The Experts below are selected from a list of 45723 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Bruce M. Psaty - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparing a single stage geocoding method to a multi stage geocoding method how much and where do they disagree
International Journal of Health Geographics, 2007Co-Authors: Gina S Lovasi, Jeremy C Weiss, Richard E Hoskins, Eric A Whitsel, Craig Erickson, Kenneth Rice, Bruce M. PsatyAbstract:Background Geocoding methods vary among spatial epidemiology studies. Errors in the geocoding process and differential match rates may reduce study validity. We compared two geocoding methods using 8,157 Washington State addresses. The multi-stage geocoding method implemented by the state health department used a sequence of local and national Reference Files. The single-stage method used a single national Reference File. For each address geocoded by both methods, we measured the distance between the locations assigned by each method. Area-level characteristics were collected from census data, and modeled as predictors of the discordance between geocoded address coordinates.
Stephen P Sottong - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
automating your ready Reference File
Reference Services Review, 1994Co-Authors: Joy Thomas, Stephen P SottongAbstract:Many libraries, public, academic, or special, no matter how technologically advanced, maintain a finger‐marked, dog‐eared File at the Reference desk. This File, usually on 3x5‐inch cards, contains answers to questions that have proved difficult. Such a File is necessary in any library that has ever had, or ever expects to have, any turnover in Reference personnel. Even good, seasoned librarians may not have perfect recall for the minutia of a vexing question answered months or years ago, perhaps by someone else. Determining the number of access points in a manual Reference aids File is a dilemma. One could make a cross‐Reference for every way any person could possibly seek the information or one could write a single card and trust collective memory to remember how it was Filed. Multiple cards increase the possibility of finding the information, but clog the File. The single card approach, as has been observed, “provided only one point of access, which frequently could not be identified in a stress situation.” Also, newer librarians, weaned on computers and impatient with manual Files, tend to avoid the card File, which they view as an unworkable relic. The manual Reference aids File at the California State University, Long Beach (CSULB) Library contained about 800 tidbits of elusive information such as subject headings used for archaeological site reports, a list of the Supreme Court cases kept in the reserve book room, facts of local history, a reminder of which issue of Fortune lists the annual Fortune 500, where to find Nielsen ratings, and more.
Gina S Lovasi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparing a single stage geocoding method to a multi stage geocoding method how much and where do they disagree
International Journal of Health Geographics, 2007Co-Authors: Gina S Lovasi, Jeremy C Weiss, Richard E Hoskins, Eric A Whitsel, Craig Erickson, Kenneth Rice, Bruce M. PsatyAbstract:Background Geocoding methods vary among spatial epidemiology studies. Errors in the geocoding process and differential match rates may reduce study validity. We compared two geocoding methods using 8,157 Washington State addresses. The multi-stage geocoding method implemented by the state health department used a sequence of local and national Reference Files. The single-stage method used a single national Reference File. For each address geocoded by both methods, we measured the distance between the locations assigned by each method. Area-level characteristics were collected from census data, and modeled as predictors of the discordance between geocoded address coordinates.
Pijpops Dirk - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The use of zo’n versus zulke ‘such’ in Belgian and Netherlandic Dutch. Testing hypotheses relating to lexical biases, function, register and noun type.
2020Co-Authors: Pijpops DirkAbstract:Topic & objectives – This study investigates the use of the determiners zulke vs. zo’n ‘such’ in front of plural and uncountable singular nouns in European Dutch (Ghesquière and Van de Velde 2011; Van Olmen 2019). Countable singular nouns are not taken up because previous research indicates that zulke is exceedingly infrequent in that context (Van Olmen and van der Auwera 2014: 217). In addition, Van Olmen and van der Auwera (2014: 217) show that zo’n is generally more popular in Belgian Dutch than in Netherlandic Dutch. Three hypotheses are put to the test. The first predicts that both Belgians and Dutchmen will be more inclined to use the ‘Belgian’ variant zo’n in phrases that are more often used in Belgian Dutch. This would be an effect of lectal contamination (Pijpops and Van de Velde 2018). The second hypothesis states that in Netherlandic Dutch, there will be an important distinction between the functions that both determiners fulfill, among the instances in front of uncountable, singular nouns. In that context, zulke will be preferred for identifying the following noun, whereas zo’n will be preferred for intensifying the following noun (Van Olmen 2019: 218). The third hypothesis claims that in Belgian Dutch, there will be an important distinction in register, among the instances in front of plural nouns. In that context, zulke will be preferred in a formal register, whereas zo’n will be preferred in an informal register (Taaladvies.net). Data – To test these hypotheses, data were drawn from the Sonar corpus of written Dutch (Oostdijk et al. 2013) and the Corpus of Spoken Dutch (Oostdijk et al. 2002). Speaker information is available for the entire Corpus of Spoken Dutch, so all of its material was used, whereas for the Sonar corpus, only the material was used for which writer information is available. First, a list of all potentially uncountable nouns was drawn from the Reference File Dutch (van der Vliet 2007; Referentiebestand Nederlands - RBN 