Oh no! Humanistic Informatics is far worse at publishing than Informatics. We’re even lagging 0.02 points behind Infomedia. Karltk explains all, in good old AD&D fashion.
Previous Post
job Next Post
summer break 1 Comment
Leave A Comment Cancel reply
Recommended Posts
Having your own words processed and restated can help you improve your thinking and your writing. That’s one reason why talking with someone about your ideas can help you clarify your thoughts. ChatGPT is certainly no replacement for a knowledgable friend or colleague, […]
Like the rest of the internet, I’ve been playing with ChatGPT, the new AI chatbot released by OpenAI, and I’ve been fascinated by how much it does well and how it still gets a lot wrong. ChatGPT is a foundation model, that […]
A few weeks ago Meta released Galactica, a language model that generates scientific papers based on a prompt you type in. They put it online and invited people to try it out, but had to remove it after just three days after […]
This spring when I was learning R, I came across a paper by Anders Kristian Munk, Asger Gehrt Olesen and Mathieu Jacomy about using machine learning in anthropology – not to classify big data, as machine learning is often used, but to […]
I’m co-organising a preconfernece workshop for AoIR2022 in Dublin today with Annette Markham and MaryElizabeth Luka today, and I’m going to show a few of the ways I’ve engaged with new digital platforms and genres over the years. This is a key […]
I’m (virtually) attending Elisa Serifinalli’s conference Drones in Society: New Visual Aesthetics today, and will be presenting work-in-progress exploring how drones are presented in the 500 novels, movies, artworks, games and other stories that we have analysed in the Database of Machine […]
NumberCruncher
I could not reproduce Torleiv Kl¯veís results cited by Karltk, see my comments there. Here is an alternative ranking of the Overall Publication-Faculty Ratio and a new addition: The Prestige Publication-Faculty Ratio ñ where your department, HUMINF, does much better!
Overall Publication-Faculty Ratio
(Publication Points/Number of Faculty)
1. II-UiB: 1.96
2. IfI-UiO: 0.58
3. IDI-NTNU: 0.34
4. Infomedia-UiB: 0.33
5. HUMINF-UiB: 0.28
6. SFF QoS-NTNU: 0.22
7. IfI-Troms¯: 0.04
New: Prestige Publication-Faculty Ratio
(Level 2 Prestige Publication Share/Number of Faculty)
1. II-UiB: 0.24
2. HUMINF-UiB: 0.16
3. IfI-UiO: 0.06
4. IDI-NTNU: 0.04
5. SFF QoS-NTNU: 0.03
6. Infomedia-UiB: 0.02
7. IfI-Troms¯: 0.00
Note: The category ìNumber of Facultyî excludes administrative and support personnel. The ratios are based on data for the year 2004, available at http://dbh.nsd.uib.no/dbhvev/