少年中长跑运动员跑的经济性与运动成绩关系研究

以体校男女各13名少年运动员为研究对象,采用跑台逐级递增负荷运动试验测试最大吸氧量,并以24m·min-1的恒定跑台速度测试跑的经济性RE,呼出气体通过JaegerEOS心肺功能测试仪,用开放式气体测试法分析。文中运动员成绩均为竞赛成绩。实验结果表明,跑的经济性RE(ml·kg-1·min-1)无显著性性别差异(P>0.05),但个体间存在较大的差异。RE(ml·kg-1·min-1)与1500m、400m跑运动成绩无显著性相关,RE(％V2max)与10km跑成绩呈显著相关。提示RE在较长距离跑中起重要作用。运动员想提高耐力水平,可以通过提高最大有氧能力或改善技术以提高经济性这两种方法实现。     

After assessment: application of the results of an acquisitions teams survey

This paper will briefly discuss the team structure at the Pennsylvania State University Libraries, and the reasoning behind a recently completed teams assessment survey. It is extremely important to act on information gathered from surveys, and not just file it away. The focus of the paper, therefore, will be on the process we developed to implement and act upon the results of the assessment survey. The work with the University’s Human Resources Development Center to develop a tool to guide the staff through the process will be examined and discussed at length.     

青年男排运动员身体素质与比赛成绩的相关分析

运用文献资料法、测量法和数理统计法,通过参加全国青年男排球联赛运动员的身体素质和运动成绩间的相关关系进行统计学分析,从而寻找我国青年男子排球运动训练的基本规律和关键因素。研究表明:在训练过程中应以身体素质提高为重点,应加强弹跳力、灵敏性和快速移动能力的训练,为青年男子排球科学训练提供科学依据。     

数字馆藏服务绩效分析与评估

本文首先分析了数字馆藏服务绩效评估的内涵和作用,然后以郑州大学图书馆为例,详细讨论了数字馆藏服务绩效评估过程中绩效分析的几种方法,并对数字馆藏服务绩效评估的过程进行了论述。     

SPSS在图书馆绩效考核中的应用*

将SPSS和因子分析方法应用于图书馆绩效考核实践，通过对图书馆人员绩效的多标准、多人数的统计分析，不仅实现了绩效排序，还实现了绩效考核等级的划分。对提高图书馆人力资源管理水平起到积极的推动作用。     

关于图书馆绩效评估的研究与实践

图书馆绩效评估是对图书馆各项资源的投入和产出效益的比较。我国图书馆绩效评估经历了初步发展阶段、多元化发展阶段和转型发展阶段。图书馆绩效评估研究与实践的发展呈现出评估指标标准化、评估对象数字化、评估主体多元化、评估客体整体化的态势。参考文献10。     

电子资源服务绩效评估的含义及影响因素分析

本文在对国内外研究现状分析的基础上，对电子资源服务绩效的含义与作用，以及其影响因素等进行了系统的分析。     

Author ranking evaluation at scale

We evaluate author impact indicators and ranking algorithms on two publication databases using large test data sets of well-established researchers. The test data consists of (1) ACM fellowship and (2) various life-time achievement awards. We also evaluate different approaches of dividing credit of papers among co-authors and analyse the impact of self-citations. Furthermore, we evaluate different graph normalisation approaches for when PageRank is computed on author citation graphs.We find that PageRank outperforms citation counts in identifying well-established researchers. This holds true when PageRank is computed on author citation graphs but also when PageRank is computed on paper graphs and paper scores are divided among co-authors. In general, the best results are obtained when co-authors receive an equal share of a paper's score, independent of which impact indicator is used to compute paper scores. The results also show that removing author self-citations improves the results of most ranking metrics. Lastly, we find that it is more important to personalise the PageRank algorithm appropriately on the paper level than deciding whether to include or exclude self-citations. However, on the author level, we find that author graph normalisation is more important than personalisation.     

Four pitfalls in normalizing citation indicators: An investigation of ESI’s selection of highly cited papers

InCites Essential Science Indicators is becoming increasingly used to identify top-performing research and evaluate the impact of institutes. Unfortunately, our study shows that ESI indicators, as well as other normalized citation indicators, have the following flaws. First, the publication month and the online-to-print delay affect a paper’s probability of becoming a Highly Cited Paper (HCP). Papers published in the earlier months of the year are more likely to accumulate enough citation counts to rank at the top 1% compared with those published in later months of the year. Papers with longer online-to-print delays have an apparent advantage for being selected as HCPs. Research field normalizations lead to the third pitfall. Different research fields have different citation thresholds for HCPs, making research field classification important for a journal. In addition, the uniform thresholds for both articles and reviews in ESI affect the reliability of HCP selection because, on average, reviews tend to have higher citation rates than articles. ESI’s selection of HCPs provides an intuitive feel for the problems of normalized citation impact indicators, such as those provided in InCites and SciVal.