Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Schreiber, M."
  1. Schreiber, M.: Uncertainties and ambiguities in percentiles and how to avoid them (2013) 0.02 
    0.019275293 = product of:
  0.038550586 = sum of:
    0.012894828 = weight(_text_:information in 675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012894828 = score(doc=675,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 675, 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=675)
    0.025655756 = product of:
      0.05131151 = sum of:
        0.05131151 = weight(_text_:22 in 675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05131151 = score(doc=675,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 675, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=675)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:52:05
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.3, S.640-643
  2. Schreiber, M.: Das Web ist eine Wolke (2009) 0.00 
    0.003738846 = product of:
  0.014955384 = sum of:
    0.014955384 = product of:
      0.029910767 = sum of:
        0.029910767 = weight(_text_:services in 2620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029910767 = score(doc=2620,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.1720955 = fieldWeight in 2620, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2620)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    Es entsteht Leerlauf, der Geld kostet, ohne Nutzen zu bringen. Um die Rechnerauslastung zu optimieren, bieten die Firmen ihre Rechenpower Privatkunden und Unternehmen an. Ein cleveres Geschäftsmodell, das sich für beide Seiten lohnt. Der einzelne Kunde zahlt nicht für Programmlizenzen oder Server, sondern nur die tatsächlich verbrauchte Leistung - zu Stoßzeiten, kann er flexibel Rechenpower hinzubuchen. Der User nutzt also skalierbare IT-Services. In diesem Netzwerk lassen sich auch diverse Anbieter miteinander verknüpfen. Beispielsweise Amazons virtuellen Speicher "Simple Storage Service" (S3), mit Googles Entwicklungsplattform "App Engine" (GAE). So bestehen die Dienstleistungen aus einer Bündelung verschiedener Angebote, die nach einem Baukastenprinzip funktionieren - eine Wolke (engl. "cloud") aus Servern und Services ensteht. Der Nutzer holt sich jeweils die Leistungen, die er braucht und kombiniert sie nach seinen persönlichen Bedürfnissen. Die Grundlagen: Mehr Leistung durch Zusammenarbeit So angesagt Cloud Computing auch ist - es ist keine neue Erfindung. Sondern vielmehr eine Zusammenführung längst bestehender Techniken. Zu den Voraussetzungen gehören Computercluster, Grid Computing und Utility Computing. Ein Cluster besteht aus einer Reihe von Computern, die untereinander vernetzt sind und somit die Rechenpower erhöhen (High Performance Computing). Außerdem können sie das Risiko eines Datencrashs minimieren, indem ein defekter Server seine Aufgaben auf einen anderen umleitet (High Availability Cluster). Cluster werden häufig auch als Serverparks oder Serverfarmen bezeichnet.
  3. Schreiber, M.: Revisiting the g-index : the average number of citations in the g-core (2009) 0.00 
    0.003223707 = product of:
  0.012894828 = sum of:
    0.012894828 = weight(_text_:information in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012894828 = score(doc=3313,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3313, 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=3313)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.1, S.169-174
  4. Schreiber, M.: Inconsistencies in the highly cited publications indicator (2013) 0.00 
    0.003223707 = product of:
  0.012894828 = sum of:
    0.012894828 = weight(_text_:information in 815) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012894828 = score(doc=815,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 815, 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=815)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.6, S.1298-1302
  5. Schreiber, M.: Do we need the g-index? (2013) 0.00 
    0.003223707 = product of:
  0.012894828 = sum of:
    0.012894828 = weight(_text_:information in 1113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012894828 = score(doc=1113,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1113, 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=1113)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.11, S.2396-2399
  6. Schreiber, M.: ¬A case study of the modified Hirsch index hm accounting for multiple coauthors (2009) 0.00 
    0.0028207437 = product of:
  0.011282975 = sum of:
    0.011282975 = weight(_text_:information in 2858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011282975 = score(doc=2858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2858, 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=2858)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.6, S.1274-1282
  7. Schreiber, M.: Empirical evidence for the relevance of fractional scoring in the calculation of percentile rank scores (2013) 0.00 
    0.0028207437 = product of:
  0.011282975 = sum of:
    0.011282975 = weight(_text_:information in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011282975 = score(doc=640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 640, 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=640)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.861-867
  8. Schreiber, M.: ¬A variant of the h-index to measure recent performance (2015) 0.00 
    0.0028207437 = product of:
  0.011282975 = sum of:
    0.011282975 = weight(_text_:information in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011282975 = score(doc=2262,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2262, 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=2262)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.11, S.2373-2380
  9. Schreiber, M.: Fractionalized counting of publications for the g-Index (2009) 0.00 
    0.0024177802 = product of:
  0.009671121 = sum of:
    0.009671121 = weight(_text_:information in 3125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009671121 = score(doc=3125,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3125, 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=3125)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.10, S.2145-2150
  10. Waltman, L.; Schreiber, M.: On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators (2013) 0.00 
    0.0024177802 = product of:
  0.009671121 = sum of:
    0.009671121 = weight(_text_:information in 616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009671121 = score(doc=616,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 616, 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=616)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.2, S.372-379
  11. Schreiber, M.: ¬An empirical investigation of the g-index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-index, the A-index, and the R-index (2008) 0.00 
    0.0020148167 = product of:
  0.008059267 = sum of:
    0.008059267 = weight(_text_:information in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008059267 = score(doc=1968,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1968, 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=1968)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1513-1522
  12. Schreiber, M.: Inconsistencies of recently proposed citation impact indicators and how to avoid them (2012) 0.00 
    0.0020148167 = product of:
  0.008059267 = sum of:
    0.008059267 = weight(_text_:information in 459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008059267 = score(doc=459,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 459, 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=459)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.10, S.2062-2073

Years

Languages

  • e 11
  • d 1

Themes