Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.029728562 = product of:
  0.059457123 = sum of:
    0.022399765 = weight(_text_:data in 1787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022399765 = score(doc=1787,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.15127754 = fieldWeight in 1787, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1787)
    0.03705736 = sum of:
      0.021196188 = weight(_text_:processing in 1787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021196188 = score(doc=1787,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046827413 = queryNorm
          0.111815326 = fieldWeight in 1787, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1787)
      0.01586117 = weight(_text_:22 in 1787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01586117 = score(doc=1787,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046827413 = queryNorm
          0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 1787, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1787)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 3.2008 18:18:53

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 30(2003) no.2, S.112-113 (L. Bowker): "Terminology is generally understood to be the activity that is concerned with the identification, collection and processing of terms; terms are the lexical items used to describe concepts in specialized subject fields Terminology is not always acknowledged as a discipline in its own right; it is sometimes considered to be a subfield of related disciplines such as lexicography or translation. However, a growing number of researchers are beginning to argue that terminology should be recognized as an autonomous discipline with its own theoretical underpinnings. Kageura's book is a valuable contribution to the formulation of a theory of terminology and will help to establish this discipline as an independent field of research. The general aim of this text is to present a theory of term formation and terminological growth by identifying conceptual regularities in term creation and by laying the foundations for the analysis of terminological growth patterns. The approach used is a descriptive one, which means that it is based an observations taken from a corpus. It is also synchronic in nature and therefore does not attempt to account for the evolution of terms over a given period of time (though it does endeavour to provide a means for predicting possible formation patterns of new terms). The descriptive, corpus-based approach is becoming very popular in terminology circles; however, it does pose certain limitations. To compensate for this, Kageura complements his descriptive analysis of conceptual patterns with a quantitative analysis of the patterns of the growth of terminology. Many existing investigations treat only a limited number of terms, using these for exemplification purposes. Kageura argues strongly (p. 31) that any theory of terms or terminology must be based an the examination of the terminology of a domain (i.e., a specialized subject field) in its entirety since it is only with respect to an individual domain that the concept of "term" can be established. To demonstrate the viability of his theoretical approach, Kageura has chosen to investigate and describe the domain of documentation, using Japanese terminological data. The data in the corpus are derived from a glossary (Wersig and Neveling 1984), and although this glossary is somewhat outdated (a fact acknowledged by the author), the data provided are nonetheless sufficient for demonstrating the viability of the approach, which can later be extended and applied to other languages and domains.

0.009144665 = product of:
  0.03657866 = sum of:
    0.03657866 = weight(_text_:data in 5123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03657866 = score(doc=5123,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 5123, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5123)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Studies of the concentration of author productivity based upon counts of papers by individual authors will produce measures that change systematically with sample size. Yoshikane, Kageura, and Tsuji seek a statistical framework which will avoid this scale effect problem. Using the number of authors in a field as an absolute concentration measure, and Gini's index as a relative concentration measure, they describe four literatures form both viewpoints with measures insensitive to one another. Both measures will increase with sample size. They then plot profiles of the two measures on the basis of a Monte-Carlo simulation of 1000 trials for 20 equally spaced intervals and compare the characteristics of the literatures. Using data from conferences hosted by four academic societies between 1992 and 1997, they find a coefficient of loss exceeding 0.15 indicating measures will depend highly on sample size. The simulation shows that a larger sample size leads to lower absolute concentration and higher relative concentration. Comparisons made at the same sample size present quite different results than the original data and allow direct comparison of population characteristics.