Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Rousseau, R."
  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Asonuma, A.; Fang, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Reflections on the age distribution of Japanese scientists (2006) 0.11 
    0.11246149 = product of:
  0.22492298 = sum of:
    0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089855315 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
    0.09176904 = weight(_text_:united in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09176904 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
    0.12416841 = sum of:
      0.088412896 = weight(_text_:states in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.088412896 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043984205 = queryNorm
          0.3650376 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
      0.035755515 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035755515 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043984205 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    The age distribution of a country's scientists is an important element in the study of its research capacity. In this article we investigate the age distribution of Japanese scientists in order to find out whether major events such as World War II had an appreciable effect on its features. Data have been obtained from population censuses taken in Japan from 1970 to 1995. A comparison with the situation in China and the United States has been made. We find that the group of scientific researchers outside academia is dominated by the young: those younger than age 35. The personnel group in higher education, on the other hand, is dominated by the baby boomers: those who were born after World War II. Contrary to the Chinese situation we could not find any influence of major nondemographic events. The only influence we found was the increase in enrollment of university students after World War II caused by the reform of the Japanese university system. Female participation in the scientific and university systems in Japan, though still low, is increasing.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:26:24
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.3, S.342-346
  2. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬A measure for the cohesion of weighted networks (2003) 0.03 
    0.028121524 = product of:
  0.08436457 = sum of:
    0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 5157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007487943 = score(doc=5157,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5157, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5157)
    0.076876625 = weight(_text_:networks in 5157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076876625 = score(doc=5157,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.369525 = fieldWeight in 5157, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5157)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Measurement of the degree of interconnectedness in graph like networks of hyperlinks or citations can indicate the existence of research fields and assist in comparative evaluation of research efforts. In this issue we begin with Egghe and Rousseau who review compactness measures and investigate the compactness of a network as a weighted graph with dissimilarity values characterizing the arcs between nodes. They make use of a generalization of the Botofogo, Rivlin, Shneiderman, (BRS) compaction measure which treats the distance between unreachable nodes not as infinity but rather as the number of nodes in the network. The dissimilarity values are determined by summing the reciprocals of the weights of the arcs in the shortest chain between two nodes where no weight is smaller than one. The BRS measure is then the maximum value for the sum of the dissimilarity measures less the actual sum divided by the difference between the maximum and minimum. The Wiener index, the sum of all elements in the dissimilarity matrix divided by two, is then computed for Small's particle physics co-citation data as well as the BRS measure, the dissimilarity values and shortest paths. The compactness measure for the weighted network is smaller than for the un-weighted. When the bibliographic coupling network is utilized it is shown to be less compact than the co-citation network which indicates that the new measure produces results that confirm to an obvious case.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.3, S.193-202
  3. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.01 
    0.0067967153 = product of:
  0.020390145 = sum of:
    0.008471641 = weight(_text_:information in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008471641 = score(doc=5171,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.011918506 = product of:
      0.023837011 = sum of:
        0.023837011 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023837011 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.6, S.549-568
  4. Rousseau, R.; Ye, F.Y.: ¬A proposal for a dynamic h-type index (2008) 0.00 
    0.0034585332 = product of:
  0.020751199 = sum of:
    0.020751199 = weight(_text_:information in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020751199 = score(doc=2351,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    A time-dependent h-type indicator is proposed. This indicator depends on the size of the h-core, the number of citations received, and recent change in the value of the h-index. As such, it tries to combine in a dynamic way older information about the source (e.g., a scientist or research institute that is evaluated) with recent information.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.11, S.1853-1855
  5. Rousseau, R.: Timelines in citation research (2006) 0.00 
    0.0028238804 = product of:
  0.016943282 = sum of:
    0.016943282 = weight(_text_:information in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016943282 = score(doc=1746,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 1746, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1746)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    The timeline used in ISI's Journal Citation Reports (JCR; Thomson ISI, formerly the Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, PA) for half-life calculations, is not a timeline for (average) cited age. These two timelines are shifted over half a year.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.10, S.1404-1405
  6. Rousseau, R.: On Egghe's construction of Lorenz curves (2007) 0.00 
    0.002495981 = product of:
  0.014975886 = sum of:
    0.014975886 = weight(_text_:information in 521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014975886 = score(doc=521,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 521, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=521)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.10, S.1551-1552
  7. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.; Hooydonk, G. van: Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries : consequences for evaluation studies (2000) 0.00 
    0.0021179102 = product of:
  0.012707461 = sum of:
    0.012707461 = weight(_text_:information in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012707461 = score(doc=4384,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4384, 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=4384)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    One aim of science evaluation studies is to determine quantitatively the contribution of different players (authors, departments, countries) to the whole system. This information is then used to study the evolution of the system, for instance to gauge the results of special national or international programs. Taking articles as our basic data, we want to determine the exact relative contribution of each coauthor or each country. These numbers are brought together to obtain country scores, or department scores, etc. It turns out, as we will show in this article, that different scoring methods can yield totally different rankings. Conseqeuntly, a ranking between countries, universities, research groups or authors, based on one particular accrediting methods does not contain an absolute truth about their relative importance
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.2, S.145-157
  8. Jin, B.; Li, L.; Rousseau, R.: Long-term influences of interventions in the normal development of science : China and the cultural revolution (2004) 0.00 
    0.0021179102 = product of:
  0.012707461 = sum of:
