Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Bonzi, S."
  1. Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998) 0.02
    0.021697827 = product of:
      0.054244567 = sum of:
        0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007078358 = score(doc=3692,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
        0.04716621 = sum of:
          0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.009472587 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
          0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.037693623 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, 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=3692)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Reports results of a study to examine the patterns of self citation in 6 disciplines distributed among the physical and social sciences and humanities. Sample articles were examined to deermine the relative numbers and ages of self citations and citations to other in the bibliographies and to the exposure given to each type of citation in the text of the articles. significant differences were found in the number and age of citations between disciplines. Overall, 9% of all citations were self citations; 15% of physical sciences citations were self citations, as opposed to 6% in the social sciences and 3% in the humanities. Within disciplines, there was no significantly different amount of coverage between self citations and citations to others. Overall, it appears that a lack of substantive differences in self citation behaviour is consistent across disciplines
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:33:24
    Source
    Journal of information science. 24(1998) no.6, S.431-435
    Type
    a
  2. Bonzi, S.: Syntactic patterns in scientific sublanguages : a study of four disciplines (1990) 0.01
    0.011216799 = product of:
      0.028041996 = sum of:
        0.01541188 = weight(_text_:a in 340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01541188 = score(doc=340,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 340, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=340)
        0.012630116 = product of:
          0.025260232 = sum of:
            0.025260232 = weight(_text_:information in 340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.025260232 = score(doc=340,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 340, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=340)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 41(1990) no.2, S.121-131
    Type
    a
  3. Bonzi, S.: Representation of concepts in text : a comparison of within-document frequency, anaphora, and synonymy (1991) 0.01
    0.0060245167 = product of:
      0.015061291 = sum of:
        0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 4933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009535614 = score(doc=4933,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4933, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4933)
        0.005525676 = product of:
          0.011051352 = sum of:
            0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 4933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011051352 = score(doc=4933,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4933, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4933)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Investigates the 3 major ways by which a concept may be represented in text: within-document frequency, anaphoric reference, and synonyms in order to determine which provides the optical means of representation. Analysis a sample of 60 abstracts, drawn at random for the abstracting journals of 4 disciplines. Results show that in general, initial within-document frequency is higher for keyword terms. Additionally, frequency of keyword terms referenced anaphorically or with intellectually related terms is higher that that of other keyword terms. It appears that initial document length influences both the number and impact of both anaphoric resolutions and intellectually related terms
    Source
    Canadian journal of information science. 16(1991) no.3, S.21-31
    Type
    a
  4. Bonzi, S.: Terminological consistency in abstract and concrete disciplines (1984) 0.00
    0.0023357389 = product of:
      0.011678694 = sum of:
        0.011678694 = weight(_text_:a in 2919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011678694 = score(doc=2919,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 2919, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2919)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    This study tested the hypothesis that the vocabulary of a discipline whose major emphasis is on concrete phenomena will, on the average, have fewer synonyms per concept than will the vocabulary of a discipline whose major emphasis is on abstract phenomena. Subject terms from each of two concrete disciplines and two abstract disciplines were analysed. Results showed that there was a significant difference at the 05 level between concrete and abstract disciplines but that the significant difference was attributable to only one of the abstract disciplines. The other abstract discipline was not significantly different from the two concrete disciplines. It was concluded that although thee is some support for the hypothesis, at least one other factor has a stronger influence on terminological consistency than the phenomena with which a subject deals
    Type
    a