The Experts below are selected from a list of 32502 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Jelica Nejasmic - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • correction an efficiency comparison of Document Preparation systems used in academic research and development
    PLOS ONE, 2015
    Co-Authors: Markus Knauff, Jelica Nejasmic
    Abstract:

    : This article was republished on March 30, 2015, to correct the sizing and placement of thefigures; none of the article content was changed. The publisher apologizes for the originallayout errors. Please download this article again to view the corrected version. The originallypublished, uncorrected article and the republished, corrected article are provided herefor reference.

  • an efficiency comparison of Document Preparation systems used in academic research and development
    PLOS ONE, 2014
    Co-Authors: Markus Knauff, Jelica Nejasmic
    Abstract:

    The choice of an efficient Document Preparation system is an important decision for any academic researcher. To assist the research community, we report a software usability study in which 40 researchers across different disciplines prepared scholarly texts with either Microsoft Word or LaTeX. The probe texts included simple continuous text, text with tables and subheadings, and complex text with several mathematical equations. We show that LaTeX users were slower than Word users, wrote less text in the same amount of time, and produced more typesetting, orthographical, grammatical, and formatting errors. On most measures, expert LaTeX users performed even worse than novice Word users. LaTeX users, however, more often report enjoying using their respective software. We conclude that even experienced LaTeX users may suffer a loss in productivity when LaTeX is used, relative to other Document Preparation systems. Individuals, institutions, and journals should carefully consider the ramifications of this finding when choosing Document Preparation strategies, or requiring them of authors.

Markus Knauff - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • correction an efficiency comparison of Document Preparation systems used in academic research and development
    PLOS ONE, 2015
    Co-Authors: Markus Knauff, Jelica Nejasmic
    Abstract:

    : This article was republished on March 30, 2015, to correct the sizing and placement of thefigures; none of the article content was changed. The publisher apologizes for the originallayout errors. Please download this article again to view the corrected version. The originallypublished, uncorrected article and the republished, corrected article are provided herefor reference.

  • an efficiency comparison of Document Preparation systems used in academic research and development
    PLOS ONE, 2014
    Co-Authors: Markus Knauff, Jelica Nejasmic
    Abstract:

    The choice of an efficient Document Preparation system is an important decision for any academic researcher. To assist the research community, we report a software usability study in which 40 researchers across different disciplines prepared scholarly texts with either Microsoft Word or LaTeX. The probe texts included simple continuous text, text with tables and subheadings, and complex text with several mathematical equations. We show that LaTeX users were slower than Word users, wrote less text in the same amount of time, and produced more typesetting, orthographical, grammatical, and formatting errors. On most measures, expert LaTeX users performed even worse than novice Word users. LaTeX users, however, more often report enjoying using their respective software. We conclude that even experienced LaTeX users may suffer a loss in productivity when LaTeX is used, relative to other Document Preparation systems. Individuals, institutions, and journals should carefully consider the ramifications of this finding when choosing Document Preparation strategies, or requiring them of authors.

Robert K Mclellan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • american college of occupational and environmental medicine s occupational and environmental medicine competencies 2014 acoem oem competencies task force
    Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2014
    Co-Authors: Marianne Cloeren, Constantine Gean, Denece Kesler, Judith Greenmckenzie, Mark Taylor, Mark Upfal, Michael Hodgson, Philip Adamo, Philip Harber, Robert K Mclellan
    Abstract:

    The preventive medicine foundation of occupational medicine impacts all the different practice areas of OEM, whether it involves preventing illness related to a hazardous exposure, treating injury due to an employee health condition, or addressing unnecessary work disability after an occupational injury. The OEM physicians are required to effectivelyinteractwithawiderangeofother professionals and provide guidance not only to patients but also to other clinicians and occupational health nurses, employers, safety and industrial hygiene professionals, human resource managers, attorneys, labor unions, and public health care professionals. In these interactions,OEMphysiciansshouldfollowa strict code of ethics related to matters of confidentiality and potential conflicts of interest. Detailed guidance in this area is provided in ACOEM Code of Ethics. 16 Effective communication in OEM includes risk communication, patient education, workforce education, development of policy and guidance Documents, and medical/legal Document Preparation. Physicians practicing OEM typically

