to be useful for ranking major US and the top few UK universities if popular hosted subdomains are filtered out, but the hit count estimates on the first search engine results page should not be relied upon for accuracy.

Type

a

0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=4465,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Increasing interdisciplinarity has been a policy objective since the 1990s, promoted by many governments and funding agencies, but the question is: How deeply has this affected the social sciences? Although numerous articles have suggested that research has become more interdisciplinary, yet no study has compared the extent to which the interdisciplinarity of different social science subjects has changed. To address this gap, changes in the level of interdisciplinarity since 1980 are investigated for subjects with many articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), using the percentage of cross-disciplinary citing documents (PCDCD) to evaluate interdisciplinarity. For the 14 SSCI subjects investigated, the median level of interdisciplinarity, as measured using cross-disciplinary citations, declined from 1980 to 1990, but rose sharply between 1990 and 2000, confirming previous research. This increase was not fully matched by an increase in the percentage of articles that were assigned to more than one subject category. Nevertheless, although on average the social sciences have recently become more interdisciplinary, the extent of this change varies substantially from subject to subject. The SSCI subject with the largest increase in interdisciplinarity between 1990 and 2000 was Information Science & Library Science (IS&LS) but there is evidence that the level of interdisciplinarity of IS&LS increased less quickly during the first decade of this century.

Type

a

0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 63) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=63,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 63, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=63)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

YouTube is one of the world's most popular websites and hosts numerous amateur and professional videos. Comments on these videos might be researched to give insights into audience reactions to important issues or particular videos. Yet, little is known about YouTube discussions in general: how frequent they are, who typically participates, and the role of sentiment. This article fills this gap through an analysis of large samples of text comments on YouTube videos. The results identify patterns and give some benchmarks against which future YouTube research into individual videos can be compared. For instance, the typical YouTube comment was mildly positive, was posted by a 29-year-old male, and contained 58 characters. About 23% of comments in the complete comment sets were replies to previous comments. There was no typical density of discussion on YouTube videos in the sense of the proportion of replies to other comments: videos with both few and many replies were common. The YouTube audience engaged with each other disproportionately when making negative comments, however; positive comments elicited few replies. The biggest trigger of discussion seemed to be religion, whereas the videos attracting the least discussion were predominantly from the Music, Comedy, and How to & Style categories. This suggests different audience uses for YouTube, from passive entertainment to active debating.

Type

a

0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=1229,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Data collected by social media platforms have been introduced as new sources for indicators to help measure the impact of scholarly research in ways that are complementary to traditional citation analysis. Data generated from social media activities can be used to reflect broad types of impact. This article aims to provide systematic evidence about how often Twitter is used to disseminate information about journal articles in the biomedical sciences. The analysis is based on 1.4 million documents covered by both PubMed and Web of Science and published between 2010 and 2012. The number of tweets containing links to these documents was analyzed and compared to citations to evaluate the degree to which certain journals, disciplines, and specialties were represented on Twitter and how far tweets correlate with citation impact. With less than 10% of PubMed articles mentioned on Twitter, its uptake is low in general but differs between journals and specialties. Correlations between tweets and citations are low, implying that impact metrics based on tweets are different from those based on citations. A framework using the coverage of articles and the correlation between Twitter mentions and citations is proposed to facilitate the evaluation of novel social-media-based metrics.

Type

a

0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=3384,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In recent years there has been an increasing demand for research evaluation within universities and other research-based organisations. In parallel, there has been an increasing recognition that traditional citation-based indicators are not able to reflect the societal impacts of research and are slow to appear. This has led to the creation of new indicators for different types of research impact as well as timelier indicators, mainly derived from the Web. These indicators have been called altmetrics, webometrics or just web metrics. This book describes and evaluates a range of web indicators for aspects of societal or scholarly impact, discusses the theory and practice of using and evaluating web indicators for research assessment and outlines practical strategies for obtaining many web indicators. In addition to describing impact indicators for traditional scholarly outputs, such as journal articles and monographs, it also covers indicators for videos, datasets, software and other non-standard scholarly outputs. The book describes strategies to analyse web indicators for individual publications as well as to compare the impacts of groups of publications. The practical part of the book includes descriptions of how to use the free software Webometric Analyst to gather and analyse web data. This book is written for information science undergraduate and Master?s students that are learning about alternative indicators or scientometrics as well as Ph.D. students and other researchers and practitioners using indicators to help assess research impact or to study scholarly communication.

0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 3327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=3327,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3327, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3327)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 1004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=1004,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 1004, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1004)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

8.4567186E-4 = product of:
  0.0016913437 = sum of:
    0.0016913437 = product of:
      0.0033826875 = sum of:
        0.0033826875 = weight(_text_:a in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033826875 = score(doc=4920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

8.4567186E-4 = product of:
  0.0016913437 = sum of:
    0.0016913437 = product of:
      0.0033826875 = sum of:
        0.0033826875 = weight(_text_:a in 375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033826875 = score(doc=375,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 375, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=375)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

8.4567186E-4 = product of:
  0.0016913437 = sum of:
    0.0016913437 = product of:
      0.0033826875 = sum of:
        0.0033826875 = weight(_text_:a in 2162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033826875 = score(doc=2162,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 2162, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2162)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

8.4567186E-4 = product of:
  0.0016913437 = sum of:
    0.0016913437 = product of:
      0.0033826875 = sum of:
        0.0033826875 = weight(_text_:a in 2190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033826875 = score(doc=2190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 2190, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2190)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a