Relevant bibliographies by topics / Published opinion

Contents

  1. Journal articles

Academic literature on the topic 'Published opinion'

Author: Grafiati
Published: 4 June 2021
Last updated: 12 February 2022

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Published opinion.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Journal articles on the topic "Published opinion"

1

Oren, Aharon, and George M. Garrity. "Notification of changes in taxonomic opinion previously published outside the IJSEM." International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 65, Pt_1 (2015): 7–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.000007-0.

Full text
Abstract:
The Bacteriological Code deals with the nomenclature of prokaryotes. This may include existing names (the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names) as well as new names and new combinations. In this sense the Code is also dealing indirectly with taxonomic opinions. However, as with most codes of nomenclature there are no mechanisms for formally recording taxonomic opinions that do not involve the creation of new names or new combinations. In particular, it would be desirable for taxonomic opinions resulting from the creation of synonyms or emended descriptions to be made widely available to the public. In 2004, the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM) agreed unanimously that it was desirable to cover such changes in taxonomic opinions (i.e. the creation of synonyms or the emendation of circumscriptions) previously published outside the IJSEM, and to introduce a List of Changes in Taxonomic Opinion [Notification of changes in taxonomic opinion previously published outside the IJSEM; Euzéby et al. (2004). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 54, 1429-1430]. Scientists wishing to have changes in taxonomic opinion included in future lists should send one copy of the pertinent reprint or a photocopy or a PDF file thereof to the IJSEM Editorial Office or to the Lists Editor. It must be stressed that the date of proposed taxonomic changes is the date of the original publication not the date of publication of the list. Taxonomic opinions included in the List of Changes in Taxonomic Opinion cannot be considered as validly published nor, in any other way, approved by the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes and its Judicial Commission. The names that are to be used are those that are the ‘correct names’ (in the sense of Principle 6) in the opinion of the bacteriologist, with a given circumscription, position and rank. A particular name, circumscription, position and rank does not have to be adopted in all circumstances. Consequently, the List of Changes in Taxonomic Opinion must be considered as a service to bacteriology and it has no ‘official character’, other than providing a centralized point for registering/indexing such changes in a way that makes them easily accessible to the scientific community.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Oren, Aharon, and George M. Garrity. "Notification of changes in taxonomic opinion previously published outside the IJSEM." International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 64, Pt_1 (2014): 8–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.060301-0.

Full text
Abstract:
The Bacteriological Code deals with the nomenclature of prokaryotes. This may include existing names (the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names) as well as new names and new combinations. In this sense the Code is also dealing indirectly with taxonomic opinions. However, as with most codes of nomenclature there are no mechanisms for formally recording taxonomic opinions that do not involve the creation of new names or new combinations. In particular, it would be desirable for taxonomic opinions resulting from the creation of synonyms or emended descriptions to be made widely available to the public. In 2004, the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM) agreed unanimously that it was desirable to cover such changes in taxonomic opinions (i.e. the creation of synonyms or the emendation of circumscriptions) previously published outside the IJSEM, and to introduce a List of Changes in Taxonomic Opinion [Notification of changes in taxonomic opinion previously published outside the IJSEM; Euzéby et al. (2004). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 54, 1429–1430]. Scientists wishing to have changes in taxonomic opinion included in future lists should send one copy of the pertinent reprint or a photocopy or a PDF file thereof to the IJSEM Editorial Office or to the Lists Editor. It must be stressed that the date of proposed taxonomic changes is the date of the original publication not the date of publication of the list. Taxonomic opinions included in the List of Changes in Taxonomic Opinion cannot be considered as validly published nor, in any other way, approved by the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes and its Judicial Commission. The names that are to be used are those that are the ‘correct names’ (in the sense of Principle 6) in the opinion of the bacteriologist, with a given circumscription, position and rank. A particular name, circumscription, position and rank do not have to be adopted in all circumstances. Consequently, the List of Changes in Taxonomic Opinion must be considered as a service to bacteriology and it has no ‘official character’, other than providing a centralized point for registering/indexing such changes in a way that makes them easily accessible to the scientific communit y.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

Oren, Aharon, and George M. Garrity. "Notification of changes in taxonomic opinion previously published outside the IJSEM." International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 64, Pt_7 (2014): 2191–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.066134-0.

Full text
Abstract:
The Bacteriological Code deals with the nomenclature of prokaryotes. This may include existing names (the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names) as well as new names and new combinations. In this sense the Code is also dealing indirectly with taxonomic opinions. However, as with most codes of nomenclature there are no mechanisms for formally recording taxonomic opinions that do not involve the creation of new names or new combinations. In particular, it would be desirable for taxonomic opinions resulting from the creation of synonyms or emended descriptions to be made widely available to the public. In 2004, the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM) agreed unanimously that it was desirable to cover such changes in taxonomic opinions (i.e. the creation of synonyms or the emendation of circumscriptions) previously published outside the IJSEM, and to introduce a List of Changes in Taxonomic Opinion [Notification of changes in taxonomic opinion previously published outside the IJSEM; Euzéby et al. (2004). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 54, 1429–1430]. Scientists wishing to have changes in taxonomic opinion included in future lists should send one copy of the pertinent reprint or a photocopy or a PDF file thereof to the IJSEM Editorial Office or to the Lists Editor. It must be stressed that the date of proposed taxonomic changes is the date of the original publication not the date of publication of the list. Taxonomic opinions included in the List of Changes in Taxonomic Opinion cannot be considered as validly published nor, in any other way, approved by the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes and its Judicial Commission. The names that are to be used are those that are the ‘correct names’ (in the sense of Principle 6) in the opinion of the bacteriologist, with a given circumscription, position and rank. A particular name, circumscription, position and rank does not have to be adopted in all circumstances. Consequently, the List of Changes in Taxonomic Opinion must be considered as a service to bacteriology and it has no ‘official character’, other than providing a centralized point for registering/indexing such changes in a way that makes them easily accessible to the scientific community.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

Frekko, Susan E. "Standardizing opinion." Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 25, no. 4 (2015): 589–615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/prag.25.4.06fre.