Siddiki, Saba N. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Institutional Grammar 2.0 Codebook
    'Wiley', 2021
    Co-Authors: Frantz, Christopher K., Siddiki, Saba N.
    Abstract:

    The Grammar of Institutions, or Institutional Grammar, is an established approach to encode policy information in terms of institutional statements based on a set of pre-defined syntactic components. This codebook provides coding guidelines for a revised version of the Institutional Grammar, the Institutional Grammar 2.0 (IG 2.0). IG 2.0 is a specification that aims at facilitating the encoding of policy to meet varying analytical objectives. To this end, it revises the grammar with respect to comprehensiveness, flexibility, and specificity by offering multiple levels of expressiveness (IG Core, IG Extended, IG Logico). In addition to the encoding of regulative statements, it further introduces the encoding of constitutive institutional statements, as well as statements that exhibit both constitutive and regulative characteristics. Introducing those aspects, the codebook initially covers fundamental concepts of IG 2.0, before providing an overview of pre-coding steps relevant for Document Preparation. Detailed coding guidelines are provided for both regulative and constitutive statements across all levels of expressiveness, along with the encoding guidelines for statements of mixed form -- hybrid and polymorphic institutional statements. The Document further provides an overview of taxonomies used in the encoding process and referred to throughout the codebook. The codebook concludes with a summary and discussion of relevant considerations to facilitate the coding process. An initial Reader's Guide helps the reader tailor the content to her interest. Note that this codebook specifically focuses on operational aspects of IG 2.0 in the context of policy coding. Links to additional resources such as the underlying scientific literature (that offers a comprehensive treatment of the underlying theoretical concepts) are referred to in the concluding section of the codebook.Comment: 120 pages, 16 figures, 14 table

  • Institutional Grammar 2.0 Codebook
    2020
    Co-Authors: Frantz, Christopher K., Siddiki, Saba N.
    Abstract:

    The Grammar of Institutions, or Institutional Grammar (IG), is an established approach to encode policy information in terms of institutional statements based on a set of pre-defined syntactic components. This codebook provides coding guidelines for a revised version of the IG, the Institutional Grammar 2.0 (IG 2.0). IG 2.0 is a specification that aims at facilitating the encoding of policy to meet varying analytical objectives. To this end, it revises the grammar with respect to comprehensiveness, flexibility, and specificity by offering multiple levels of expressiveness (IG Core, IG Extended, IG Logico), and further introduces encoding of constitutive institutional statements, in addition to the encoding of regulative statements. The codebook covers fundamental concepts of IG 2.0, before providing an overview of pre-coding steps relevant for Document Preparation. Following this, detailed coding guidelines are provided for both regulative and constitutive statements across all levels of expressiveness, along with the encoding instructions for hybrid and polymorphic institutional statements. The Document further provides an overview of taxonomies used in the encoding process and referred to throughout the codebook. Note that this codebook specifically focuses on operational aspects of IG 2.0 in the context of policy coding. Links to additional resources such as the underlying scientific literature (that offers comprehensive treatment of the underlying theoretical concepts) as well as tool support are referred to in the concluding section of the codebook.Comment: 99 pages, 16 figures, 12 table

Marianne Cloeren - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • american college of occupational and environmental medicine s occupational and environmental medicine competencies 2014 acoem oem competencies task force
    Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2014
    Co-Authors: Marianne Cloeren, Constantine Gean, Denece Kesler, Judith Greenmckenzie, Mark Taylor, Mark Upfal, Michael Hodgson, Philip Adamo, Philip Harber, Robert K Mclellan
    Abstract:

    The preventive medicine foundation of occupational medicine impacts all the different practice areas of OEM, whether it involves preventing illness related to a hazardous exposure, treating injury due to an employee health condition, or addressing unnecessary work disability after an occupational injury. The OEM physicians are required to effectivelyinteractwithawiderangeofother professionals and provide guidance not only to patients but also to other clinicians and occupational health nurses, employers, safety and industrial hygiene professionals, human resource managers, attorneys, labor unions, and public health care professionals. In these interactions,OEMphysiciansshouldfollowa strict code of ethics related to matters of confidentiality and potential conflicts of interest. Detailed guidance in this area is provided in ACOEM Code of Ethics. 16 Effective communication in OEM includes risk communication, patient education, workforce education, development of policy and guidance Documents, and medical/legal Document Preparation. Physicians practicing OEM typically