Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Stock, W.G."
  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Stock, W.G.: On relevance distributions (2006) 0.01 
    0.013559518 = product of:
  0.06327775 = sum of:
    0.027896244 = weight(_text_:web in 5116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027896244 = score(doc=5116,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 5116, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5116)
    0.011415146 = weight(_text_:information in 5116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011415146 = score(doc=5116,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 5116, 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=5116)
    0.023966359 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023966359 = score(doc=5116,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 5116, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5116)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    There are at least three possible ways that documents are distributed by relevance: informetric (power law), inverse logistic, and dichotomous. The nature of the type of distribution has implications for the construction of relevance ranking algorithms for search engines, for automated (blind) relevance feedback, for user behavior when using Web search engines, for combining of outputs of search engines for metasearch, for topic detection and tracking, and for the methodology of evaluation of information retrieval systems.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.8, S.1126-1129
  2. Stock, W.G.; Weber, S.: Facets of informetrics : Preface (2006) 0.01 
    0.0110941855 = product of:
  0.051772866 = sum of:
    0.024158856 = weight(_text_:web in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024158856 = score(doc=76,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.24981049 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
    0.015630832 = weight(_text_:information in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015630832 = score(doc=76,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3004734 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
    0.0119831795 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0119831795 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    According to Jean M. Tague-Sutcliffe "informetrics" is "the study of the quantitative aspects of information in any form, not just records or bibliographies, and in any social group, not just scientists" (Tague-Sutcliffe, 1992, 1). Leo Egghe also defines "informetrics" in a very broad sense. "(W)e will use the term' informetrics' as the broad term comprising all-metrics studies related to information science, including bibliometrics (bibliographies, libraries,...), scientometrics (science policy, citation analysis, research evaluation,...), webometrics (metrics of the web, the Internet or other social networks such as citation or collaboration networks), ..." (Egghe, 2005b,1311). According to Concepcion S. Wilson "informetrics" is "the quantitative study of collections of moderatesized units of potentially informative text, directed to the scientific understanding of information processes at the social level" (Wilson, 1999, 211). We should add to Wilson's units of text also digital collections of images, videos, spoken documents and music. Dietmar Wolfram divides "informetrics" into two aspects, "system-based characteristics that arise from the documentary content of IR systems and how they are indexed, and usage-based characteristics that arise how users interact with system content and the system interfaces that provide access to the content" (Wolfram, 2003, 6). We would like to follow Tague-Sutcliffe, Egghe, Wilson and Wolfram (and others, for example Björneborn & Ingwersen, 2004) and call this broad research of empirical information science "informetrics". Informetrics includes therefore all quantitative studies in information science. If a scientist performs scientific investigations empirically, e.g. on information users' behavior, on scientific impact of academic journals, on the development of the patent application activity of a company, on links of Web pages, on the temporal distribution of blog postings discussing a given topic, on availability, recall and precision of retrieval systems, on usability of Web sites, and so on, he or she contributes to informetrics. We see three subject areas in information science in which such quantitative research takes place, - information users and information usage, - evaluation of information systems, - information itself, Following Wolfram's article, we divide his system-based characteristics into the "information itself "-category and the "information system"-category. Figure 1 is a simplistic graph of subjects and research areas of informetrics as an empirical information science.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.385-389
  3. Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Intellectual property information : A comparative analysis of main information providers (2006) 0.01 
    0.0062259356 = product of:
  0.04358155 = sum of:
    0.018161386 = weight(_text_:information in 210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018161386 = score(doc=210,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.34911853 = fieldWeight in 210, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=210)
    0.025420163 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025420163 = score(doc=210,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 210, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=210)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    After modeling expert user needs with regard to intellectual property information, we analyze and compare the main providers in this specific information area (Thomson DIALOG, Esp@cenet by the European Patent Office, Questel-Orbit, and STN International) in terms of system content and system functionality. The key question is whether the main providers are able to satisfy these expert user needs. For patent information, some special retrieval features such as chemical structure search (including Markush search), patent family references and citations search, biosequence search, and basic informetric functionality such as ranking, mapping, and visualization of information flows are realized. Considering the results of information science research, the practice of patent information shows unexhausted improvement opportunities (e.g., the application of bibliographic patent coupling and co-patent-citation for mapping patents, patent assignees, and technology specialties). For trademark search, users need multiple truncated search (realized) as well as phonetic search and image retrieval (not realized yet).
