Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.008970084 = product of:
  0.044850416 = sum of:
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 5123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=5123,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 5123, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5123)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.0065801307 = product of:
  0.016450327 = sum of:
    0.011649796 = weight(_text_:system in 1787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011649796 = score(doc=1787,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.08699492 = fieldWeight in 1787, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1787)
    0.004800531 = product of:
      0.014401593 = sum of:
        0.014401593 = weight(_text_:22 in 1787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014401593 = score(doc=1787,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

22. 3.2008 18:18:53

Footnote

Unlike some terminology researchers, Kageura has been careful not to overgeneralize the applicability of his work, and he points out the limitations of his study, a number of which are summarized an pages 254-257. For example, Kageura acknowledges that his contribution should properly be viewed as a theory of term formation and terminological growth in the field of documentation Moreover, Kageura notes that this study does not distinguish the general part and the domaindependent part of the conceptual system, nor does it fully explore the multidimensionality of the viewpoints of conceptual categorization. Kageura's honesty with regard to the complexity of terminological issues and the challenges associated with the formation of a theory of terminology is refreshing since too often in the past, the results of terminology research have been somewhat naively presented as being absolutely clearcut and applicable in all situations."

0.0054254006 = product of:
  0.027127001 = sum of:
    0.027127001 = product of:
      0.081381 = sum of:
        0.081381 = weight(_text_:29 in 6290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081381 = score(doc=6290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 6290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6290)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

5. 8.2001 13:29:54