Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Abramo, G."
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Abramo, G.; D'Angelo, C.A.; Viel, F.: Assessing the accuracy of the h- and g-indexes for measuring researchers' productivity (2013) 0.04 
    0.03970582 = sum of:
  0.018147085 = product of:
    0.07258834 = sum of:
      0.07258834 = weight(_text_:authors in 957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07258834 = score(doc=957,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 957, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=957)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.021558736 = product of:
    0.04311747 = sum of:
      0.04311747 = weight(_text_:h in 957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04311747 = score(doc=957,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = queryNorm
          0.32939452 = fieldWeight in 957, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=957)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Bibliometric indicators are increasingly used in support of decisions about recruitment, career advancement, rewards, and selective funding for scientists. Given the importance of the applications, bibliometricians are obligated to carry out empirical testing of the robustness of the indicators, in simulations of real contexts. In this work, we compare the results of national-scale research assessments at the individual level, based on the following three different indexes: the h-index, the g-index, and "fractional scientific strength" (FSS), an indicator previously proposed by the authors. For each index, we construct and compare rankings lists of all Italian academic researchers working in the hard sciences during the period 2001-2005. The analysis quantifies the shifts in ranks that occur when researchers' productivity rankings by simple indicators such as the h- or g-indexes are compared with those by more accurate FSS.
    Object
    h-index
  2. Abramo, G.; D'Angelo, C.A.; Viel, F.: ¬A robust benchmark for the h- and g-indexes (2010) 0.01 
    0.013201976 = product of:
  0.026403952 = sum of:
    0.026403952 = product of:
      0.052807905 = sum of:
        0.052807905 = weight(_text_:h in 3470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052807905 = score(doc=3470,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = queryNorm
            0.40342426 = fieldWeight in 3470, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3470)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The use of Hirsch's h-index as a joint proxy of the impact and productivity of a scientist's research work continues to gain ground, accompanied by the efforts of bibliometrists to resolve some of its critical issues through the application of a number of more or less sophisticated variants. However, the literature does not reveal any appreciable attempt to overcome the objective problems of measuring h-indexes on a large scale for purposes of comparative evaluation. Scientists may succeed in calculating their own h-indexes but, being unable to compare them to those of their peers, they are unable to obtain truly useful indications of their individual research performance. This study proposes to overcome this gap, measuring the h- and Egghe's g-indexes of all Italian university researchers in the hard sciences over a 5-year window. Descriptive statistics are provided concerning all of the 165 subject fields examined, offering robust benchmarks for those who wish to compare their individual performance to those of their colleagues in the same subject field.
    Object
    h-index
  3. D'Angelo, C.A.; Giuffrida, C.; Abramo, G.: ¬A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments (2011) 0.01 
    0.010707624 = product of:
  0.021415249 = sum of:
    0.021415249 = product of:
      0.042830497 = sum of:
        0.042830497 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042830497 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18450232 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4190, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4190)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:06:52
  4. Abramo, G.; D'Angelo, C.A.; Di Costa, F.: ¬A new approach to measure the scientific strengths of territories (2015) 0.01 
    0.009073542 = product of:
  0.018147085 = sum of:
    0.018147085 = product of:
      0.07258834 = sum of:
        0.07258834 = weight(_text_:authors in 1852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07258834 = score(doc=1852,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 1852, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1852)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The current work applies a method for mapping the supply of new knowledge from public research organizations, in this case from Italian institutions at the level of regions and provinces (NUTS2 and NUTS3). Through the analysis of scientific production indexed in the Web of Science for the years 2006-2010, the new knowledge is classified in subject categories and mapped according to an algorithm for the reconciliation of authors' affiliations. Unlike other studies in the literature based on simple counting of publications, the present study adopts an indicator, Scientific Strength, which takes account of both the quantity of scientific production and its impact on the advancement of knowledge. The differences in the results that arise from the 2 approaches are examined. The results of works of this kind can inform public research policies, at national and local levels, as well as the localization strategies of research-based companies.

Authors

Themes