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.13, S.1794-1803
  4. Garfield, E.; Paris, S.W.; Stock, W.G.: HistCite(TM) : a software tool for informetric analysis of citation linkage (2006) 0.01 
    0.0059403726 = product of:
  0.041582607 = sum of:
    0.034519844 = weight(_text_:web in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034519844 = score(doc=79,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=79,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 79, 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=79)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    HistCite(TM) is a software tool for analyzing and visualizing direct citation linkages between scientific papers. Its inputs are bibliographic records (with cited references) from "Web of Knowledge" or other sources. Its outputs are various tables and graphs with informetric indicators about the knowledge domain under study. As an example we analyze informetrically the literature about Alexius Meinong, an Austrian philosopher and psychologist. The article shortly discusses the informetric functionality of "Web of Knowledge" and shows broadly the possibilities that HistCite offers to its users (e.g. scientists, scientometricans and science journalists).
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.391-400
  5. Schmidt, S.; Stock, W.G.: Collective indexing of emotions in images : a study in emotional information retrieval (2009) 0.01 
    0.0058912192 = product of:
  0.04123853 = sum of:
    0.011280581 = weight(_text_:information in 2792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011280581 = score(doc=2792,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 2792, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2792)
    0.029957948 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029957948 = score(doc=2792,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 2792, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2792)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Some documents provoke emotions in people viewing them. Will it be possible to describe emotions consistently and use this information in retrieval systems? We tested collective (statistically aggregated) emotion indexing using images as examples. Considering psychological results, basic emotions are anger, disgust, fear, happiness, and sadness. This study follows an approach developed by Lee and Neal (2007) for music emotion retrieval and applies scroll bars for tagging basic emotions and their intensities. A sample comprising 763 persons tagged emotions caused by images (retrieved from www.Flickr.com) applying scroll bars and (linguistic) tags. Using SPSS, we performed descriptive statistics and correlation analysis. For more than half of the images, the test persons have clear emotion favorites. There are prototypical images for given emotions. The document-specific consistency of tagging using a scroll bar is, for some images, very high. Most of the (most commonly used) linguistic tags are on the basic level (in the sense of Rosch's basic level theory). The distributions of the linguistic tags in our examples follow an inverse power-law. Hence, it seems possible to apply collective image emotion tagging to image information systems and to present a new search option for basic emotions. This article is one of the first steps in the research area of emotional information retrieval (EmIR).
