Comments for the scottbot irregular

Comment on Demystifying Networks by Developing a Workshop in Network Analysis for Humanities – DH @ The Queen's University Library

Sun, 13 Mar 2016 17:49:37 +0000

[…] Demystifying Networks – Scott Weingart […]

Comment on Demystifying Networks by Explore The Historian’s Digital Toolbox | exodus777blog

Explore The Historian’s Digital Toolbox | exodus777blog — Thu, 10 Mar 2016 01:43:08 +0000

[…] Weingart, Scott, “Demystifying Networks,” scottbot irregular, December 14, 2011, http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=6279 […]

Comment on Submissions to DH2016 (pt. 1) by DHBenelux 2016 submissions | Max Kemman

DHBenelux 2016 submissions | Max Kemman — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:57:05 +0000

[…] Inspired by Scott Weingart’s series on submissions to the annual ADHO DH conference (see his 2016 post on submissions here), I present you a first analysis of the submissions to DHBenelux 2016. Later posts will bring […]

Comment on Networks Demystified 7: Doing Co-Citation Analyses by Gaurav

Gaurav — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 06:24:21 +0000

Thanks for your prompt response. I want to know that which software should I choose to perform citation analysis? Actually, I want to use data generated from Scopus database.

Comment on Networks Demystified 7: Doing Co-Citation Analyses by Scott Weingart

Scott Weingart — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:24:14 +0000

Often large citation networks are not DAGs (Directed Acyclic Graphs) because, especially recently, you have articles that cite forward in time. For example, if your article A cites an article preprint B, and then in their final publication they in turn cite your new article A, you suddenly have a cycle in the graph. Main Path Analysis only works on DAGs, so if you want to run that algorithm, you’ll have to remove the instances in your citation network where cycles occur (forward-citations).

Comment on Networks Demystified 7: Doing Co-Citation Analyses by Gaurav

Gaurav — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 06:52:06 +0000

How to use Pajek for Main Path analysis? I am exploring the software but always receiving the error that network is not acyclic!.

Thanks in advance.

Comment on Acceptances to Digital Humanities 2015 (part 3) by Review of The Programming Historian / The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy

Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:05:57 +0000

[…] are unique to The Programming Historian. The wider field of digital humanities is riddled with these sorts of dynamics. But it’s nevertheless important to highlight the barriers and exclusions that can sprout […]

Comment on Submissions to DH2016 (pt. 1) by Scott Weingart

Scott Weingart — Tue, 08 Dec 2015 15:38:02 +0000

In 2013, 2014, and 2015, “historical studies” have an acceptance rate slightly below average, and literary studies have acceptance rates slightly above average. This is consistent across years. I’d be surprised if that changed this year, even with the larger historical studies tag, but even if it doesn’t, the difference in acceptance rates is small enough that I imagine the historical turn will remain present in the final conference. (see http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/acceptance-topic-sortbyaccrate.png & http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AccRateByRate.png )

Comment on Submissions to DH2016 (pt. 1) by acrymble

acrymble — Tue, 08 Dec 2015 15:09:03 +0000

These are submissions, so I’ll be interested to see if this historical turn makes it through the peer review.

Comment on Submissions to DH2016 (pt. 1) by Scott Weingart

Scott Weingart — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 19:56:44 +0000

Good point, thanks, it’s definitely a poor proxy. I wouldn’t be surprised if, systematically, “historical studies” is less likely to refer to work done by people in history departments than “literary studies” is likely to point to work done by literary scholars. History can be historical linguistics, literary history, etc.

That said, unless tagging practices have changed or authors are allowed to use more tags per submission this year than previous years, it’s still worth noting that the “historical studies” tag has grown tremendously. It may be that all the growth statistically depends upon the growth another tag (e.g. linguistics or literature), which I’ll make a point of checking for in the next post now that you bring it up, but I suspect we’ll find that “traditional” history is increasing with the rest of the tag, even if the tag doesn’t always represent it.