Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.021972362 = product of:
  0.043944724 = sum of:
    0.043944724 = product of:
      0.1757789 = sum of:
        0.1757789 = weight(_text_:authors in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1757789 = score(doc=1878,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.7402591 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article, for any group of authors, we define three different h-indices. First, there is the successive h-index h2 based on the ranked list of authors and their h-indices h1 as defined by Schubert (2007). Next, there is the h-index hP based on the ranked list of authors and their number of publications. Finally, there is the h-index hC based on the ranked list of authors and their number of citations. We present formulae for these three indices in Lotkaian informetrics from which it also follows that h2 < hp < hc. We give a concrete example of a group of 167 authors on the topic optical flow estimation. Besides these three h-indices, we also calculate the two-by-two Spearman rank correlation coefficient and prove that these rankings are significantly related.

0.0155368075 = product of:
  0.031073615 = sum of:
    0.031073615 = product of:
      0.12429446 = sum of:
        0.12429446 = weight(_text_:authors in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12429446 = score(doc=4384,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 4384, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4384)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.0155368075 = product of:
  0.031073615 = sum of:
    0.031073615 = product of:
      0.12429446 = sum of:
        0.12429446 = weight(_text_:authors in 1006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12429446 = score(doc=1006,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 1006, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1006)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Fractional frequency distributions of, for example, authors with a certain (fractional) number of papers are very irregular and, therefore, not easy to model or to explain. This article gives a first attempt to this by assuming two simple Lotka laws (with exponent 2): one for the number of authors with n papers (total count here) and one for the number of papers with n authors, n E N. Based an an earlier made convolution model of Egghe, interpreted and reworked now for discrete scores, we are able to produce theoretical fractional frequency distributions with only one parameter, which are in very close agreement with the practical ones as found in a large dataset produced earlier by Rao. The article also shows that (irregular) fractional frequency distributions are a consequence of Lotka's law, and are not examples of breakdowns of this famous historical law.

0.0155368075 = product of:
  0.031073615 = sum of:
    0.031073615 = product of:
      0.12429446 = sum of:
        0.12429446 = weight(_text_:authors in 2366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12429446 = score(doc=2366,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 2366, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2366)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Lotka's law was formulated to describe the number of authors with a certain number of publications. Empirical results (Morris & Goldstein, 2007) indicate that Lotka's law is also valid if one counts the number of publications of coauthor pairs. This article gives a simple model proving this to be true, with the same Lotka exponent, if the number of coauthored papers is proportional to the number of papers of the individual coauthors. Under the assumption that this number of coauthored papers is more than proportional to the number of papers of the individual authors (to be explained in the article), we can prove that the size-frequency function of coauthor pairs is Lotkaian with an exponent that is higher than that of the Lotka function of individual authors, a fact that is confirmed in experimental results.

0.014648241 = product of:
  0.029296482 = sum of:
    0.029296482 = product of:
      0.11718593 = sum of:
        0.11718593 = weight(_text_:authors in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11718593 = score(doc=81,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.49350607 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Papers written by several authors can be classified according to the countries of the author affiliations. The empirical part of this paper consists of two datasets. One dataset consists of 1,035 papers retrieved via the search "pedagog*" in the years 2004 and 2005 (up to October) in Academic Search Elite which is a case where phi(m) = the number of papers with m =1, 2,3 ... authors is decreasing, hence most of the papers have a low number of authors. Here we find that #, m = the number of times a country occurs j times in a m-authored paper, j =1, ..., m-1 is decreasing and that # m, m is much higher than all the other #j, m values. The other dataset consists of 3,271 papers retrieved via the search "enzyme" in the year 2005 (up to October) in the same database which is a case of a non-decreasing phi(m): most papers have 3 or 4 authors and we even find many papers with a much higher number of authors. In this case we show again that # m, m is much higher than the other #j, m values but that #j, m is not decreasing anymore in j =1, ..., m-1, although #1, m is (apart from # m, m) the largest number amongst the #j,m. The combinatorial part gives a proof of the fact that #j,m decreases for j = 1, m-1, supposing that all cases are equally possible. This shows that the first dataset is more conform with this model than the second dataset. Explanations for these findings are given. From the data we also find the (we think: new) distribution of number of papers with n =1, 2,3,... countries (i.e. where there are n different countries involved amongst the m (a n) authors of a paper): a fast decreasing function e.g. as a power law with a very large Lotka exponent.