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.5, S.863-876
  6. Weller, K.; Stock, W.G.: Transitive meronymy : automatic concept-based query expansion using weighted transitive part-whole relations (2008) 0.01 
    0.0056635872 = product of:
  0.03964511 = sum of:
    0.009988253 = weight(_text_:information in 1835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009988253 = score(doc=1835,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1835, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1835)
    0.029656855 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029656855 = score(doc=1835,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 1835, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1835)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Transitive Meronymie. Automatische begriffsbasierte Suchanfrageerweiterung unter Nutzung gewichteter transitiver Teil-Ganzes-Relationen. Unsere theoretisch orientierte Arbeit isoliert transitive Teil-Ganzes-Beziehungen. Wir diskutieren den Einsatz der Meronymie bei der automatischen begriffsbasierten Suchanfrageerweiterung im Information Retrieval. Aus praktischen Gründen schlagen wir vor, die Bestandsrelationen zu spezifizieren und die einzelnen Arten mit unterschiedlichen Gewichtungswerten zu versehen, die im Retrieval genutzt werden. Für das Design von Wissensordnungen ist bedeutsam, dass innerhalb der Begriffsleiter einer Abstraktionsrelation ein Begriff alle seine Teile (sowie alle transitiven Teile der Teile) an seine Unterbegriffe vererbt.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 59(2008) H.3, S.165-170
  7. Schloegl, C.; Stock, W.G.: Impact and relevance of LIS journals : a scientometric analysis of international and German-language LIS journals - Citation analysis versus reader survey (2004) 0.00 
    5.7655195E-4 = product of:
  0.008071727 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 5249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=5249,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5249, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5249)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    The goal of the scientometric analysis presented in this article was to investigate international and regional (i.e., German-language) periodicals in the field of library and information science (LIS). This was done by means of a citation analysis and a reader survey. For the citation analysis, impact factor, citing half-life, number of references per article, and the rate of self-references of a periodical were used as indicators. In addition, the leading LIS periodicals were mapped. For the 40 international periodicals, data were collected from ISI's Social Sciences Citation Index Journal Citation Reports (JCR); the citations of the 10 German-language journals were counted manually (overall 1,494 source articles with 10,520 citations). Altogether, the empirical base of the citation analysis consisted of nearly 90,000 citations in 6,203 source articles that were published between 1997 and 2000. The expert survey investigated reading frequency, applicability of the journals to the job of the reader, publication frequency, and publication preference both for all respondents and for different groups among them (practitioners vs. scientists, librarians vs. documentalists vs. LIS scholars, public sector vs. information industry vs. other private company employees). The study was conducted in spring 2002. A total of 257 questionnaires were returned by information specialists from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Having both citation and readership data, we performed a comparative analysis of these two data sets. This enabled us to identify answers to questions like: Does reading behavior correlate with the journal impact factor? Do readers prefer journals with a short or a long half-life, or with a low or a high number of references? Is there any difference in this matter among librarians, documentalists, and LIS scholars?
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.13, S.1155-1168
  8. Stock, W.G.: Themenentdeckung und -verfolgung und ihr Einsatz bei Informationsdiensten für Nachrichten (2007) 0.00 
    5.04483E-4 = product of:
  0.0070627616 = sum of:
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=151,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 151, 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=151)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 58(2007) H.1, S.41-46
  9. Stock, W.G.; Schlögl, C.: Practitioners and academics as authors and readers : the case of LIS journals (2008) 0.00 
    4.993087E-4 = product of:
  0.0069903214 = sum of:
    0.0069903214 = weight(_text_:information in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0069903214 = score(doc=2343,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics in scholarly communication in library and information science (LIS) journals. Design/methodology/approach - The research is based on a reader survey, a citation analysis and an editor survey. The reader survey identifies both differences in journal rankings between practitioners and academics and the contribution of practitioners to LIS journals. The editor survey provides the proportions of practitioners and academics for the journals. The citation analysis shows the disparities in information exchange between the journals mainly preferred by practitioners and those more favoured by academics. Furthermore, it is possible to explore if practitioner journals differ from academic journals in the citation indicators and in other data collected in the editor survey. Findings - It is found that: practitioners play an active role both as readers and as authors of articles in LIS journals; there is only a low level of information exchange between practitioner and academic journals; the placement of advertisements, the size of the editorial board, requirements concerning an extensive bibliography, the number and the half-life of the references show a clear distinction between practitioner and academic journals. Interestingly, the impact factor did not turn out to be a good indicator to differentiate a practitioner from an academic journal. Research limitations/implications - This research is only exploratory because it is based on separate studies previously conducted. Further research is also needed to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics more deeply. Originality/value - The value of this paper lies in bringing together the findings from complementary studies (reader survey, editor survey and citation analysis) and identifying hypotheses for future research, especially with regards to the roles of and interactions between LIS practitioners and academics in scholarly communication.

Authors

Themes