Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.014643403 = product of:
  0.043930206 = sum of:
    0.043930206 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043930206 = score(doc=2571,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2571, 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=2571)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A common task in both Webmetrics and Web information retrieval is to identify a set of Web pages or sites that are similar in content. In this paper we assess the extent to which links, colinks and couplings can be used to identify similar Web sites. As an experiment, a random sample of 500 pairs of domains from the UK academic Web were taken and human assessments of site similarity, based upon content type, were compared against ratings for the three concepts. The results show that using a combination of all three gives the highest probability of identifying similar sites, but surprisingly this was only a marginal improvement over using links alone. Another unexpected result was that high values for either colink counts or couplings were associated with only a small increased likelihood of similarity. The principal advantage of using couplings and colinks was found to be greater coverage in terms of a much larger number of pairs of sites being connected by these measures, instead of increased probability of similarity. In information retrieval terminology, this is improved recall rather than improved precision.

0.012202835 = product of:
  0.036608502 = sum of:
    0.036608502 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036608502 = score(doc=4450,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 4450, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4450)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A layered approach for identifying communities in the Web is presented and explored by applying the flake exact community identification algorithm to the UK academic Web. Although community or topic identification is a common task in information retrieval, a new perspective is developed by: the application of alternative document models, shifting the focus from individual pages to aggregated collections based upon Web directories, domains and entire sites; the removal of internal site links; and the adaptation of a new fast algorithm to allow fully-automated community identification using all possible single starting points. The overall topology of the graphs in the three least-aggregated layers was first investigated and found to include a large number of isolated points but, surprisingly, with most of the remainder being in one huge connected component, exact proportions varying by layer. The community identification process then found that the number of communities far exceeded the number of topological components, indicating that community identification is a potentially useful technique, even with random starting points. Both the number and size of communities identified was dependent on the parameter of the algorithm, with very different results being obtained in each case. In conclusion, the UK academic Web is embedded with layers of non-trivial communities and, if it is not unique in this, then there is the promise of improved results for information retrieval algorithms that can exploit this additional structure, and the application of the technique directly to partially automate Web metrics tasks such as that of finding all pages related to a given subject hosted by a single country's universities.

0.012202835 = product of:
  0.036608502 = sum of:
    0.036608502 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036608502 = score(doc=4626,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The primary webometric method for estimating the online impact of an organization is to count links to its website. Link counts have been available from commercial search engines for over a decade but this was set to end by early 2012 and so a replacement is needed. This article compares link counts to two alternative methods: URL citations and organization title mentions. New variations of these methods are also introduced. The three methods are compared against each other using Yahoo!. Two of the three methods (URL citations and organization title mentions) are also compared against each other using Bing. Evidence from a case study of 131 UK universities and 49 US Library and Information Science (LIS) departments suggests that Bing's Hit Count Estimates (HCEs) for popular title searches are not useful for webometric research but that Yahoo!'s HCEs for all three types of search and Bing's URL citation HCEs seem to be consistent. For exact URL counts the results of all three methods in Yahoo! and both methods in Bing are also consistent. Four types of accuracy factors are also introduced and defined: search engine coverage, search engine retrieval variation, search engine retrieval anomalies, and query polysemy.

0.008628707 = product of:
  0.025886122 = sum of:
    0.025886122 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025886122 = score(doc=3384,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Series

Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and services; 52

0.008177008 = product of:
  0.024531022 = sum of:
    0.024531022 = product of:
      0.049062043 = sum of:
        0.049062043 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049062043 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.

Date

22. 3.2009 12:43:51

0.006938421 = product of:
  0.020815263 = sum of:
    0.020815263 = product of:
      0.041630525 = sum of:
        0.041630525 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041630525 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

0.006938421 = product of:
  0.020815263 = sum of:
    0.020815263 = product of:
      0.041630525 = sum of:
        0.041630525 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041630525 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, 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=3211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22

0.006938421 = product of:
  0.020815263 = sum of:
    0.020815263 = product of:
      0.041630525 = sum of:
        0.041630525 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041630525 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

