Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.00355646 = product of:
  0.0106693795 = sum of:
    0.0106693795 = product of:
      0.021338759 = sum of:
        0.021338759 = weight(_text_:of in 247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021338759 = score(doc=247,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 247, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=247)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The amount of annually published scholarly articles is growing steadily, as is the number of indicators through which impact of publications is measured. Little is known about how the increasing variety of available metrics affects researchers' processes of selecting literature to read. We conducted ranking experiments embedded into an online survey with 247 participating researchers, most from social sciences. Participants completed series of tasks in which they were asked to rank fictitious publications regarding their expected relevance, based on their scores regarding six prototypical metrics. Through applying logistic regression, cluster analysis, and manual coding of survey answers, we obtained detailed data on how prominent metrics for research impact influence our participants in decisions about which scientific articles to read. Survey answers revealed a combination of qualitative and quantitative characteristics that researchers consult when selecting literature, while regression analysis showed that among quantitative metrics, citation counts tend to be of highest concern, followed by Journal Impact Factors. Our results suggest a comparatively favorable view of many researchers on bibliometrics and widespread skepticism toward altmetrics. The findings underline the importance of equipping researchers with solid knowledge about specific metrics' limitations, as they seem to play significant roles in researchers' everyday relevance assessments.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.6, S.777-792

0.0031316737 = product of:
  0.009395021 = sum of:
    0.009395021 = product of:
      0.018790042 = sum of:
        0.018790042 = weight(_text_:of in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018790042 = score(doc=4907,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 4907, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4907)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Services in Web 2.0 generate a large quantity of information, distributed over a range of resources (e.g. photos, URLs, videos) and integrated into different platforms (e.g. social bookmarking systems, sharing platforms (Peters, 2009). To adequately use this mass of information and to extract it from the platforms, users must be equipped with suitable tools and knowledge. After all, the best information is useless if users cannot find it: 'The model of information consumption relies on the information being found' (Vander Wal, 2004). In Web 2.0, the retrieval component has been established through so-called folksonomies (Vander Wal, 2005a), which are considered as several combinations of an information resource, one or more freely chosen keywords ('tags') and a user. Web 2.0 services that use folksonomies as an indexing and retrieval tool are defined as 'collaborative information services' because they allow for the collaborative creation of a public database that is accessible to all users (registered, where necessary) via the tags of the folksonomy (Ding et al., 2009; Heymann, Paepcke and Garcia-Molina, 2010).

0.0029591531 = product of:
  0.008877459 = sum of:
    0.008877459 = product of:
      0.017754918 = sum of:
        0.017754918 = weight(_text_:of in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017754918 = score(doc=865,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - Many Web 2.0 services (including Library 2.0 catalogs) make use of folksonomies. The purpose of this paper is to cut off all tags in the long tail of a document-specific tag distribution. The remaining tags at the beginning of a tag distribution are considered power tags and form a new, additional search option in information retrieval systems. Design/methodology/approach - In a theoretical approach the paper discusses document-specific tag distributions (power law and inverse-logistic shape), the development of such distributions (Yule-Simon process and shuffling theory) and introduces search tags (besides the well-known index tags) as a possibility for generating tag distributions. Findings - Search tags are compatible with broad and narrow folksonomies and with all knowledge organization systems (e.g. classification systems and thesauri), while index tags are only applicable in broad folksonomies. Based on these findings, the paper presents a sketch of an algorithm for mining and processing power tags in information retrieval systems. Research limitations/implications - This conceptual approach is in need of empirical evaluation in a concrete retrieval system. Practical implications - Power tags are a new search option for retrieval systems to limit the amount of hits. Originality/value - The paper introduces power tags as a means for enhancing the precision of search results in information retrieval systems that apply folksonomies, e.g. catalogs in Library 2.0environments.

0.0029591531 = product of:
  0.008877459 = sum of:
    0.008877459 = product of:
      0.017754918 = sum of:
        0.017754918 = weight(_text_:of in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017754918 = score(doc=1229,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Data collected by social media platforms have been introduced as new sources for indicators to help measure the impact of scholarly research in ways that are complementary to traditional citation analysis. Data generated from social media activities can be used to reflect broad types of impact. This article aims to provide systematic evidence about how often Twitter is used to disseminate information about journal articles in the biomedical sciences. The analysis is based on 1.4 million documents covered by both PubMed and Web of Science and published between 2010 and 2012. The number of tweets containing links to these documents was analyzed and compared to citations to evaluate the degree to which certain journals, disciplines, and specialties were represented on Twitter and how far tweets correlate with citation impact. With less than 10% of PubMed articles mentioned on Twitter, its uptake is low in general but differs between journals and specialties. Correlations between tweets and citations are low, implying that impact metrics based on tweets are different from those based on citations. A framework using the coverage of articles and the correlation between Twitter mentions and citations is proposed to facilitate the evaluation of novel social-media-based metrics.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.656-669

0.0027335489 = product of:
  0.008200646 = sum of:
    0.008200646 = product of:
      0.016401293 = sum of:
        0.016401293 = weight(_text_:of in 216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016401293 = score(doc=216,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 216, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=216)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Classical knowledge representation methods traditionally work with established relations such as synonymy, hierarchy and unspecified associations. Recent developments like ontologies and folksonomies show new forms of collaboration, indexing and knowledge representation and encourage the reconsideration of standard knowledge relationships. In a summarizing overview we show which relations are currently utilized in elaborated knowledge representation methods and which may be inherently hidden in folksonomies and ontologies.

Source

Proceedings of I-Know '07, Graz, September 5-7

0.0019529418 = product of:
  0.005858825 = sum of:
    0.005858825 = product of:
      0.01171765 = sum of:
        0.01171765 = weight(_text_:of in 1593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01171765 = score(doc=1593,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 1593, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Classical knowledge representation methods have been successfully working for years with established - but in a way restricted and vague - relations such as synonymy, hierarchy (meronymy, hyponymy) and unspecified associations. Recent developments like ontologies and folksonomies show new forms of collaboration, indexing and knowledge representation and encourage the reconsideration of standard knowledge relationships for practical use. In a summarizing overview we show which relations are currently used in knowledge organization systems (controlled vocabularies, ontologies and folksonomies) and which relations are expressed explicitly or which may be inherently hidden in them.

0.0011836614 = product of:
  0.0035509842 = sum of:
    0.0035509842 = product of:
      0.0071019684 = sum of:
        0.0071019684 = weight(_text_:of in 4514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071019684 = score(doc=4514,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.103663445 = fieldWeight in 4514, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4514)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)