Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Olensky, M."
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Olensky, M.; Schmidt, M.; Eck, N.J. van: Evaluation of the citation matching algorithms of CWTS and iFQ in comparison to the Web of science (2016) 0.00 
    0.0029157193 = product of:
  0.029157192 = sum of:
    0.029157192 = weight(_text_:web in 3130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029157192 = score(doc=3130,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 3130, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3130)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    The results of bibliometric studies provided by bibliometric research groups, for example, the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) and the Institute for Research Information and Quality Assurance (iFQ), are often used in the process of research assessment. Their databases use Web of Science (WoS) citation data, which they match according to their own matching algorithms-in the case of CWTS for standard usage in their studies and in the case of iFQ on an experimental basis. Because the problem of nonmatched citations in the WoS persists due to inaccuracies in the references or inaccuracies introduced in the data extraction process, it is important to ascertain how well these inaccuracies are rectified in these citation matching algorithms. This article evaluates the algorithms of CWTS and iFQ in comparison to the WoS in a quantitative and a qualitative analysis. The analysis builds upon the method and the manually verified corpus of a previous study. The algorithm of CWTS performs best, closely followed by that of iFQ. The WoS algorithm still performs quite well (F1 score: 96.41%), but shows deficits in matching references containing inaccuracies. An additional problem is posed by incorrectly provided cited reference information in source articles by the WoS.
    Object
    Web of science
  2. Gradmann, S.; Iwanowa, J.; Dröge, E.; Hennicke, S.; Trkulja, V.; Olensky, M.; Stein, C.; Struck, A.; Baierer, K.: Modellierung und Ontologien im Wissensmanagement : Erfahrungen aus drei Projekten im Umfeld von Europeana und des DFG-Exzellenzclusters Bild Wissen Gestaltung an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (2013) 0.00 
    0.0020200694 = product of:
  0.020200694 = sum of:
    0.020200694 = weight(_text_:web in 904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020200694 = score(doc=904,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 904, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=904)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    Im Artikel werden laufende Arbeiten und Ergebnisse der Forschergruppe Wissensmanagement beschrieben. Diese entstanden vor allem durch die am Lehrstuhl Wissensmanagement angesiedelten Projekte Europeana v2.0, Digitised Manuscripts to Europeana (DM2E) sowie von Teilprojekten des vor kurzem gestarteten DFG-Exzellenzclusters Bild Wissen Gestaltung. Die Projekte befassen sich mit Spezialisierungen des Europeana Data Model, der Umwandlung von Metadaten in RDF und der automatisierten und nutzerbasierten semantischen Anreicherung dieser Daten auf Basis eigens entwickelter oder modifizierter Anwendungen sowie der Modellierung von Forschungsaktivitäten, welche derzeit auf die digitale Geisteswissenschaft zugeschnitten ist. Allen Projekten gemeinsam ist die konzeptionelle oder technische Modellierung von Informationsentitäten oder Nutzeraktivitäten, welche am Ende im Linked Data Web repräsentiert werden.
  3. Stiller, J.; Olensky, M.; Petras, V.: ¬A framework for the evaluation of automatic metadata enrichments (2014) 0.00 
    9.1271737E-4 = product of:
  0.009127174 = sum of:
    0.009127174 = product of:
      0.027381519 = sum of:
        0.027381519 = weight(_text_:29 in 1587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027381519 = score(doc=1587,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1587, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1587)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 8th Research Conference, MTSR 2014, Karlsruhe, Germany, November 27-29, 2014, Proceedings. Eds.: S. Closs et al
  4. Hennicke, S.; Olensky, M.; Boer, V. de; Isaac, A.; Wielemaker, J.: ¬A data model for cross-domain data representation : the "Europeana Data Model" in the case of archival and museum data (2010) 0.00 
    7.823291E-4 = product of:
  0.007823291 = sum of:
    0.007823291 = product of:
      0.023469873 = sum of:
        0.023469873 = weight(_text_:29 in 4664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023469873 = score(doc=4664,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4664, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4664)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Date
    11. 8.2011 21:10:29

Authors

Languages

Themes