Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.050019745 = sum of:
  0.019374263 = product of:
    0.11624557 = sum of:
      0.11624557 = weight(_text_:authors in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11624557 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19232611 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04218775 = queryNorm
          0.60441905 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.030645482 = product of:
    0.061290964 = sum of:
      0.061290964 = weight(_text_:r in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.061290964 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13965236 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04218775 = queryNorm
          0.4388824 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors argue that a class of information is missing in the traditional ways of subject analysis: 'deep structure' information consists of the values, beliefs, and unwritten rules in an organization

0.008573786 = product of:
  0.017147573 = sum of:
    0.017147573 = product of:
      0.034295145 = sum of:
        0.034295145 = weight(_text_:22 in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034295145 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14773431 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04218775 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 302, 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=302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.006849836 = product of:
  0.013699672 = sum of:
    0.013699672 = product of:
      0.08219803 = sum of:
        0.08219803 = weight(_text_:authors in 2453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08219803 = score(doc=2453,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19232611 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04218775 = queryNorm
            0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 2453, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2453)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Author name disambiguation deals with clustering the same-name authors into different individuals. To attack the problem, many studies have employed a variety of disambiguation features such as coauthors, titles of papers/publications, topics of articles, emails/affiliations, etc. Among these, co-authorship is the most easily accessible and influential, since inter-person acquaintances represented by co-authorship could discriminate the identities of authors more clearly than other features. This study attempts to explore the net effects of co-authorship on author clustering in bibliographic data. First, to handle the shortage of explicit coauthors listed in known citations, a web-assisted technique of acquiring implicit coauthors of the target author to be disambiguated is proposed. Then, a coauthor disambiguation hypothesis that the identity of an author can be determined by his/her coauthors is examined and confirmed through a variety of author disambiguation experiments.

0.0040363045 = product of:
  0.008072609 = sum of:
    0.008072609 = product of:
      0.048435654 = sum of:
        0.048435654 = weight(_text_:authors in 2847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048435654 = score(doc=2847,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19232611 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04218775 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2847, 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=2847)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Participating in scholarly events (e.g., conferences, workshops, etc.) as an elite-group member such as an organizing committee chair or member, program committee chair or member, session chair, invited speaker, or award winner is beneficial to a researcher's career development. The objective of this study is to investigate whether elite-group membership for scholarly events is representative of scholars' prominence, and which elite group is the most prestigious. We collected data about 15 global (excluding regional) bioinformatics scholarly events held in 2007. We sampled (via stratified random sampling) participants from elite groups in each event. Then, bibliometric indicators (total citations and h index) of seven elite groups and a non-elite group, consisting of authors who submitted at least one paper to an event but were not included in any elite group, were observed using the Scopus Citation Tracker. The Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to examine the differences among the eight groups. Multiple comparison tests (Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner) were conducted as follow-up procedures. The experimental results reveal that scholars in an elite group have better performance in bibliometric indicators than do others. Among the elite groups, the invited speaker group has statistically significantly the best performance while the other elite-group types are not significantly distinguishable. From this analysis, we confirm that elite-group membership in scholarly events, at least in the field of bioinformatics, can be utilized as an alternative marker for a scholar's prominence, with invited speaker being the most important prominence indicator among the elite groups.