-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Averaging and globalising quotients of informetric and scientometric data (1996)
0.02
0.02397574 = product of:
0.059939347 = sum of:
0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04841807 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
0.011521274 = product of:
0.03456382 = sum of:
0.03456382 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03456382 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- It is possible, using ISI's Journal Citation Report (JCR), to calculate average impact factors (AIF) for LCR's subject categories but it can be more useful to know the global Impact Factor (GIF) of a subject category and compare the 2 values. Reports results of a study to compare the relationships between AIFs and GIFs of subjects, based on the particular case of the average impact factor of a subfield versus the impact factor of this subfield as a whole, the difference being studied between an average of quotients, denoted as AQ, and a global average, obtained as a quotient of averages, and denoted as GQ. In the case of impact factors, AQ becomes the average impact factor of a field, and GQ becomes its global impact factor. Discusses a number of applications of this technique in the context of informetrics and scientometrics
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Topological aspects of information retrieval (1998)
0.01
0.006523886 = product of:
0.03261943 = sum of:
0.03261943 = weight(_text_:system in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03261943 = score(doc=2157,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- Let (DS, DQ, sim) be a retrieval system consisting of a document space DS, a query space QS, and a function sim, expressing the similarity between a document and a query. Following D.M. Everett and S.C. Cater (1992), we introduce topologies on the document space. These topologies are generated by the similarity function sim and the query space QS. 3 topologies will be studied: the retrieval topology, the similarity topology and the (pseudo-)metric one. It is shown that the retrieval topology is the coarsest of the three, while the (pseudo-)metric is the strongest. These 3 topologies are generally different, reflecting distinct topological aspects of information retrieval. We present necessary and sufficient conditions for these topological aspects to be equal
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Introduction to informetrics : quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science (1990)
0.00
0.0027127003 = product of:
0.013563501 = sum of:
0.013563501 = product of:
0.0406905 = sum of:
0.0406905 = weight(_text_:29 in 1515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0406905 = score(doc=1515,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1515, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1515)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 29. 2.2008 19:02:46
