Keynote Slides

I’ve mounted all my presentations on the web at, including the “mini-movie” that preceded my keynote talk. The music is not included, however, so you will need to get your own copy of R.E.M.’s tune.

7 thoughts on “Keynote Slides

  1. Roy,

    Thanks for the excellent presentation. I really enjoyed it. However, text in the mini-movie presentation don’t fit on the screen. Perhaps a compatibility issue? I am using XP with Office 2003. Must be the font that is missing…

  2. Sorry, working from a Mac my font choices are…well…richer. I’ll see what I can do to recreate the “real” experience. Thanks for reminding me about the big divide.

  3. Roy’s presentation uses an OS X font called Marker Felt. A little poking around in your search engine of choice will turn up a freebie version of Marker Felt Thin, which is a pretty close match, just a little, well, thinner. If you’d rather not install a new font, use the execrable Comic Sans .

    Open worldasweknowit.pps in PowerPoint and do Format/Replace Fonts and switch “Marker Felt” to either Marker Felt Thin or Comic Sans. Do a “Save As” to another *.pps file and you’re good to go.

    N.B. Comic Sans renders just a little larger than Marker Felt, so a few things will still run off screen a little.

  4. Thanks to Thomas, I’ve now made a version of the presentation available for Windows users substituting “Comic Sans” for the “Marker Felt”. I adjusted the size so it fits.

  5. […] A quick test search in Google Scholar ( 1 ) I would like to preface this entry by emphasizing that Google Scholar is in Beta release, and I fully support the concept of expanding access to scholarly information. After listening to speeches this weekend by Roy Tennant, danah boyd, and Michael Gorman, all of whom touched on the Google engine in radically different ways, I was motivated to analyze Google more deeply, particularly the emerging Google Scholar and Google Print services. ( 2 ) I decided to perform a search in Google Scholar on an STM topic that I have in-depth familiarity with, and to then analyze a small number of results. I entered this term: ( 3 ) naval reactors ( 4 ) and retrieved these results (first results screen | second results screen). ( 5 ) In a July/August Information Today article, Mick O’Leary noted that there are three Google Scholar record types: journal article citations, cited references, and book citations. I will focus on journal article citations and cited references, which are included in the results screens. ( 6 ) O’Leary noted that the cited references "extracted from the bibliographies that accompany journal articles, are posted as stand-alone records." Note the fifth record down is a citation reference, and has a "Library Search" link. This capability is supported through the integration of holdings information into Google via the OCLC WorldCat service. With this in mind, I tested the "Library Search" link in Google Scholar. Within the WSU domain, this link took me into an OCLC WorldCat screen, with an available link to "WSU Libraries Find It!" A third click took me into the Griffin library system, executed the title search, and presented a results screen. The fourth click took me to the record, with location information and requesting options, for the 1964 edition of the Naval Reactors Physics Handbook. Not perfectly seamless, but good results for a Beta release. ( 7 ) I then looked more carefully at journal article citations in Google Scholar (which, O’Leary noted, constitute most of the records in Google Scholar). With Gorman’s assessment of search engines still ringing in my ears ("thousands of ‘hits’…in no very useful order"), I decided to read the first article retrieved in my search, "Nuclear Power Reactors: A Study of Technological Lock-in." ( 8 ) This article appears to be a post-print from the RePEc repository, an author’s copy, not a copy from the journal. In terms of content: the article is properly documented. I fundamentally disagree with the author’s (Robin Cowan) assertions on the development of reactor technology, particularly relating to the development of the sodium-cooled S1G and S2G plants built by General Electric in the early 1950s, and believe that his interpretation would seriously mislead a researcher. These assertions are central to the author’s thesis that alternatives to light water reactor technologies were not investigated as seriously as they should have been. ( 9 ) However, given some time to reflect, this is a valid first hit, satisfactory in a Beta. The author cites the best resource on this topic, Nuclear Navy 1946-1962, an Atomic Energy Commission-sponsored study. In a more subtle way, the retrieval is precise in that it ranked the article that references the US government administrative unit Naval Reactors over articles that refer more generically to naval reactors technology. ( 10 ) There are two additional journal article citations on the first results screen, one ("Nuclear Propelled Vessels and Neutrino Oscillation Experiments") that deals with naval reactor technology in a tangential way and one ("Potatoes were guarded better") whose hyperlink produces an HTTP 404 message, file not found. ( 11 ) Conclusions? The results, particularly with the click-thru to the WSU integrated library system, were slightly better than I expected. Still, a researcher should keep in mind O’Leary’s warning that "Google Scholar cannot be compared to the far more sophisticated and powerful search capabilities found on the proprietary databanks and publisher sites, particularly their specialized databases." If you’re a member of the WSU community, the WSU Libraries Gateway is the best starting point for online research. ( 12 ) […]

Comments are closed.