Vorträge und Tagungen
1000 Übereinstimmungen gefunden / 1-15 16-30 31-45 46-60 61-75 76-90 91-105 106-120 121-135 136-150 151-165 166-180 181-195 196-210 211-225 226-240 241-255 256-270 271-285 286-300 301-315 316-330 331-345 346-360 361-375 376-390 391-405 406-420 421-435 436-450 451-465 466-480 481-495 496-510 511-525 526-540 541-555 556-570 571-585 586-600 601-615 616-630 631-645 646-660 661-675 676-690 691-705 706-720 721-735 736-750 751-765 766-780 781-795 796-810 811-825 826-840 841-855 856-870 871-885 886-900 901-915 916-930 931-945 946-960 961-975 976-990 991-1000
Findings and lessons from the project GRant AllocatioN Disparities from a gender perspective (GRANteD).van den Besselaar, P., Mom, C., & Möller, T. (2023, Oktober).Findings and lessons from the project GRant AllocatioN Disparities from a gender perspective (GRANteD). Vortrag auf dem Workshop Stakeholder-Commitee on Research Funding, Wien, Österreich. |
Where is the gender bias in grant allocation? Empirical findings, conclusions and further lessons.van den Besselaar, P., Mom, C., & Möller, T. (2023, Oktober).Where is the gender bias in grant allocation? Empirical findings, conclusions and further lessons. Vortrag im Rahmen des Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Granted Project., Wien, Österreich. |
Research information in the light of artificial intelligence: quality and data ecologies.Azeroual, O., & Koltay, T. (2023, Oktober).Research information in the light of artificial intelligence: quality and data ecologies. Vortrag auf der Konferenz 16th International Conference Education and Research in the Information Society (ERIS2023), Plovdiv, Bulgaria. |
On the performativity of SDG classifications in large bibliometric databases.Ottaviani, M., & Stahlschmidt, S. (2023, Oktober).On the performativity of SDG classifications in large bibliometric databases. Poster auf der Konferenz Nordic Workshop on Bibliometrics and Research Policy, Gothenburg, Sweden. Abstract
Large bibliometric databases, such as Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions, are performative and affect the visibility of scientific outputs and impact measurement. However, these databases do not match the UN's SDGs classifications. This work proposes using large language models (LLM) to learn about data bias injected by diverse SDG classifications. The results show high sensitivity to diverse classifications in model architecture, classified publications, fine-tuning process and natural language generation. The wide arbitrariness raises ethical concerns. Qualitative text analyses can help inform science policy on diverse SDG classifications. |
Diversity of regional research cultures in the global science system.Blümel, C. (2023, Oktober).Moderation der Podiumsdiskussion Diversity of regional research cultures in the global science system auf der Konferenz The Future of Higher Education and Science - A Turn of the Times?, Deutsches Zentrum für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsforschung (DZHW), Berlin, Deutschland. |
Der KDSF als wissenschaftsgeleiteter Standard für die Erfassung und Nutzung von Forschungsinformationen.Biesenbender, S. (2023, Oktober).Der KDSF als wissenschaftsgeleiteter Standard für die Erfassung und Nutzung von Forschungsinformationen. Vortrag im Rahmen des Leibniz-Führungskollegs "Reform der wissenschaftlichen Leistungsbewertung – Perspektiven und Chancen für die Leibniz-Gemeinschaft", Leibniz-Gemeinschaft, Berlin. |
Third-party funding data for research evaluation – On assumptions for efficiency measures with data from medical faculties in Germany.Hartstein, J. (2023, Oktober).Third-party funding data for research evaluation – On assumptions for efficiency measures with data from medical faculties in Germany. Poster auf der Konferenz The Future of Higher Education and Science, Leibniz Center for Social Sciences, Leibniz-Universität Hannover & German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW), Hannover. Abstract
Efficiency measures as indicators for research excellence are less prominent than productivity measures (aka publication counts) and reception measures (aka citation counts), yet they are frequently discussed [...]. For some years now, practitioners and policy makers have discussed including third-party funding data [...] into efficiency measurement – either as input (income, spending) or as output (grants), which leads to the research question of this contribution: Can third-party funding data reasonably be included in efficiency measurement without violating the assumptions of linear models? And which type of TPF count (income, spending, grants) would be most suitable as input or output variable respectively? |
