Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01293251 = product of:
  0.05173004 = sum of:
    0.05173004 = weight(_text_:data in 3091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05173004 = score(doc=3091,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.34936053 = fieldWeight in 3091, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3091)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Because of the increasing presence of scientific publications an the Web, combined with the existing difficulties in easily verifying and retrieving these publications, research an techniques and methods for retrieval of scientific Web publications is called for. In this article, we report an the initial steps taken toward the construction of a test collection of scientific Web publications within the subject domain of plant biology. The steps reported are those of data gathering and data analysis aiming at identifying characteristics of scientific Web publications. The data used in this article were generated based an specifically selected domain topics that are searched for in three publicly accessible search engines (Google, AlITheWeb, and AItaVista). A sample of the retrieved hits was analyzed with regard to how various publication attributes correlated with the scientific quality of the content and whether this information could be employed to harvest, filter, and rank Web publications. The attributes analyzed were inlinks, outlinks, bibliographic references, file format, language, search engine overlap, structural position (according to site structure), and the occurrence of various types of metadata. As could be expected, the ranked output differs between the three search engines. Apparently, this is caused by differences in ranking algorithms rather than the databases themselves. In fact, because scientific Web content in this subject domain receives few inlinks, both AItaVista and AlITheWeb retrieved a higher degree of accessible scientific content than Google. Because of the search engine cutoffs of accessible URLs, the feasibility of using search engine output for Web content analysis is also discussed.

0.009052756 = product of:
  0.036211025 = sum of:
    0.036211025 = weight(_text_:data in 1071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036211025 = score(doc=1071,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 1071, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1071)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports investigations into the feasibility and reliability of calculating impact factors for web sites, called Web Impact Factors (Web-IF). analyzes a selection of 7 small and medium scale national and 4 large web domains as well as 6 institutional web sites over a series of snapshots taken of the web during a month. Describes the data isolation and calculation methods and discusses the tests. The results thus far demonstrate that Web-IFs are calculable with high confidence for national and sector domains whilst institutional Web-IFs should be approached with caution

0.008478476 = product of:
  0.033913903 = sum of:
    0.033913903 = product of:
      0.067827806 = sum of:
        0.067827806 = weight(_text_:processing in 6691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067827806 = score(doc=6691,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.35780904 = fieldWeight in 6691, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6691)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Investigates the possibilities and limitations of online citation analysis. The Dialog online processing tools RANK, MAP and TARGET are used to perform analysis of citations to and from isolated sets of documents as well as to carry out diachrone journal analysis. Discusses the implications of this analysis on the journal impact factors of ISI journals. Suggests that by the combined application of RANK and TARGET, a hitherto overlooked possibility of the online analysis of bibliographic coupling and mapping of scientific fields has been revealed