Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Diodato, V."
  1. Diodato, V.: Eponyms and citations in the literature of psychology and mathematics (1984) 0.07 
    0.074391626 = product of:
  0.2975665 = sum of:
    0.2975665 = weight(_text_:field's in 2612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2975665 = score(doc=2612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5097106 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.583795 = fieldWeight in 2612, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2612)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    An eponym is an expression that consists of an individual's name plus a wor denoting some idea or thing associated with that person. The literatures of psychology and mathematics discuss the use of eponyms, and the presence of eponyms probably affects searches for information in those fields. In a study of 4.506 articles published in 1982, the author found that 4,4 percent of psychology article titles and 33,4 percent of methmatics article titles contained at least one eponym each. In psychology, 74 of 95 eponyms occured in articles that listed references to other works authored by the respective individuals associated with the eponyms. In mathematics, 688 of 1.105 eponyms occured in articles that cited other works having the respective names of the eponymous individuals in their titles. A comparison showed that 16,8 percent of psychology article eponyms and 39,9 percent of mathematics article eponyms exactly matched entries in at least one of their field's vocabulary lists
  2. Diodato, V.: Dictionary of bibliometrics (1994) 0.03 
    0.027446225 = product of:
  0.1097849 = sum of:
    0.1097849 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1097849 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)
  3. Diodato, V.: Duplicate entries versus see cross references in back-of-the book indexes (1994) 0.02 
    0.015683558 = product of:
  0.06273423 = sum of:
    0.06273423 = weight(_text_:22 in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06273423 = score(doc=1427,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2026817 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.057878803 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1427, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1427)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Considers whether, when there is a choice, a back-of-book indexer should use a duplicate entry or a see reference. Guidelines suggest that it is preferable to use the duplicate entry if it would not add to the length or complexity of the index. Studies 1.100 see references in 202 back-of-book indexes and concludes that 22% of the see references should have been replaced by duplicate entries. Failure to select a duplicate entry instead of a see reference occurs most frequently in science and techology books and in indexes with no subheadings

Years

Types

Themes