@article{JiangNaumann2020,
  author    = {Jiang, Lan and Naumann, Felix},
  title     = {Holistic primary key and foreign key detection},
  series = {Journal of intelligent information systems : JIIS},
  volume    = {54},
  journal   = {Journal of intelligent information systems : JIIS},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {0925-9902},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10844-019-00562-z},
  pages     = {439 -- 461},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Primary keys (PKs) and foreign keys (FKs) are important elements of relational schemata in various applications, such as query optimization and data integration. However, in many cases, these constraints are unknown or not documented. Detecting them manually is time-consuming and even infeasible in large-scale datasets. We study the problem of discovering primary keys and foreign keys automatically and propose an algorithm to detect both, namely Holistic Primary Key and Foreign Key Detection (HoPF). PKs and FKs are subsets of the sets of unique column combinations (UCCs) and inclusion dependencies (INDs), respectively, for which efficient discovery algorithms are known. Using score functions, our approach is able to effectively extract the true PKs and FKs from the vast sets of valid UCCs and INDs. Several pruning rules are employed to speed up the procedure. We evaluate precision and recall on three benchmarks and two real-world datasets. The results show that our method is able to retrieve on average 88\% of all primary keys, and 91\% of all foreign keys. We compare the performance of HoPF with two baseline approaches that both assume the existence of primary keys.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{TiberiusRietzBouncken2020,
  author    = {Tiberius, Victor and Rietz, Meike and Bouncken, Ricarda B.},
  title     = {Performance analysis and science mapping of institutional entrepreneurship research},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {3},
  issn      = {1867-5808},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-52509},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-525092},
  pages     = {23},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Institutional entrepreneurship comprises the activities of agents who disrupt existing social institutions or create new ones, often to enable diffusion, especially of radical innovations, in a market. The increased interest in institutional entrepreneurship has produced a large number of scholarly publications, especially in the last five years. As a consequence, the literature landscape is somewhat complex and scattered. We aim to compile a quantitative overview of the field within business and management research by conducting bibliometric performance analyses and science mappings. We identified the most productive and influential journals, authors, and articles with the highest impact. We found that institutional entrepreneurship has stronger ties to organization studies than to entrepreneurship research. Additionally, a large body of literature at the intersection of institutions and entrepreneurship does not refer to institutional entrepreneurship theory. The science mappings revealed a distinction between theoretical and conceptual research on one hand and applied and empirical research on the other hand. Research clusters reflect the structure-agency problem by focusing on the change agent's goals and interests, strategies, and specific implementation mechanisms, as well as the relevance of public agents for existing institutions, and a more abstract process rather than agency view.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{TiberiusRietzBouncken2020,
  author    = {Tiberius, Victor and Rietz, Meike and Bouncken, Ricarda B.},
  title     = {Performance analysis and science mapping of institutional entrepreneurship research},
  series = {Administrative Sciences},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {Administrative Sciences},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {MDPI},
  address   = {Basel},
  doi       = {10.3390/admsci10030069},
  pages     = {21},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Institutional entrepreneurship comprises the activities of agents who disrupt existing social institutions or create new ones, often to enable diffusion, especially of radical innovations, in a market. The increased interest in institutional entrepreneurship has produced a large number of scholarly publications, especially in the last five years. As a consequence, the literature landscape is somewhat complex and scattered. We aim to compile a quantitative overview of the field within business and management research by conducting bibliometric performance analyses and science mappings. We identified the most productive and influential journals, authors, and articles with the highest impact. We found that institutional entrepreneurship has stronger ties to organization studies than to entrepreneurship research. Additionally, a large body of literature at the intersection of institutions and entrepreneurship does not refer to institutional entrepreneurship theory. The science mappings revealed a distinction between theoretical and conceptual research on one hand and applied and empirical research on the other hand. Research clusters reflect the structure-agency problem by focusing on the change agent's goals and interests, strategies, and specific implementation mechanisms, as well as the relevance of public agents for existing institutions, and a more abstract process rather than agency view.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{WeiseAugeBaessleretal.2020,