Full text
Abstract:
The grounds of authority for the Catalan language have shifted from authenticity to anonymity, as Catalan becomes redefined as a public language. The “model of language” of the Catalan press reflects this shift, with an emphasis on neutral, transparent Catalan. This article examines original and published letters to the editor in a Catalan-medium newspaper in Barcelona. I argue that standardization of language, page design and signatures in the letters to the editor erases the social indexicality that attaches the original letters to their socially positioned authors. This process of standardization in linguistic and other semiotic modes allows the published letters to index a unified Catalan national “public” rather than their distinct authors.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

Tillman, Elizabeth A., and Rachael K. Hinkle. "Of Whites and men: How gender and race impact authorship of published and unpublished opinions in the US courts of appeals." Research & Politics 5, no. 1 (2018): 205316801876286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2053168018762869.

Full text
Abstract:
While authorship assignment has been studied extensively in the US Supreme Court, relatively little is known about such decisions in the intermediate federal courts. Moreover, what we know about circuit courts relates only to published opinions (those which constitute precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis and, thus, influence policy). Little is known about authorship of less influential unpublished opinions. Distinguishing between the costs, benefits, and risks inherent in authoring published versus unpublished opinions, we develop and test theoretical expectations about how demographic characteristics of opinion assignors and assignees influence authorship across opinion type. We conduct empirical tests using an exhaustive original dataset containing all authored dispositive circuit panel opinions issued in 2012. The results reveal that White and male judges are more likely to assign White and male judges to write published opinions and less likely to assign them to write unpublished opinions. The substantive sizes of the discrepancies are somewhat modest, but our results indicate that judges from historically disadvantaged groups have fewer opportunities to shape policy and they shoulder a disproportionately larger share of the routine chore of resolving individual cases.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

Hernández Esteve, Esteban. "OPINIÓN Opinion Intervention of Esteban Hernandez Esteve at the panel dicussion "Getting research published". The Fourth Accounting History International Conference, Braga (Portugal), September 7-9, 2005 (English version)." De Computis - Revista Española de Historia de la Contabilidad 2, no. 3 (2006): 217. http://dx.doi.org/10.26784/issn.1886-1881.v2i3.219.

Full text
Abstract:
OPINIÓN Opinion Intervention of Esteban Hernandez Esteve at the panel dicussion "Getting research published". The Fourth Accounting History International Conference, Braga (Portugal), September 7-9, 2005 (English version)
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

Gibbs, Reg L., Bill S. Rosen, and Michel Lacerte. "Published Research and Physiatric Opinion in Life Care Planning." Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America 24, no. 3 (2013): 553–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2013.03.002.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
8

Johansson, Richard, and Alessandro Moschitti. "Relational Features in Fine-Grained Opinion Analysis." Computational Linguistics 39, no. 3 (2013): 473–509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00141.

Full text
Abstract:
Fine-grained opinion analysis methods often make use of linguistic features but typically do not take the interaction between opinions into account. This article describes a set of experiments that demonstrate that relational features, mainly derived from dependency-syntactic and semantic role structures, can significantly improve the performance of automatic systems for a number of fine-grained opinion analysis tasks: marking up opinion expressions, finding opinion holders, and determining the polarities of opinion expressions. These features make it possible to model the way opinions expressed in natural-language discourse interact in a sentence over arbitrary distances. The use of relations requires us to consider multiple opinions simultaneously, which makes the search for the optimal analysis intractable. However, a reranker can be used as a sufficiently accurate and efficient approximation. A number of feature sets and machine learning approaches for the rerankers are evaluated. For the task of opinion expression extraction, the best model shows a 10-point absolute improvement in soft recall on the MPQA corpus over a conventional sequence labeler based on local contextual features, while precision decreases only slightly. Significant improvements are also seen for the extended tasks where holders and polarities are considered: 10 and 7 points in recall, respectively. In addition, the systems outperform previously published results for unlabeled (6 F-measure points) and polarity-labeled (10–15 points) opinion expression extraction. Finally, as an extrinsic evaluation, the extracted MPQA-style opinion expressions are used in practical opinion mining tasks. In all scenarios considered, the machine learning features derived from the opinion expressions lead to statistically significant improvements.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
9

Kinchin, Ian M. "Opinion*: Writing to be published or writing to be read?" Journal of Natural History 39, no. 36 (2005): 3229–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222930500307350.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
10

Busby, Ethan C., and James N. Druckman. "Football and Public Opinion: A Partial Replication and Extension – CORRIGENDUM." Journal of Experimental Political Science 5, no. 1 (2018): 71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/xps.2018.5.

Full text
Abstract:
The last sentence of the abstract for “Football and Public Opinion: A Partial Replication and Extension” as published online in the Journal of Experimental Political Science on 8 November, 2017 contained the following error:While the effects clearly can occur, there relevance to politics remains unclear.It should have read as:While the effects clearly can occur, their relevance to politics remains unclear.The author and publisher apologize for this error.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
More sources
You might also be interested in the extended bibliographies on the topic 'Published opinion' for particular source types:
Journal articles
We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!

To the bibliography