2014). Next, all instances of zo’n and zulke, including spelling variants, were extracted from the corpora, when they were followed within the five words by a plural noun or a potentially uncountable singular noun. This yielded 9206 instances, which were then manually checked. Method and preliminary results – To test the first hypothesis, a measure was calculated for each unique phrase, i.e. each unique lexical realization of the noun phrase containing zo’n or zulke, that quantified how often the phrase is used in Belgian Dutch compared to Netherlandic Dutch, regardless of whether it is used with zo’n or zulke (Pijpops & Van de Velde 2018). To test the second hypothesis, all data were manually annotated for their function, based on the criteria mentioned in Altenberg (1994: 234) en Van Olmen (2019: 227, 232, 235, 255). Finally, all hypotheses were put to the test used mixed model regression analysis (Gries 2015; Speelman, Heylen and Geeraerts 2018). The results show that only one hypothesis is straightforwardly confirmed, while another is confirmed pending important qualifications, and another is not confirmed
-
The use of zo’n versus zulke ‘such’ in Belgian and Netherlandic Dutch. Testing hypotheses relating to lexical biases, function, register and noun type
2020Co-Authors: Pijpops DirkAbstract:Topic & objectives – This study investigates the use of the determiners zulke vs. zo’n ‘such’ in front of plural and uncountable singular nouns in European Dutch (Ghesquière and Van de Velde 2011; Van Olmen 2019). Countable singular nouns are not taken up because previous research indicates that zulke is exceedingly infrequent in that context (Van Olmen and van der Auwera 2014: 217). In addition, Van Olmen and van der Auwera (2014: 217) show that zo’n is generally more popular in Belgian Dutch than in Netherlandic Dutch. Three hypotheses are put to the test. The first predicts that both Belgians and Dutchmen will be more inclined to use the ‘Belgian’ variant zo’n in phrases that are more often used in Belgian Dutch. This would be an effect of lectal contamination (Pijpops and Van de Velde 2018). The second hypothesis states that in Netherlandic Dutch, there will be an important distinction between the functions that both determiners fulfill, among the instances in front of uncountable, singular nouns. In that context, zulke will be preferred for identifying the following noun, whereas zo’n will be preferred for intensifying the following noun (Van Olmen 2019: 218). The third hypothesis claims that in Belgian Dutch, there will be an important distinction in register, among the instances in front of plural nouns. In that context, zulke will be preferred in a formal register, whereas zo’n will be preferred in an informal register (Taaladvies.net). Data – To test these hypotheses, data were drawn from the Sonar corpus of written Dutch (Oostdijk et al. 2013) and the Corpus of Spoken Dutch (Oostdijk et al. 2002). Speaker information is available for the entire Corpus of Spoken Dutch, so all of its material was used, whereas for the Sonar corpus, only the material was used for which writer information is available. First, a list of all potentially uncountable nouns was drawn from the Reference File Dutch (van der Vliet 2007; Referentiebestand Nederlands - RBN 2014). Next, all instances of zo’n and zulke, including spelling variants, were extracted from the corpora, when they were followed within the five words by a plural noun or a potentially uncountable singular noun. This yielded 9206 instances, which were then manually checked. Method and preliminary results – To test the first hypothesis, a measure was calculated for each unique phrase, i.e. each unique lexical realization of the noun phrase containing zo’n or zulke, that quantified how often the phrase is used in Belgian Dutch compared to Netherlandic Dutch, regardless of whether it is used with zo’n or zulke (Pijpops & Van de Velde 2018). To test the second hypothesis, all data were manually annotated for their function, based on the criteria mentioned in Altenberg (1994: 234) en Van Olmen (2019: 227, 232, 235, 255). Finally, all hypotheses were put to the test used mixed model regression analysis (Gries 2015; Speelman, Heylen and Geeraerts 2018). The results show that only one hypothesis is straightforwardly confirmed, while another is confirmed pending important qualifications, and another is not confirmed.status: publishe
Joy Thomas - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
automating your ready Reference File
Reference Services Review, 1994Co-Authors: Joy Thomas, Stephen P SottongAbstract:Many libraries, public, academic, or special, no matter how technologically advanced, maintain a finger‐marked, dog‐eared File at the Reference desk. This File, usually on 3x5‐inch cards, contains answers to questions that have proved difficult. Such a File is necessary in any library that has ever had, or ever expects to have, any turnover in Reference personnel. Even good, seasoned librarians may not have perfect recall for the minutia of a vexing question answered months or years ago, perhaps by someone else. Determining the number of access points in a manual Reference aids File is a dilemma. One could make a cross‐Reference for every way any person could possibly seek the information or one could write a single card and trust collective memory to remember how it was Filed. Multiple cards increase the possibility of finding the information, but clog the File. The single card approach, as has been observed, “provided only one point of access, which frequently could not be identified in a stress situation.” Also, newer librarians, weaned on computers and impatient with manual Files, tend to avoid the card File, which they view as an unworkable relic. The manual Reference aids File at the California State University, Long Beach (CSULB) Library contained about 800 tidbits of elusive information such as subject headings used for archaeological site reports, a list of the Supreme Court cases kept in the reserve book room, facts of local history, a reminder of which issue of Fortune lists the annual Fortune 500, where to find Nielsen ratings, and more.