TY - JOUR A1 - Jiang, Lan A1 - Naumann, Felix T1 - Holistic primary key and foreign key detection JF - Journal of intelligent information systems : JIIS N2 - 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. KW - Data profiling application KW - Primary key KW - Foreign key KW - Database KW - management Y1 - 2019 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-019-00562-z SN - 0925-9902 SN - 1573-7675 VL - 54 IS - 3 SP - 439 EP - 461 PB - Springer CY - Dordrecht ER - TY - GEN A1 - Tiberius, Victor A1 - Rietz, Meike A1 - Bouncken, Ricarda B. T1 - Performance analysis and science mapping of institutional entrepreneurship research T2 - Postprints der Universität Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe N2 - 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. T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe - 145 KW - institutional entrepreneurship KW - entrepreneurship KW - institutional change KW - bibliometric analysis KW - science mapping KW - co-citation analysis KW - co-occurrence analysis KW - business KW - management Y1 - 2020 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-525092 SN - 1867-5808 IS - 3 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Tiberius, Victor A1 - Rietz, Meike A1 - Bouncken, Ricarda B. T1 - Performance analysis and science mapping of institutional entrepreneurship research JF - Administrative Sciences N2 - 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. KW - institutional entrepreneurship KW - entrepreneurship KW - institutional change KW - bibliometric analysis KW - science mapping KW - co-citation analysis KW - co-occurrence analysis KW - business KW - management Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci10030069 VL - 10 IS - 3 PB - MDPI CY - Basel ER - TY - GEN A1 - Weise, Hanna A1 - Auge, Harald A1 - Baessler, Cornelia A1 - Bärlund, Ilona A1 - Bennett, Elena M. A1 - Berger, Uta A1 - Bohn, Friedrich A1 - Bonn, Aletta A1 - Borchardt, Dietrich A1 - Brand, Fridolin A1 - Jeltsch, Florian A1 - Joshi, Jasmin Radha A1 - Grimm, Volker T1 - Resilience trinity BT - Safeguarding ecosystem functioning and services across three different time horizons and decision contexts T2 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe N2 - 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. T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe - 1444 KW - concepts KW - ecosystems KW - ecosystem services provisioning KW - management KW - resilience Y1 - 2020 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-515284 SN - 1866-8372 IS - 4 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Weise, Hanna A1 - Auge, Harald A1 - Baessler, Cornelia A1 - Bärlund, Ilona A1 - Bennett, Elena M. A1 - Berger, Uta A1 - Bohn, Friedrich A1 - Bonn, Aletta A1 - Borchardt, Dietrich A1 - Brand, Fridolin A1 - Jeltsch, Florian A1 - Joshi, Jasmin Radha A1 - Grimm, Volker T1 - Resilience trinity BT - safeguarding ecosystem functioning and services across three different time horizons and decision contexts JF - Oikos N2 - 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. KW - concepts KW - ecosystems KW - ecosystem services provisioning KW - management KW - resilience Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.07213 SN - 0030-1299 SN - 1600-0706 VL - 129 IS - 4 SP - 445 EP - 456 PB - Wiley-Blackwell CY - Oxford ER -