Current Events > Is this paper nonsense?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0271530903000132

---

if anyone can access this article and read it please let me know

---

As somebody who knows English, I will analyze this post haste.

---

My institution doesn't have access to it, but I don't see why it would be? Silverstein is a well-known linguist.

---

Jabodie posted...

As somebody who knows English, I will analyze this post haste.

Lol.

---

Go to Google Scholar, search a paper, see if there's a PDF version you can view. Try that when you can't see something you want to see because of a paywall and you don't have institutional access. Generally it'll also tell you if the paper means anything because you'll see the number of citations.

---

Kuuko posted...

Generally it'll also tell you if the paper means anything because you'll see the number of citations.

I mean, number of citations doesn't really mean anything, especially in smaller fields. If there's a lot it can tell you that it's a well-regarded or commonly-cited paper, but having few citations could just mean it's new or written by a less well-known scholar who might be overshadowed by bigger names in their field.

---

Shezarr posted...

I mean, number of citations doesn't really mean anything, especially in smaller fields. If there's a lot it can tell you that it's a well-regarded or commonly-cited paper, but having few citations could just mean it's new or written by a less well-known scholar who might be overshadowed by bigger names in their field.

Of course it's not the end-all-be-all measurement. But there is a reason university departments are so obsessed with their total citations. It's an easy rough measurement to see if anyone else even thinks the research contributed anything else to the conversation. So when an anti-vaxxer sends you some random research paper, with a citation of 0 or a citation of 1 and that other citation is the same author citing themselves, you have good reason to consider it's not really "what the research shows" or "what studies say" or whatever.

---

Kuuko posted...

But there is a reason university departments are so obsessed with their total citations.

The reason is that it is a number. And you can say "that number is bigger than that other number".

---

it has no practical value.

---

Doe posted...

it has no practical value.

Somehow I don't think you read the article.

---

Doe posted...

it has no practical value.

It advances my message board communication ontology by quite a lot

---

The abstract made sense but it's definitely using fancy talk to try and spice it up.

I couldn't read the article or click the figures.

Post some of it for us, TC. First 2 and last 2 paragraphs from the article should be sufficient.

---

Robot2600 posted...

The abstract made sense but it's definitely using fancy talk to try and spice it up.

I couldn't read the article or click the figures.

Post some of it for us, TC. First 2 and last 2 paragraphs from the article should be sufficient.

Eheheheh no

---

I'd have to google every other word to understand wtf it's saying

---

dem reads like citytalk to me, jeb

---

fwiw i don't understand it really, I can glean parts of it I guess

---