15 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2018
    1. Jonathan Evans suggested dual process theory in 1975. In his theory, there are two distinct types of processes: heuristic processes and analytic processes. He suggested that during heuristic processes, an individual chooses which information is relevant to the current situation. Relevant information is then processed further whereas irrelevant information is not. Following the heuristic processes come analytic processes. During analytic processes, the relevant information that is chosen during the heuristic processes is then used to make judgments about the situation.
    1. An upper ontology (or foundation ontology) is a model of the common relations and objects that are generally applicable across a wide range of domain ontologies.
    2. A domain ontology (or domain-specific ontology) represents concepts which belong to a part of the world, such as biology or politics.
    1. Tagging systems have sometimes been classified into two kinds: top-down and bottom-up.[3]:142[4]:24 Top-down taxonomies are created by an authorized group of designers (sometimes in the form of a controlled vocabulary), whereas bottom-up taxonomies (called folksonomies) are created by all users.
    1. Comments about shared photos or videos, reviews of products, or even social network mentions of web resources could all be considered as annotations. In addition, there are a plethora of "sticky note" systems and stand-alone multimedia annotation systems. This specification describes a common approach to expressing these annotations, and more
    1. Discretionary traders are decision-based traders who scan the markets and place manual orders in response to information that is available at that time. System traders, on the other hand, use some level of automation to implement an objective set of rules, allowing a computer to both scan for trading opportunities and handle all order entry activity.
  2. Apr 2017
    1. p. 92 typology of messages

      1. Information exchange
      2. Requests for information
      3. Discussion
      4. Technical or error messages
    2. p. 2

      Sees the list serv as fitting in a three-part typology:

      Email: 1:1 Listserv: 1: many "Conputer conferencing": many to many



  3. Jun 2016
    1. (i) those who make only an occasional or rela- tively minor contribution to a piece of research; (ii) those not seen as, or treated as, 'proper' researchers (e.g., technicians, research assistants).

      Exclusion criteria from "collaborator":

      • those who make only minor or occasional contributions
      • "those not seen as, or treated as, 'proper' researchers (e.g. technicians, research assistants)" [!]
    2. (a) those who work together on the research project throughout its duration or for a large part of it, or who make frequent or substantial contribution; (b) those whose names or posts appear in the original research proposal ~9; (c) those responsible for one or more of the main elements of the research (e.g. the experimental de- sign, construction of research equipment, execution of the experiment, analysis and interpretation of the data 20 writing up the results in a paper).

      Some core definitions:

      • Those who work together through the duration of a project
      • Those whose names appear on the original proposals
      • Those responsible for one or more of the "main elements of the research (e.g. the experimental design, construction of research equipment, execution of the experiment, analysis and interpretation of the data, writing up of the results in a paper)."
  4. jis.sagepub.com.ezproxy.alu.talonline.ca jis.sagepub.com.ezproxy.alu.talonline.ca
    1. ependingon the participants, the following kinds of col-laboration can be identified:

      Types of collaboration

      Actually, these are pretty weakly divided: I think there are really basically 4:

      • Teacher-pupil,
      • Colleague-colleague
      • Researcher-technician
      • Project-to-project
  5. screen.oxfordjournals.org screen.oxfordjournals.org
    1. Secondly, the 'author-function' is not universal or constant in alldiscourse. Even within our civilization, the same types of textshave not always required authors; there was a time when thosetexts which we now call 'literary' (stories, folk tales, epics, andtragedies) were accepted, circulated, and valorized without anyquestion about the identity of their author. Their anonymity wasignored because their real or supposed age was a sufficient guaran-tee of their authenticity. T

      on differentiating among texts.

    1. ights (1, 3, 5) are summed to(a) estimate each individual’s overall contribution, whichcan range from 1–35 (735 being the maximum possiblescore), and (b) determine the sequence in which coauthors’names are listed on the resultant publication.

      Insanely detailed matrix: function by contribution level

    2. twe should not assume too much in terms of common un-derstandings: the dividing line between the two classifica-tions, author and acknowledgee, is neither universally ap-preciated nor consistently applied. Cronin (1995, pp. 85–86), for instance, has shown that interpretative disputes arenot uncommon, and that some researchers feel that theyhave been denied their just deserts by being downgradedfrom coauthor to acknowledgee. A

      on boundary between authorship and acknowledgement

  6. May 2016