    0.012707461 = weight(_text_:information in 2232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012707461 = score(doc=2232,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2232, 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=2232)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Intellectual and technological talents and skills are the driving force for scientific and industrial development, especially in our times characterized by a knowledgebased economy. Major events in society and related political decisions, however, can have a long-term effect an a country's scientific weIl-being. Although the Cultural Revolution took place from 1966 to 1976, its aftermath can still be felt. This is shown by this study of the production and productivity of Chinese scientists as a function of their age. Based an the 1995-2000 data from the Chinese Science Citation database (CSCD), this article investigates the year-by-year age distribution of scientific and technological personnel publishing in China. It is shown that the "Talent Fault" originating during the Cultural Revolution still exists, and that a new gap resulting from recent brain drain might be developing. The purpose of this work is to provide necessary information about the current situation and especially the existing problems of the S&T workforce in China.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.6, S.544-550
  9. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬The influence of publication delays on the observed aging distribution of scientific literature (2000) 0.00 
    0.001996785 = product of:
  0.011980709 = sum of:
    0.011980709 = weight(_text_:information in 4385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011980709 = score(doc=4385,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4385, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4385)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.2, S.158-165
  10. Egghe, L.; Liang, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬A relation between h-index and impact factor in the power-law model (2009) 0.00 
    0.001996785 = product of:
  0.011980709 = sum of:
    0.011980709 = weight(_text_:information in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011980709 = score(doc=6759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.11, S.2362-2365
  11. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬An h-index weighted by citation impact (2008) 0.00 
    0.001996785 = product of:
  0.011980709 = sum of:
    0.011980709 = weight(_text_:information in 695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011980709 = score(doc=695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 695, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=695)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.2, S.770-780
  12. Rousseau, R.: Informetric laws (2009) 0.00 
    0.001996785 = product of:
  0.011980709 = sum of:
    0.011980709 = weight(_text_:information in 3795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011980709 = score(doc=3795,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3795, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3795)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  13. Frandsen, T.F.; Rousseau, R.; Rowlands, I.: Diffusion factors (2006) 0.00 
    0.0017649251 = product of:
  0.01058955 = sum of:
    0.01058955 = weight(_text_:information in 5587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01058955 = score(doc=5587,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5587, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5587)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to clarify earlier work on journal diffusion metrics. Classical journal indicators such as the Garfield impact factor do not measure the breadth of influence across the literature of a particular journal title. As a new approach to measuring research influence, the study complements these existing metrics with a series of formally described diffusion factors. Design/methodology/approach - Using a publication-citation matrix as an organising construct, the paper develops formal descriptions of two forms of diffusion metric: "relative diffusion factors" and "journal diffusion factors" in both their synchronous and diachronous forms. It also provides worked examples for selected library and information science and economics journals, plus a sample of health information papers to illustrate their construction and use. Findings - Diffusion factors capture different aspects of the citation reception process than existing bibliometric measures. The paper shows that diffusion factors can be applied at the whole journal level or for sets of articles and that they provide a richer evidence base for citation analyses than traditional measures alone. Research limitations/implications - The focus of this paper is on clarifying the concepts underlying diffusion factors and there is unlimited scope for further work to apply these metrics to much larger and more comprehensive data sets than has been attempted here. Practical implications - These new tools extend the range of tools available for bibliometric, and possibly webometric, analysis. Diffusion factors might find particular application in studies where the research questions focus on the dynamic aspects of innovation and knowledge transfer. Originality/value - This paper will be of interest to those with theoretical interests in informetric distributions as well as those interested in science policy and innovation studies.
  14. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.; Rousseau, S.: TOP-curves (2007) 0.00 
    0.0017471868 = product of:
  0.010483121 = sum of:
    0.010483121 = weight(_text_:information in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010483121 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 50, 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=50)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.6, S.777-785
  15. Egghe, L.; Liang, L.; Rousseau, R.: Fundamental properties of rhythm sequences (2008) 0.00 
    0.0017471868 = product of:
  0.010483121 = sum of:
    0.010483121 = weight(_text_:information in 1965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010483121 = score(doc=1965,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1965, 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=1965)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1469-1478
  16. Guns, R.; Rousseau, R.: Simulating growth of the h-index (2009) 0.00 
    0.0017471868 = product of:
  0.010483121 = sum of:
    0.010483121 = weight(_text_:information in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010483121 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2717, 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=2717)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.2, S.410-417
  17. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Aging, obsolescence, impact, growth, and utilization : definitions and relations (2000) 0.00 
    0.0014975886 = product of:
  0.0089855315 = sum of:
    0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 5154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089855315 = score(doc=5154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5154, 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=5154)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.11, S.1004-1017
  18. Frandsen, T.F.; Rousseau, R.: Article impact calculated over arbitrary periods (2005) 0.00 
    0.0014975886 = product of:
  0.0089855315 = sum of:
    0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 3264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089855315 = score(doc=3264,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3264, 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=3264)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.1, S.58-62
  19. Kretschmer, H.; Rousseau, R.: Author inflation leads to a breakdown of Lotka's law : in and out of context (2001) 0.00 
    0.0014975886 = product of:
  0.0089855315 = sum of:
    0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 5205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089855315 = score(doc=5205,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5205, 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=5205)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.8, S.610-614
  20. Impe, S. van; Rousseau, R.: Web-to-print citations and the humanities (2006) 0.00 
    0.0014975886 = product of:
  0.0089855315 = sum of:
    0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089855315 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 82, 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=82)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.422-426

Authors

Themes