28. 7.2018 10:00:22

0.006779279 = product of:
  0.020337837 = sum of:
    0.020337837 = product of:
      0.040675674 = sum of:
        0.040675674 = weight(_text_:conference in 2123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040675674 = score(doc=2123,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.20947012 = fieldWeight in 2123, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2123)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The quality and impact of academic Web sites is of interest to many audiences, including the scholars who use them and Web educators who need to identify best practice. Several large-scale European Union research projects have been funded to build new indicators for online scientific activity, reflecting recognition of the importance of the Web for scholarly communication. In this paper we address the key question of whether higher rated scholars produce higher impact Web sites, using the United Kingdom as a case study and measuring scholars' quality in terms of university-wide average research ratings. Methodological issues concerning the measurement of the online impact are discussed, leading to the adoption of counts of links to a university's constituent single domain Web sites from an aggregated counting metric. The findings suggest that universities with higher rated scholars produce significantly more Web content but with a similar average online impact. Higher rated scholars therefore attract more total links from their peers, but only by being more prolific, refuting earlier suggestions. It can be surmised that general Web publications are very different from scholarly journal articles and conference papers, for which scholarly quality does associate with citation impact. This has important implications for the construction of new Web indicators, for example that online impact should not be used to assess the quality of small groups of scholars, even within a single discipline.

0.006779279 = product of:
  0.020337837 = sum of:
    0.020337837 = product of:
      0.040675674 = sum of:
        0.040675674 = weight(_text_:conference in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040675674 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.20947012 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We use a new data gathering method, "Web/URL citation," Web/URL and Google Scholar to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, computing, sociology, economics, psychology, and education) based upon a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 open access (OA) journals published in 2001. A Web/URL citation of an online journal article is a Web mention of its title, URL, or both. For each discipline, except psychology, we found significant correlations between Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI, here: ISI) citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations. Google Scholar citations correlated more highly with ISI citations than did Google Web/URL citations, indicating that the Web/URL method measures a broader type of citation phenomenon. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in computer science and the four social science disciplines, suggesting that Google Scholar is more comprehensive for social sciences and perhaps also when conference articles are valued and published online. We also found large disciplinary differences in the percentage overlap between ISI and Google Scholar citation sources. Finally, although we found many significant trends, there were also numerous exceptions, suggesting that replacing traditional citation sources with the Web or Google Scholar for research impact calculations would be problematic.

0.006779279 = product of:
  0.020337837 = sum of:
    0.020337837 = product of:
      0.040675674 = sum of:
        0.040675674 = weight(_text_:conference in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040675674 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.20947012 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In both the social sciences and the humanities, books and monographs play significant roles in research communication. The absence of citations from most books and monographs from the Thomson Reuters/Institute for Scientific Information databases (ISI) has been criticized, but attempts to include citations from or to books in the research evaluation of the social sciences and humanities have not led to widespread adoption. This article assesses whether Google Book Search (GBS) can partially fill this gap by comparing citations from books with citations from journal articles to journal articles in 10 science, social science, and humanities disciplines. Book citations were 31% to 212% of ISI citations and, hence, numerous enough to supplement ISI citations in the social sciences and humanities covered, but not in the sciences (3%-5%), except for computing (46%), due to numerous published conference proceedings. A case study was also made of all 1,923 articles in the 51 information science and library science ISI-indexed journals published in 2003. Within this set, highly book-cited articles tended to receive many ISI citations, indicating a significant relationship between the two types of citation data, but with important exceptions that point to the additional information provided by book citations. In summary, GBS is clearly a valuable new source of citation data for the social sciences and humanities. One practical implication is that book-oriented scholars should consult it for additional citations to their work when applying for promotion and tenure.

0.0057820175 = product of:
  0.017346052 = sum of:
    0.017346052 = product of:
      0.034692105 = sum of:
        0.034692105 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034692105 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.

0.0057820175 = product of:
  0.017346052 = sum of:
    0.017346052 = product of:
      0.034692105 = sum of:
        0.034692105 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034692105 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

6. 4.2012 18:16:22

0.0057820175 = product of:
  0.017346052 = sum of:
    0.017346052 = product of:
      0.034692105 = sum of:
        0.034692105 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034692105 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0057820175 = product of:
  0.017346052 = sum of:
    0.017346052 = product of:
      0.034692105 = sum of:
        0.034692105 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034692105 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0057820175 = product of:
  0.017346052 = sum of:
    0.017346052 = product of:
      0.034692105 = sum of:
        0.034692105 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034692105 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50