-
Schneider, J.W.; Borlund, P.: ¬A bibliometric-based semiautomatic approach to identification of candidate thesaurus terms : parsing and filtering of noun phrases from citation contexts (2005)
0.03
0.027584592 = product of:
0.055169184 = sum of:
0.055169184 = sum of:
0.004850517 = weight(_text_:s in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.004850517 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
0.050318666 = weight(_text_:22 in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050318666 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18579373 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 8. 3.2007 19:55:22
- Pages
- S.226-237
-
Schneider, J.W.; Borlund, P.: Matrix comparison, part 1 : motivation and important issues for measuring the resemblance between proximity measures or ordination results (2007)
0.02
0.018614853 = sum of:
0.01722899 = product of:
0.06891596 = sum of:
0.06891596 = weight(_text_:authors in 584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06891596 = score(doc=584,freq=4.0), product of:
0.2418733 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.28492588 = fieldWeight in 584, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=584)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.001385862 = product of:
0.002771724 = sum of:
0.002771724 = weight(_text_:s in 584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.002771724 = score(doc=584,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 584, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=584)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The present two-part article introduces matrix comparison as a formal means of evaluation in informetric studies such as cocitation analysis. In this first part, the motivation behind introducing matrix comparison to informetric studies, as well as two important issues influencing such comparisons, are introduced and discussed. The motivation is spurred by the recent debate on choice of proximity measures and their potential influence upon clustering and ordination results. The two important issues discussed here are matrix generation and the composition of proximity measures. The approach to matrix generation is demonstrated for the same data set, i.e., how data is represented and transformed in a matrix, evidently determines the behavior of proximity measures. Two different matrix generation approaches, in all probability, will lead to different proximity rankings of objects, which further lead to different ordination and clustering results for the same set of objects. Further, a resemblance in the composition of formulas indicates whether two proximity measures may produce similar ordination and clustering results. However, as shown in the case of the angular correlation and cosine measures, a small deviation in otherwise similar formulas can lead to different rankings depending on the contour of the data matrix transformed. Eventually, the behavior of proximity measures, that is whether they produce similar rankings of objects, is more or less data-specific. Consequently, the authors recommend the use of empirical matrix comparison techniques for individual studies to investigate the degree of resemblance between proximity measures or their ordination results. In part two of the article, the authors introduce and demonstrate two related statistical matrix comparison techniques the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis, respectively. These techniques can compare and evaluate the degree of monotonicity between different proximity measures or their ordination results. As such, the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis can be used as statistical validation tools in informetric studies and thus help choosing suitable proximity measures.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.11, S.1586-1595
-
Schneider, J.W.; Borlund, P.: Matrix comparison, part 2 : measuring the resemblance between proximity measures or ordination results by use of the mantel and procrustes statistics (2007)
0.01
0.013568597 = sum of:
0.012182735 = product of:
0.04873094 = sum of:
0.04873094 = weight(_text_:authors in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04873094 = score(doc=582,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2418733 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.20147301 = fieldWeight in 582, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=582)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.001385862 = product of:
0.002771724 = sum of:
0.002771724 = weight(_text_:s in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.002771724 = score(doc=582,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 582, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=582)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The present two-part article introduces matrix comparison as a formal means for evaluation purposes in informetric studies such as cocitation analysis. In the first part, the motivation behind introducing matrix comparison to informetric studies, as well as two important issues influencing such comparisons, matrix generation, and the composition of proximity measures, are introduced and discussed. In this second part, the authors introduce and thoroughly demonstrate two related matrix comparison techniques the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis, respectively. These techniques can compare and evaluate the degree of monotonicity between different proximity measures or their ordination results. In common with these techniques is the application of permutation procedures to test hypotheses about matrix resemblances. The choice of technique is related to the validation at hand. In the case of the Mantel test, the degree of resemblance between two measures forecast their potentially different affect upon ordination and clustering results. In principle, two proximity measures with a very strong resemblance most likely produce identical results, thus, choice of measure between the two becomes less important. Alternatively, or as a supplement, Procrustes analysis compares the actual ordination results without investigating the underlying proximity measures, by matching two configurations of the same objects in a multidimensional space. An advantage of the Procrustes analysis though, is the graphical solution provided by the superimposition plot and the resulting decomposition of variance components. Accordingly, the Procrustes analysis provides not only a measure of general fit between configurations, but also values for individual objects enabling more elaborate validations. As such, the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis can be used as statistical validation tools in informetric studies and thus help choosing suitable proximity measures.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.11, S.1596-1609
-
Borlund, P.; Dreier, S.: ¬An investigation of the search behaviour associated with Ingwersen's three types of information needs (2014)
0.00
0.0014699287 = product of:
0.0029398573 = sum of:
0.0029398573 = product of:
0.0058797146 = sum of:
0.0058797146 = weight(_text_:s in 2691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0058797146 = score(doc=2691,freq=4.0), product of:
0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.101928525 = fieldWeight in 2691, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2691)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 50(2014) no.4, S.493-507
