<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: PageRank for physicists</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bit-player.org/2006/pagerank-for-physicists/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bit-player.org/2006/pagerank-for-physicists</link>
	<description>An amateur's outlook on computation and mathematics.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 08:32:34 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Neil</title>
		<link>http://bit-player.org/2006/pagerank-for-physicists#comment-97</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Apr 2006 01:48:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bit-player.org/?p=40#comment-97</guid>
		<description>How do we know the context?  For example, the citing paper could have used the citation in a sentence like, "Smith and Smith 1983 tried this, but their methodology was seriously flawed".  I think this needs to be added to co-citation analysis of this variety.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How do we know the context?  For example, the citing paper could have used the citation in a sentence like, &#8220;Smith and Smith 1983 tried this, but their methodology was seriously flawed&#8221;.  I think this needs to be added to co-citation analysis of this variety.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