0.014625401 = product of:
  0.029250802 = sum of:
    0.029250802 = product of:
      0.058501605 = sum of:
        0.058501605 = weight(_text_:w in 1965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058501605 = score(doc=1965,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19849424 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.29472697 = fieldWeight in 1965, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1965)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Fundamental mathematical properties of rhythm sequences are studied. In particular, a set of three axioms for valid rhythm indicators is proposed, and it is shown that the R-indicator satisfies only two out of three but that the R-indicator satisfies all three. This fills a critical, logical gap in the study of these indicator sequences. Matrices leading to a constant R-sequence are called baseline matrices. They are characterized as matrices with constant w-year diachronous impact factors. The relation with classical impact factors is clarified. Using regression analysis matrices with a rhythm sequence that is on average equal to 1 (smaller than 1, larger than 1) are characterized.

0.010585647 = product of:
  0.021171294 = sum of:
    0.021171294 = product of:
      0.04234259 = sum of:
        0.04234259 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04234259 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.00897018 = product of:
  0.01794036 = sum of:
    0.01794036 = product of:
      0.07176144 = sum of:
        0.07176144 = weight(_text_:authors in 3464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07176144 = score(doc=3464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3464, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3464)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The discrete Lotka power function describes the number of sources (e.g., authors) with n = 1, 2, 3, ... items (e.g., publications). As in econometrics, informetrics theory requires functions of a continuous variable j, replacing the discrete variable n. Now j represents item densities instead of number of items. The continuous Lotka power function describes the density of sources with item density j. The discrete Lotka function one obtains from data, obtained empirically; the continuous Lotka function is the one needed when one wants to apply Lotkaian informetrics, i.e., to determine properties that can be derived from the (continuous) model. It is, hence, important to know the relations between the two models. We show that the exponents of the discrete Lotka function (if not too high, i.e., within limits encountered in practice) and of the continuous Lotka function are approximately the same. This is important to know in applying theoretical results (from the continuous model), derived from practical data.

0.00897018 = product of:
  0.01794036 = sum of:
    0.01794036 = product of:
      0.07176144 = sum of:
        0.07176144 = weight(_text_:authors in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07176144 = score(doc=2004,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article studies the h-index (Hirsch index) and the g-index of authors, in case one counts authorship of the cited articles in a fractional way. There are two ways to do this: One counts the citations to these papers in a fractional way or one counts the ranks of the papers in a fractional way as credit for an author. In both cases, we define the fractional h- and g-indexes, and we present inequalities (both upper and lower bounds) between these fractional h- and g-indexes and their corresponding unweighted values (also involving, of course, the coauthorship distribution). Wherever applicable, examples and counterexamples are provided. In a concrete example (the publication citation list of the present author), we make explicit calculations of these fractional h- and g-indexes and show that they are not very different from the unweighted ones.

0.00747515 = product of:
  0.0149503 = sum of:
    0.0149503 = product of:
      0.0598012 = sum of:
        0.0598012 = weight(_text_:authors in 1608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0598012 = score(doc=1608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 1608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1608)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.00747515 = product of:
  0.0149503 = sum of:
    0.0149503 = product of:
      0.0598012 = sum of:
        0.0598012 = weight(_text_:authors in 5226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0598012 = score(doc=5226,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5226, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5226)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Aims to inform researchers about metrics so that they become aware of the evaluative techniques being applied to their scientific output. Understanding these concepts will help them during their funding initiatives, and in hiring and tenure. The book not only describes what indicators do (or are designed to do, which is not always the same thing), but also gives precise mathematical formulae so that indicators can be properly understood and evaluated. Metrics have become a critical issue in science, with widespread international discussion taking place on the subject across scientific journals and organizations. As researchers should know the publication-citation context, the mathematical formulae of indicators being used by evaluating committees and their consequences, and how such indicators might be misused, this book provides an ideal tome on the topic. Provides researchers with a detailed understanding of bibliometric indicators and their applications. Empowers researchers looking to understand the indicators relevant to their work and careers. Presents an informed and rounded picture of bibliometrics, including the strengths and shortcomings of particular indicators. Supplies the mathematics behind bibliometric indicators so they can be properly understood. Written by authors with longstanding expertise who are considered global leaders in the field of bibliometrics