Making the invisible differences visible.Hartstein, J., Tcypina, A., & Fabian, G. (2023, Oktober).Making the invisible differences visible. Vortrag auf der Konferenz The Future of Higher Education and Science, Leibniz Center for Social Sciences, Leibniz-Universität Hannover & Deutsches Zentrum für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsforschung (DZHW), Hannover. |
Geopolitik und die Gestaltung von Kooperationen in Wissenschaft und Hochschule.Blümel, C. (2023, Oktober).Geopolitik und die Gestaltung von Kooperationen in Wissenschaft und Hochschule. Vortrag auf der Konferenz The Future of Higher Education and Science - A Turn of the Times?, Deutsches Zentrum für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsforschung (DZHW), Hannover, Deutschland. Abstract
Geopolitische Spannungen haben zunehmend Auswirkungen auf die Wissenschaft und den wissenschaftlichen Austausch. Das Verhältnis zwischen Staat und Wissenschaft wird in vielen Ländern unterschiedlich verstanden; eine gesetzlich verbriefte Wissenschaftsfreiheit wie in Deutschland existiert nicht überall. Dennoch agieren auch autoritär geführte Regime, in denen Eingriffe in die Wissenschaftsfreiheit beobachtet werden, wissenschaftlich sehr erfolgreich. Die Frage, die sich daraus ergibt und die vor dem Hintergrund des Angriffskriegs in der Ukraine dringlich diskutiert wird, ist: wie gestalten wir wissenschaftliche Kooperationen und wissenschaftlichen Austausch neu? |
Lässt sich akademische Freiheit mit bibliometrischen Methoden vermessen?Aman, V. (2023, Oktober).Lässt sich akademische Freiheit mit bibliometrischen Methoden vermessen? Vortrag auf der Konferenz The Future of Higher Education and Science, Leibniz Center for Social Sciences, Leibniz-Universität Hannover & German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW), Hannover. |
Guideline Impact Factor – A new indicator to assess journals cited in medical guidelines.Aman, V., & Sorgatz, N. (2023, September).Guideline Impact Factor – A new indicator to assess journals cited in medical guidelines. Poster auf der Konferenz 27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023), Leiden, Niederlande. https://doi.org/10.55835/644169a0565e92f0541abf8d |
On epistemic properties and field-specific logics in the study of knowledge transfer: Empirical evidence on researchers’ productive interactions from a nationwide survey in Germany.Janßen, M., & Just, A. (2023, September).On epistemic properties and field-specific logics in the study of knowledge transfer: Empirical evidence on researchers’ productive interactions from a nationwide survey in Germany. Vortrag auf der Konferenz 27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023), Leiden, Niederlande. |
Dynamics of the disciplinary structure of research in post-Soviet countries.Lovakov, A. (2023, September).Dynamics of the disciplinary structure of research in post-Soviet countries. Poster auf der Konferenz 27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023), Leiden, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.55835/643ea0a69ad1e8f3e5ab2f1a |
The Field-Specificity of Open Data Practices.Velden, T., & Tcypina, A. (2023, September).The Field-Specificity of Open Data Practices. Vortrag auf der Konferenz The 27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023), CWTS in collaboration with the European Network of Indicator Developers (ENID), Leiden, The Netherlands. Abstract
Increasingly, researchers are expected to make their research data openly available. However, scientific fields differ in their research practices and norms for sharing research data. We provide quantitative evidence of differences in data practices and the public sharing of research data at a granularity of field-specificity that is rarely reported in open data surveys. Based on a survey of 8,822 researchers at German Universities, we find considerable variation, within and across disciplines, of data practices and rates of open data sharing. Our findings underline that in order to evaluate rates of public data sharing, a better understanding of the embedding of public data sharing into field-specific research practices is needed. |
Kontakt
