Search (42 results, page 1 of 3)

0.03166281 = product of:
  0.14248264 = sum of:
    0.13324949 = weight(_text_:line in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13324949 = score(doc=3124,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21724595 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.6133578 = fieldWeight in 3124, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3124)
    0.009233146 = weight(_text_:information in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009233146 = score(doc=3124,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3124, 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=3124)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

We present a rationale for the Hirsch-index rank-order distribution and prove that it is a power law (hence a straight line in the log-log scale). This is confirmed by experimental data of Pyykkö and by data produced in this article on 206 mathematics journals. This distribution is of a completely different nature than the impact factor (IF) rank-order distribution which (as proved in a previous article) is S-shaped. This is also confirmed by our example. Only in the log-log scale of the h-index distribution do we notice a concave deviation of the straight line for higher ranks. This phenomenon is discussed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.10, S.2142-2144

0.013162677 = product of:
  0.05923205 = sum of:
    0.014923017 = weight(_text_:information in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014923017 = score(doc=647,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
    0.04430903 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04430903 = score(doc=647,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Asserts that duality is an important topic in informetrics, especially in connection with the classical informetric laws. Yet this concept is less studied in information retrieval. It deals with the unification or symmetry between queries and documents, search formulation versus indexing, and relevant versus retrieved documents. Elaborates these ideas and highlights the connection with the hypergeometric distribution

0.009831465 = product of:
  0.088483185 = sum of:
    0.088483185 = product of:
      0.17696637 = sum of:
        0.17696637 = weight(_text_:theories in 5125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17696637 = score(doc=5125,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = queryNorm
            0.8362676 = fieldWeight in 5125, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5125)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Focuses on possible mathematical theories of citation and on the intrinsic problems related to it. Sheds light on aspects of mathematical complexity as encountered in, for example, fractal theory and Mandelbrot's law. Also discusses dynamical aspects of citation theory as reflected in evolutions of journal rankings, centres of gravity or of the set of source journals. Makes some comments in this connection on growth and obsolescence

Footnote

Contribution to a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'

0.0064241993 = product of:
  0.028908897 = sum of:
    0.009326885 = weight(_text_:information in 1608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009326885 = score(doc=1608,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1608, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1608)
    0.01958201 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01958201 = score(doc=1608,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1608, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1608)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Type/Token-Taken informetrics is a new part of informetrics that studies the use of items rather than the items itself. Here, items are the objects that are produced by the sources (e.g., journals producing articles, authors producing papers, etc.). In linguistics a source is also called a type (e.g., a word), and an item a token (e.g., the use of words in texts). In informetrics, types that occur often, for example, in a database will also be requested often, for example, in information retrieval. The relative use of these occurrences will be higher than their relative occurrences itself; hence, the name Type/ Token-Taken informetrics. This article studies the frequency distribution of Type/Token-Taken informetrics, starting from the one of Type/Token informetrics (i.e., source-item relationships). We are also studying the average number my* of item uses in Type/Token-Taken informetrics and compare this with the classical average number my in Type/Token informetrics. We show that my* >= my always, and that my* is an increasing function of my. A method is presented to actually calculate my* from my, and a given a, which is the exponent in Lotka's frequency distribution of Type/Token informetrics. We leave open the problem of developing non-Lotkaian Type/TokenTaken informetrics.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.7, S.603-610

0.0064241993 = product of:
  0.028908897 = sum of:
    0.009326885 = weight(_text_:information in 271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009326885 = score(doc=271,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 271, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=271)
    0.01958201 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01958201 = score(doc=271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=271)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Herdan's law in linguistics and Heaps' law in information retrieval are different formulations of the same phenomenon. Stated briefly and in linguistic terms they state that vocabularies' sizes are concave increasing power laws of texts' sizes. This study investigates these laws from a purely mathematical and informetric point of view. A general informetric argument shows that the problem of proving these laws is, in fact, ill-posed. Using the more general terminology of sources and items, the author shows by presenting exact formulas from Lotkaian informetrics that the total number T of sources is not only a function of the total number A of items, but is also a function of several parameters (e.g., the parameters occurring in Lotka's law). Consequently, it is shown that a fixed T(or A) value can lead to different possible A (respectively, T) values. Limiting the T(A)-variability to increasing samples (e.g., in a text as done in linguistics) the author then shows, in a purely mathematical way, that for large sample sizes T~ A**phi, where phi is a constant, phi < 1 but close to 1, hence roughly, Heaps' or Herdan's law can be proved without using any linguistic or informetric argument. The author also shows that for smaller samples, a is not a constant but essentially decreases as confirmed by practical examples. Finally, an exact informetric argument on random sampling in the items shows that, in most cases, T= T(A) is a concavely increasing function, in accordance with practical examples.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.5, S.702-709