  author    = {Weise, Hanna and Auge, Harald and Baessler, Cornelia and B{\"a}rlund, Ilona and Bennett, Elena M. and Berger, Uta and Bohn, Friedrich and Bonn, Aletta and Borchardt, Dietrich and Brand, Fridolin and Jeltsch, Florian and Joshi, Jasmin Radha and Grimm, Volker},
  title     = {Resilience trinity},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {4},
  issn      = {1866-8372},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-51528},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-515284},
  pages     = {14},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Ensuring ecosystem resilience is an intuitive approach to safeguard the functioning of ecosystems and hence the future provisioning of ecosystem services (ES). However, resilience is a multi-faceted concept that is difficult to operationalize. Focusing on resilience mechanisms, such as diversity, network architectures or adaptive capacity, has recently been suggested as means to operationalize resilience. Still, the focus on mechanisms is not specific enough. We suggest a conceptual framework, resilience trinity, to facilitate management based on resilience mechanisms in three distinctive decision contexts and time-horizons: 1) reactive, when there is an imminent threat to ES resilience and a high pressure to act, 2) adjustive, when the threat is known in general but there is still time to adapt management and 3) provident, when time horizons are very long and the nature of the threats is uncertain, leading to a low willingness to act. Resilience has different interpretations and implications at these different time horizons, which also prevail in different disciplines. Social ecology, ecology and engineering are often implicitly focussing on provident, adjustive or reactive resilience, respectively, but these different notions of resilience and their corresponding social, ecological and economic tradeoffs need to be reconciled. Otherwise, we keep risking unintended consequences of reactive actions, or shying away from provident action because of uncertainties that cannot be reduced. The suggested trinity of time horizons and their decision contexts could help ensuring that longer-term management actions are not missed while urgent threats to ES are given priority.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WeiseAugeBaessleretal.2020,
  author    = {Weise, Hanna and Auge, Harald and Baessler, Cornelia and B{\"a}rlund, Ilona and Bennett, Elena M. and Berger, Uta and Bohn, Friedrich and Bonn, Aletta and Borchardt, Dietrich and Brand, Fridolin and Jeltsch, Florian and Joshi, Jasmin Radha and Grimm, Volker},
  title     = {Resilience trinity},
  series = {Oikos},
  volume    = {129},
  journal   = {Oikos},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0030-1299},
  doi       = {10.1111/oik.07213},
  pages     = {445 -- 456},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Ensuring ecosystem resilience is an intuitive approach to safeguard the functioning of ecosystems and hence the future provisioning of ecosystem services (ES). However, resilience is a multi-faceted concept that is difficult to operationalize. Focusing on resilience mechanisms, such as diversity, network architectures or adaptive capacity, has recently been suggested as means to operationalize resilience. Still, the focus on mechanisms is not specific enough. We suggest a conceptual framework, resilience trinity, to facilitate management based on resilience mechanisms in three distinctive decision contexts and time-horizons: 1) reactive, when there is an imminent threat to ES resilience and a high pressure to act, 2) adjustive, when the threat is known in general but there is still time to adapt management and 3) provident, when time horizons are very long and the nature of the threats is uncertain, leading to a low willingness to act. Resilience has different interpretations and implications at these different time horizons, which also prevail in different disciplines. Social ecology, ecology and engineering are often implicitly focussing on provident, adjustive or reactive resilience, respectively, but these different notions of resilience and their corresponding social, ecological and economic tradeoffs need to be reconciled. Otherwise, we keep risking unintended consequences of reactive actions, or shying away from provident action because of uncertainties that cannot be reduced. The suggested trinity of time horizons and their decision contexts could help ensuring that longer-term management actions are not missed while urgent threats to ES are given priority.},
  language  = {en}
}