Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Stock, W.G."
  • × theme_ss:"Informationsmittel"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Medizininformationen : Literaturnachweise, Volltexte und klinische Entscheidungen aus einer Hand (2004) 0.01 
    0.014864365 = product of:
  0.044593092 = sum of:
    0.044593092 = weight(_text_:im in 3288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044593092 = score(doc=3288,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.30917975 = fieldWeight in 3288, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3288)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Ovid Technologies speist sich aus unterschiedlichen Unternehmensgeschichten; die Erfahrungen von BRS, SilverPlatter, Ovid und Wolters-Kluwer ergänzen sich in den derzeit betriebenen zwei Plattformen Ovid und SilverPlatter. Ovid spricht vor allem praktizierende wie forschende Spezialisten in der medizinisch-biowissenschaftlichen Sparte an, während SilverPlatter eher auf den gesamten akademischen Betrieb abzielt. Wir konzentrieren uns in diesem Artikel auf die Ovid-Plattform und vernachlässigen SilverPlatter. Das Interessante an Ovid ist die Einheit von bibliographischen Nachweisdaten, Volltexten und praxisrelevanten klinischen Entscheidungshilfen. U.E. lohnt die Retrievaloberfläche von Ovid und die hier praktizierte durchgehende Verlinkung von Nachweisen und Volltexten und von Volltexten untereinander einer näheren Betrachtung. Unsere Ergebnisse stützen sich auf den Fragebogen, Gespräche mit Jens Gräßler, National Sales Manager Germany, vom deutschen Ovid-Büro in Berlin sowie auf Tests im März und im April 2004.
  2. Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Intellectual property information : A comparative analysis of main information providers (2006) 0.00 
    0.0048631616 = product of:
  0.014589485 = sum of:
    0.014589485 = product of:
      0.043768454 = sum of:
        0.043768454 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043768454 = score(doc=210,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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).
  3. Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Online-Hosts für Wissenschaft, Technik und Medizin auf dem deutschen Informationsmarkt : Eine komparative Analyse (2005) 0.00 
    0.004615356 = product of:
  0.013846068 = sum of:
    0.013846068 = product of:
      0.0415382 = sum of:
        0.0415382 = weight(_text_:online in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0415382 = score(doc=3335,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.2682499 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Languages