Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.028787265 = product of:
  0.05757453 = sum of:
    0.05757453 = sum of:
      0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007654148 = score(doc=3035,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
      0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04992038 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3035, 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=3035)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Studies the effects of e-journals on the scholarly communities they are serving. Considers to what extent scholars and researchers are aware of, influenced by, using, or building their own work on research published in e-journals. Draws a sample of scholarly, peer-reviewed e-journals and conducts several analyzes thorugh citation analysis. The data show that the impact of journals on scholarly communication has been minimal

Date

22. 2.1999 16:56:06

Type

a

0.003827074 = product of:
  0.007654148 = sum of:
    0.007654148 = product of:
      0.015308296 = sum of:
        0.015308296 = weight(_text_:a in 5364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015308296 = score(doc=5364,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 5364, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.003827074 = product of:
  0.007654148 = sum of:
    0.007654148 = product of:
      0.015308296 = sum of:
        0.015308296 = weight(_text_:a in 5481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015308296 = score(doc=5481,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 5481, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5481)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.00334869 = product of:
  0.00669738 = sum of:
    0.00669738 = product of:
      0.01339476 = sum of:
        0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01339476 = score(doc=339,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0029294936 = product of:
  0.005858987 = sum of:
    0.005858987 = product of:
      0.011717974 = sum of:
        0.011717974 = weight(_text_:a in 5644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011717974 = score(doc=5644,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 5644, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5644)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The act of referencing another author's work in a scholarly or research paper is usually assumed to signal a direct semantic relationship between the citing and cited work. The present article reports a study that examines this assumption directly. The purpose of the research is to investigate the semantic relationship between citing and cited documents for a sample of document pairs in three journals in library and information science: 'Library journal', 'College and research libraries' and 'Journal of the American Society for Information Science'. A macroanalysis, absed on a comparison of the Library of Congress class numbers assigned citing and cited documents, and a microanalysis, based on a comparison of descriptors assigned citing and cited documents by three indexing and abstracting journals, ERIC, LISA and LiLi, were conducted. Both analyses suggest that the subject similarity among pairs of cited and citing documents is typically very small, supporting a subjective, psychological view of relevance and a trial-and-error, heuristic understanding of the information search and research processes. The results of the study have implications for collection development, for an understanding of psychological relevance, and for the results of doing information retrieval using cited references. Several intriguing methodological questions are raised for future research, including the role of indexing depth, specifity, and quality on the measurement of document similarity

Type

a

0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 6825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=6825,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 6825, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6825)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=4216,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article introduces a new concept and technique for information retrieval called 'colinked descriptors'. Borrowed from an analogous idea in bibliometrics - cocited references - colinked descriptors provide a theory and method for identifying search terms that, by hypothesis, will be superior to those entered initially by a searcher. The theory suggests a means of moving automatically from 2 or more initial search terms, to other terms that should be superior in retrieval performance to the 2 original terms. A research project designed to test this colinked descriptor hypothesis is reported. The results suggest that the approach is effective, although methodological problems in testing the idea are reported. Algorithms to generate colinked descriptors can be incorporated easily into system interfaces, front-end or pre-search systems, or help software, in any database that employs a thesaurus. The potential use of colinked descriptors is a strong argument for building richer and more complex thesauri that reflect as many legitimate links among descriptors as possible

Type

a

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=366,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 366, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=366)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 5355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=5355,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 5355, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5355)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=2264,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

State of the art review of information retrieval systems, defined as systems retrieving documents a sopposed to numerical data. Explains the classic Cranfield studies that have served as a standard for retrieval testing since the 1960s and discusses the Cranfield model and its relevance based measures of retrieval effectiveness. Details sosme of the problems with the Cranfield instruments and issues of validity and reliability, generalizability, usefulness and basic concepts. Discusses the evaluation of the Internet search engines in light of the Cranfield model, noting the very real differences between batch systems (Cranfield) and interactive systems (Internet). Because the Internet collection is not fixed, it is impossible to determine recall as a measure of retrieval effectiveness. considers future directions in evaluating information retrieval systems

Type

a

0.0023435948 = product of:
  0.0046871896 = sum of:
    0.0046871896 = product of:
      0.009374379 = sum of:
        0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 7963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009374379 = score(doc=7963,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 7963, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports the preliminary results of an investigation into the effectiveness of colinked descriptors, a new concept and technique suitable for incorporating into the design of interfaces for information retrieval. The idea is borrowed from the analogous idea in bibliometrics-cocited references. Preliminary results suggest that the technique is extremely effective. As a retrieval technique, colinked descriptors can easily be incorporated into information retrieval interfaces, front-end systems, or standalone, pre-search systems

Type

a

0.0021393995 = product of:
  0.004278799 = sum of:
    0.004278799 = product of:
      0.008557598 = sum of:
        0.008557598 = weight(_text_:a in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008557598 = score(doc=4997,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to study current policies and practices of scholarly journals on evaluating manuscripts for publication that had been previously published electronically. Various electronic forms were considered: a manuscript having been e-mailed to members of a listserv, attached to a personal or institutional home page, stored in an electronic preprint collection, or published in an electronic proceedings or electronic journal. Factors that might affect the consideration of such manuscripts were also examined, including characteristics of the journal, the previously published work, and the submitted manuscript. A sample of 202 scholarly journals in the sciences, social sciences, and arts and humanities was selected for study. A questionnaire and cover letters were sent to the journal editors in the summer and fall of 1997, with an overall return rate of 57.4%. Results are reported for all journals, with comparisons being made between journals edited in the Unites States and outside the Unites States, by journal impact factor, and by discipline. The findings suggest that editorial policies regarding prior electronic publication are in an early stage of development. Most journal editors do not have a formal policy regarding the evaluation of work previously published in electronic form, nor are they currently evaluating such a policy. Editors disagreed widely on the importance of the various factors that might affect their decision to consider a work previously published electronically. The form or type of prior electronic publication was an important variable. Although some editors currently have a fairly rigid and negative posture towards work previously published electronically, most are willing to consider certain forms of such work for publication in their journals. Probably the most significant results of the study were the many differences in practices among scholarly disciplines. The findings of this study reveal how the Internet and the World Wide Web are currently affecting manuscript consideration policies of scholarly journals at this early stage of Web and Internet publishing

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 3004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=3004,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 3004, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3004)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to bring attention to the problem of variations in relevance assessments and the effects that these may have on measures of retrieval effectiveness. Through an analytical review of the literature, I show that despite known wide variations in relevance assessments in experimental test collections, their effects on the measurement of retrieval performance are almost completely unstudied. I will further argue that what we know about tha many variables that have been found to affect relevance assessments under experimental conditions, as well as our new understanding of psychological, situational, user-based relevance, point to a single conclusion. We can no longer rest the evaluation of information retrieval systems on the assumption that such variations do not significantly affect the measurement of information retrieval performance. A series of thourough, rigorous, and extensive tests is needed, of precisely how, and under what conditions, variations in relevance assessments do, and do not, affect measures of retrieval performance. We need to develop approaches to evaluation that are sensitive to these variations and to human factors and individual differences more generally. Our approaches to evaluation must reflect the real world of real users

Type

a