-
Borlund, P.: Evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems (2000)
0.00
0.001385862 = product of:
0.002771724 = sum of:
0.002771724 = product of:
0.005543448 = sum of:
0.005543448 = weight(_text_:s in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005543448 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Pages
- 276 S
-
Borlund, P.; Ingwersen, P.: ¬The development of a method for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems (1997)
0.00
0.0012126293 = product of:
0.0024252585 = sum of:
0.0024252585 = product of:
0.004850517 = sum of:
0.004850517 = weight(_text_:s in 7469) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.004850517 = score(doc=7469,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 7469, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7469)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of documentation. 53(1997) no.3, S.225-250
-
Borlund, P.: ¬The concept of relevance in IR (2003)
0.00
0.0010393964 = product of:
0.0020787928 = sum of:
0.0020787928 = product of:
0.0041575856 = sum of:
0.0041575856 = weight(_text_:s in 1798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0041575856 = score(doc=1798,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1798, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1798)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.10, S.913-925
-
Schneider, J.W.; Borlund, P.: Introduction to bibliometrics for construction and maintenance of thesauri : methodical considerations (2004)
0.00
0.0010393964 = product of:
0.0020787928 = sum of:
0.0020787928 = product of:
0.0041575856 = sum of:
0.0041575856 = weight(_text_:s in 4423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0041575856 = score(doc=4423,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4423, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4423)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of documentation. 60(2004) no.5, S.524-549
-
Soedring, T.; Borlund, P.; Helfert, M.: ¬The migration and preservation of six Norwegian municipality record-keeping systems : lessons learned (2021)
0.00
0.0010393964 = product of:
0.0020787928 = sum of:
0.0020787928 = product of:
0.0041575856 = sum of:
0.0041575856 = weight(_text_:s in 241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0041575856 = score(doc=241,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 241, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=241)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.6, S.699-709
-
Borlund, P.: ¬A study of the use of simulated work task situations in interactive information retrieval evaluations : a meta-evaluation (2016)
0.00
9.799524E-4 = product of:
0.0019599048 = sum of:
0.0019599048 = product of:
0.0039198096 = sum of:
0.0039198096 = weight(_text_:s in 2880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0039198096 = score(doc=2880,freq=4.0), product of:
0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.06795235 = fieldWeight in 2880, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2880)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to report a study of how the test instrument of a simulated work task situation is used in empirical evaluations of interactive information retrieval (IIR) and reported in the research literature. In particular, the author is interested to learn whether the requirements of how to employ simulated work task situations are followed, and whether these requirements call for further highlighting and refinement. Design/methodology/approach - In order to study how simulated work task situations are used, the research literature in question is identified. This is done partly via citation analysis by use of Web of Science®, and partly by systematic search of online repositories. On this basis, 67 individual publications were identified and they constitute the sample of analysis. Findings - The analysis reveals a need for clarifications of how to use simulated work task situations in IIR evaluations. In particular, with respect to the design and creation of realistic simulated work task situations. There is a lack of tailoring of the simulated work task situations to the test participants. Likewise, the requirement to include the test participants' personal information needs is neglected. Further, there is a need to add and emphasise a requirement to depict the used simulated work task situations when reporting the IIR studies. Research limitations/implications - Insight about the use of simulated work task situations has implications for test design of IIR studies and hence the knowledge base generated on the basis of such studies. Originality/value - Simulated work task situations are widely used in IIR studies, and the present study is the first comprehensive study of the intended and unintended use of this test instrument since its introduction in the late 1990's. The paper addresses the need to carefully design and tailor simulated work task situations to suit the test participants in order to obtain the intended authentic and realistic IIR under study.
- Source
- Journal of documentation. 72(2016) no.3, S.394-413
-
Jepsen, E.T.; Seiden, P.; Ingwersen, P.; Björneborn, L.; Borlund, P.: Characteristics of scientific Web publications : preliminary data gathering and analysis (2004)
0.00
8.6616375E-4 = product of:
0.0017323275 = sum of:
0.0017323275 = product of:
0.003464655 = sum of:
0.003464655 = weight(_text_:s in 3091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003464655 = score(doc=3091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3091, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3091)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.14, S.1239-1249
-
Borlund, P.: Experimental components for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems (2000)
0.00
8.6616375E-4 = product of:
0.0017323275 = sum of:
0.0017323275 = product of:
0.003464655 = sum of:
0.003464655 = weight(_text_:s in 4549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003464655 = score(doc=4549,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4549, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4549)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of documentation. 56(2000) no.1, S.71-90
-
Landvad Clemmensen, M.; Borlund, P.: Order effect in interactive information retrieval evaluation : an empirical study (2016)
0.00
8.6616375E-4 = product of:
0.0017323275 = sum of:
0.0017323275 = product of:
0.003464655 = sum of:
0.003464655 = weight(_text_:s in 2865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003464655 = score(doc=2865,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2865, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2865)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of documentation. 72(2016) no.2, S.194-213
-
Borlund, P.; Ruthven, I.: Introduction to the special issue on evaluating interactive information retrieval systems (2008)
0.00
6.92931E-4 = product of:
0.001385862 = sum of:
0.001385862 = product of:
0.002771724 = sum of:
0.002771724 = weight(_text_:s in 2019) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.002771724 = score(doc=2019,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 2019, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2019)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.1-3