0.005257821 = product of:
  0.023660194 = sum of:
    0.007914125 = weight(_text_:information in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007914125 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
    0.01574607 = product of:
      0.03149214 = sum of:
        0.03149214 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03149214 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038739666 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170

0.0017586944 = product of:
  0.01582825 = sum of:
    0.01582825 = weight(_text_:information in 7119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01582825 = score(doc=7119,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 7119, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7119)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.6, S.1405-1407

0.0017586944 = product of:
  0.01582825 = sum of:
    0.01582825 = weight(_text_:information in 1910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01582825 = score(doc=1910,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1910, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1910)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.6, S.1311-1316

0.0017586944 = product of:
  0.01582825 = sum of:
    0.01582825 = weight(_text_:information in 5068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01582825 = score(doc=5068,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5068, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5068)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 45(1994) no.6, S.422-427

0.0017586944 = product of:
  0.01582825 = sum of:
    0.01582825 = weight(_text_:information in 683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01582825 = score(doc=683,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 683, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=683)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.871

0.0017586944 = product of:
  0.01582825 = sum of:
    0.01582825 = weight(_text_:information in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01582825 = score(doc=1597,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1597, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1597)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 44(2010) no.1, S.65-114

0.0014655786 = product of:
  0.013190207 = sum of:
    0.013190207 = weight(_text_:information in 1508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013190207 = score(doc=1508,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1508, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1508)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.10, S.2052-2054

0.0014508489 = product of:
  0.01305764 = sum of:
    0.01305764 = weight(_text_:information in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01305764 = score(doc=1881,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1881, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1881)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

In a previous article, we introduced a general transformation on sources and one on items in an arbitrary information production process (IPP). In this article, we investigate the influence of these transformations on the h-index and on the g-index. General formulae that describe this influence are presented. These are applied to the case that the size-frequency function is Lotkaian (i.e., is a decreasing power function). We further show that the h-index of the transformed IPP belongs to the interval bounded by the two transformations of the h-index of the original IPP, and we also show that this property is not true for the g-index.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.8, S.1304-1312

0.0012435847 = product of:
  0.011192262 = sum of:
    0.011192262 = weight(_text_:information in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011192262 = score(doc=4384,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4384, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4384)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

One aim of science evaluation studies is to determine quantitatively the contribution of different players (authors, departments, countries) to the whole system. This information is then used to study the evolution of the system, for instance to gauge the results of special national or international programs. Taking articles as our basic data, we want to determine the exact relative contribution of each coauthor or each country. These numbers are brought together to obtain country scores, or department scores, etc. It turns out, as we will show in this article, that different scoring methods can yield totally different rankings. Conseqeuntly, a ranking between countries, universities, research groups or authors, based on one particular accrediting methods does not contain an absolute truth about their relative importance

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.2, S.145-157

0.0012435847 = product of:
  0.011192262 = sum of:
    0.011192262 = weight(_text_:information in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011192262 = score(doc=4994,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4994, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4994)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Footnote

Vgl.: Erratum. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.429.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1637-1644

0.001172463 = product of:
  0.010552166 = sum of:
    0.010552166 = weight(_text_:information in 3058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010552166 = score(doc=3058,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3058, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3058)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.3, S.233-241

0.001172463 = product of:
  0.010552166 = sum of:
    0.010552166 = weight(_text_:information in 4385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010552166 = score(doc=4385,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4385, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4385)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.2, S.158-165

0.001172463 = product of:
  0.010552166 = sum of:
    0.010552166 = weight(_text_:information in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010552166 = score(doc=6759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.11, S.2362-2365

0.001172463 = product of:
  0.010552166 = sum of:
    0.010552166 = weight(_text_:information in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010552166 = score(doc=147,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 147, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=147)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.3, S.452-454

0.001172463 = product of:
  0.010552166 = sum of:
    0.010552166 = weight(_text_:information in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010552166 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038739666 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.737-741