Abstract: This paper aims to present an objective quantitative methodology on how to evaluate individual’s scholarly research output using multiple criteria decision analysis. A multiple criteria decision making analysis (MCDMA) methodological process is adopted to build a multiple criteria evaluation model. With the introduction of the scholar index, which gives significant information about a researcher's productivity and the scholarly impact of his or her publications in a single number (s is the number of publications with at least s citations); cumulative research citation index; the scholar index is included in the citation databases to cover the multidimensional complexity of scholarly research performance and to undertake objective evaluations with scholar index. The scholar index, one of publication activity indexes, is analyzed by considering it to be the most appropriate sciencemetric indicator which allows to smooth over many drawbacks of scholarly output assessment by mere calculation of the number of publications (quantity) and citations (quality). Hence, this study includes a set of indicators-based scholar index to be used for evaluating scholarly researchers. Google Scholar open science database was used to assess and discuss scholarly productivity and impact of researchers. Based on the experiment of computing the scholar index, and its derivative indexes for a set of researchers on open research database platform, quantitative methods of assessing scholarly research output were successfully considered to rank researchers. The proposed methodology considers the ranking, and the selection of data on which a scholarly research performance evaluation was based, the analysis of the data, and the presentation of the multiple criteria analysis results.
Abstract: Architecture education was based on apprenticeship
models and its nature has not changed much during long period but
the Source of changes was its evaluation process and system. It is
undeniable that art and architecture education is completely based on
transmitting knowledge from instructor to students. In contrast to
other majors this transmitting is by iteration and practice and studio
masters try to control the design process and improving skills in the
form of supervision and criticizing. Also the evaluation will end by
giving marks to students- achievements. Therefore the importance of
the evaluation and assessment role is obvious and it is not irrelevant
to say that if we want to know about the architecture education
system, we must first study its assessment procedures. The evolution
of these changes in western countries has literate and documented
well. However it seems that this procedure has unregarded in
Malaysia and there is a severe lack of research and documentation in
this area. Malaysia as an under developing and multicultural country
which is involved different races and cultures is a proper origin for
scrutinizing and understanding the evaluation systems and
acceptability amount of current implemented models to keep the
evaluation and assessment procedure abreast with needs of different
generations, cultures and even genders. This paper attempts to
answer the questions of how evaluation and assessments are
performed and how students perceive this evaluation system in the
context Malaysia. The main advantage of this work is that it
contributes in international debate on evaluation model.
Abstract: This paper presents an effective framework for Chinesesyntactic parsing, which includes two parts. The first one is a parsing framework, which is based on an improved bottom-up chart parsingalgorithm, and integrates the idea of the beam search strategy of N bestalgorithm and heuristic function of A* algorithm for pruning, then get multiple parsing trees. The second is a novel evaluation model, which integrates contextual and partial lexical information into traditional PCFG model and defines a new score function. Using this model, the tree with the highest score is found out as the best parsing tree. Finally,the contrasting experiment results are given. Keywords?syntactic parsing, PCFG, pruning, evaluation model.