<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
pmid: 20363175
A serious methodological weakness affecting much research in syntax and semantics within the field of linguistics is that the data presented as evidence are often not quantitative in nature. In particular, the prevalent method in these fields involves evaluating a single sentence/meaning pair, typically an acceptability judgment performed by just the author of the paper, possibly supplemented by an informal poll of colleagues. Although acceptability judgments are a good dependent measure of linguistic complexity (results from acceptability–judgment experiments are highly systematic across speakers and correlate with other dependent measures, but see Ref.
Research, Humans, Linguistics
Research, Humans, Linguistics
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 141 | |
popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |