Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Nicolaisen, J."
  1. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.01 
    0.0057082702 = product of:
  0.03995789 = sum of:
    0.013365558 = weight(_text_:information in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013365558 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
    0.026592331 = product of:
      0.053184662 = sum of:
        0.053184662 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053184662 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx
  2. Hjoerland, B.; Nicolaisen, J.: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve" : a comment to Begthol (2003) (2004) 0.00 
    0.004261919 = product of:
  0.02983343 = sum of:
    0.008353474 = weight(_text_:information in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008353474 = score(doc=3023,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
    0.021479957 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021479957 = score(doc=3023,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Relationships between Knowledge Organization in LIS and Scientific & Scholarly Classifications In her paper "Classification for Information Retrieval and Classification for Knowledge Discovery: Relationships between 'Professional' and 'Naive' Classifications" (KO v30, no.2, 2003), Beghtol outlines how Scholarly activities and research lead to classification systems which subsequently are disseminated in publications which are classified in information retrieval systems, retrieved by the users and again used in Scholarly activities and so on. We think this model is correct and that its point is important. What we are reacting to is the fact that Beghtol describes the Classifications developed by scholars as "naive" while she describes the Classifications developed by librarians and information scientists as "professional." We fear that this unfortunate terminology is rooted in deeply ar chored misjudgments about the relationships between scientific and Scholarly classification an the one side and LIS Classifications an the other. Only a correction of this misjudgment may give us in the field of knowledge organization a Chance to do a job that is not totally disrespected and disregarded by the rest of the intellectual world.
    Footnote
    Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Classification for information retrieval and classification for knowledge discovery: relationships between 'professional' and 'naive' classifications" in: Knowledge organization. 30(2003), no.2, S.64-73; vgl. dazu auch die Erwiderung von C. Beghtol in: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.62-63.
  3. Frandsen, T.F.; Nicolaisen, J.: ¬The ripple effect : citation chain reactions of a nobel prize (2013) 0.00 
    0.0021406014 = product of:
  0.014984209 = sum of:
    0.0050120843 = weight(_text_:information in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050120843 = score(doc=654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 654, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=654)
    0.009972124 = product of:
      0.019944249 = sum of:
        0.019944249 = weight(_text_:22 in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019944249 = score(doc=654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 654, 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=654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Date
    22. 3.2013 16:21:09
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.3, S.437-447
  4. Nicolaisen, J.; Frandsen, T.F.: Bibliometric evolution : is the journal of the association for information science and technology transforming into a specialty Journal? (2015) 0.00 
    8.353474E-4 = product of:
  0.011694863 = sum of:
    0.011694863 = weight(_text_:information in 1821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011694863 = score(doc=1821,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1821, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1821)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    Applying a recently developed method for measuring the level of specialization over time for a selection of library and information science (LIS)-core journals seems to reveal that Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) is slowly transforming into a specialty journal. The transformation seems to originate from a growing interest in bibliometric topics. This is evident from a longitudinal study (1990-2012) of the bibliometric coupling strength between Scientometrics and other LIS-core journals (including JASIST). The cause of this gradual transformation is discussed, and possible explanations are analyzed.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.5, S.1082-1085
  5. Frandsen, T.F.; Nicolaisen, J.: Rejoinder: Noble prize effects in citation networks (2017) 0.00 
    7.160121E-4 = product of:
  0.0100241685 = sum of:
    0.0100241685 = weight(_text_:information in 7586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0100241685 = score(doc=7586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 7586, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7586)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.12, S.2844-2845
  6. Hjoerland, B.; Nicolaisen, J.: Bradford's law of scattering : ambiguities in the concept of "subject" (2005) 0.00 
    5.966767E-4 = product of:
  0.008353474 = sum of:
    0.008353474 = weight(_text_:information in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008353474 = score(doc=157,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    Bradfordrsquos law of scattering is said to be about subject scattering in information sources. However, in spite of a corpus of writings about the meaning of the word ldquosubjectrdquo and equivalent terms such as ldquoaboutnessrdquo or ldquotopicalityrdquo, the meaning of ldquosubjectrdquo has never been explicitly addressed in relation to Bradfordrsquos law. This paper introduces a distinction between Lexical scattering, Semantic scattering, and Subject scattering. Neither Bradford himself nor any follower has explicitly considered the differences between these three and the implications for the practical applications of Bradfordrsquos law. Traditionally, Bradfordrsquos law has been seen as a neutral and objective tool for the selection of the most central information sources in a field. However, it is hard to find actual reports that describe how Bradfordrsquos law has been applied in practical library and information services. Theoretical as well as historical evidence suggest that the selection of journals based on Bradford-distributions tend to favorite dominant theories and views while suppressing views other than the mainstream at a given time.
    Source
    Context: nature, impact and role. 5th International Conference an Conceptions of Library and Information Sciences, CoLIS 2005 Glasgow, UK, June 2005. Ed. by F. Crestani u. I. Ruthven
  7. Nicolaisen, J.: Compromised need and the label effect : an examination of claims and evidence (2009) 0.00 
    5.06297E-4 = product of:
  0.0070881573 = sum of:
    0.0070881573 = weight(_text_:information in 3114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070881573 = score(doc=3114,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3114, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3114)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    To establish whether the compromised need/the label effect is a frequently occurring phenomenon or not, available studies of the phenomenon are examined and claims are compared with evidence. Studies that reportedly have verified the phenomenon are shown to suffer from technical problems that put the claim of verification in doubt. Studies that have reported low percentages of questions changing from the initial query during large-scale studies of user-librarian negotiations could indicate that users are quite often asking for precisely what they want. However, these studies are found not to be definite falsifications, as the librarians did not conduct in-depth interviews and therefore may have failed to discover the users' real information needs. Whether the compromised need/the label effect is a frequently occurring phenomenon or not cannot be conclusively confirmed or disconfirmed. However, the compromised need/the label effect is not the obvious truism or empirical fact that it has otherwise been claimed to be.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.10, S.2004-2009
  8. Frandsen, T.F.; Nicolaisen, J.: Intradisciplinary differences in database coverage and the consequences for bibliometric research (2008) 0.00 
    4.176737E-4 = product of:
  0.0058474317 = sum of:
    0.0058474317 = weight(_text_:information in 4391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058474317 = score(doc=4391,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4391, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4391)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.10, S.1570-1581
  9. Frandsen, T.F.; Nicolaisen, J.: Effects of academic experience and prestige on researchers' citing behavior (2012) 0.00 
    4.176737E-4 = product of:
  0.0058474317 = sum of:
    0.0058474317 = weight(_text_:information in 4962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058474317 = score(doc=4962,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4962, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4962)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.64-71
  10. Frandsen, T.F.; Nicolaisen, J.: Praise the bridge that carries you over : testing the flattery citation hypothesis (2011) 0.00 
    3.5800604E-4 = product of:
  0.0050120843 = sum of:
    0.0050120843 = weight(_text_:information in 4361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050120843 = score(doc=4361,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4361, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4361)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.5, S.807-818
  11. Frandsen, T.F.; Nicolaisen, J.: Citation behavior : a large-scale test of the persuasion by name-dropping hypothesis (2017) 0.00 
    3.5800604E-4 = product of:
  0.0050120843 = sum of:
    0.0050120843 = weight(_text_:information in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050120843 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.5, S.1278-1284

Authors

Years

Themes