Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Thelwall, M.: Assessing web search engines : a webometric approach (2011) 0.03 
    0.027100323 = product of:
  0.10840129 = sum of:
    0.10840129 = weight(_text_:engines in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10840129 = score(doc=10,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.47632706 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Information Retrieval (IR) research typically evaluates search systems in terms of the standard precision, recall and F-measures to weight the relative importance of precision and recall (e.g. van Rijsbergen, 1979). All of these assess the extent to which the system returns good matches for a query. In contrast, webometric measures are designed specifically for web search engines and are designed to monitor changes in results over time and various aspects of the internal logic of the way in which search engine select the results to be returned. This chapter introduces a range of webometric measurements and illustrates them with case studies of Google, Bing and Yahoo! This is a very fertile area for simple and complex new investigations into search engine results.
  2. Thelwall, M.: ¬A comparison of link and URL citation counting (2011) 0.02 
    0.022583602 = product of:
  0.09033441 = sum of:
    0.09033441 = weight(_text_:engines in 4533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09033441 = score(doc=4533,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.39693922 = fieldWeight in 4533, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4533)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Link analysis is an established topic within webometrics. It normally uses counts of links between sets of web sites or to sets of web sites. These link counts are derived from web crawlers or commercial search engines with the latter being the only alternative for some investigations. This paper compares link counts with URL citation counts in order to assess whether the latter could be a replacement for the former if the major search engines withdraw their advanced hyperlink search facilities. Design/methodology/approach - URL citation counts are compared with link counts for a variety of data sets used in previous webometric studies. Findings - The results show a high degree of correlation between the two but with URL citations being much less numerous, at least outside academia and business. Research limitations/implications - The results cover a small selection of 15 case studies and so the findings are only indicative. Significant differences between results indicate that the difference between link counts and URL citation counts will vary between webometric studies. Practical implications - Should link searches be withdrawn, then link analyses of less well linked non-academic, non-commercial sites would be seriously weakened, although citations based on e-mail addresses could help to make citations more numerous than links for some business and academic contexts. Originality/value - This is the first systematic study of the difference between link counts and URL citation counts in a variety of contexts and it shows that there are significant differences between the two.
  3. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: ¬A comparison of methods for collecting web citation data for academic organizations (2011) 0.02 
    0.015969018 = product of:
  0.06387607 = sum of:
    0.06387607 = weight(_text_:engines in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06387607 = score(doc=4626,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.2806784 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  4. Thelwall, M.: Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles : an analysis of 45 fields (2016) 0.02 
    0.015949111 = product of:
  0.063796446 = sum of:
    0.063796446 = product of:
      0.12759289 = sum of:
        0.12759289 = weight(_text_:programming in 3055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12759289 = score(doc=3055,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29361802 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5552235 = idf(docFreq=170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.43455404 = fieldWeight in 3055, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5552235 = idf(docFreq=170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3055)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Medical research is highly funded and often expensive and so is particularly important to evaluate effectively. Nevertheless, citation counts may accrue too slowly for use in some formal and informal evaluations. It is therefore important to investigate whether alternative metrics could be used as substitutes. This article assesses whether one such altmetric, Mendeley readership counts, correlates strongly with citation counts across all medical fields, whether the relationship is stronger if student readers are excluded, and whether they are distributed similarly to citation counts. Based on a sample of 332,975 articles from 2009 in 45 medical fields in Scopus, citation counts correlated strongly (about 0.7; 78% of articles had at least one reader) with Mendeley readership counts (from the new version 1 applications programming interface [API]) in almost all fields, with one minor exception, and the correlations tended to decrease slightly when student readers were excluded. Readership followed either a lognormal or a hooked power law distribution, whereas citations always followed a hooked power law, showing that the two may have underlying differences.
  5. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011) 0.00 
    0.0045514684 = product of:
  0.018205874 = sum of:
    0.018205874 = product of:
      0.036411747 = sum of:
        0.036411747 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036411747 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4345, 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=4345)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:27:06
  6. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.00 
    0.0045514684 = product of:
  0.018205874 = sum of:
    0.018205874 = product of:
      0.036411747 = sum of:
        0.036411747 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036411747 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    19. 3.2016 12:22:00
  7. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016) 0.00 
    0.0045514684 = product of:
  0.018205874 = sum of:
    0.018205874 = product of:
      0.036411747 = sum of:
        0.036411747 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036411747 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    16.11.2016 11:07:22
  8. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.00 
    0.0045514684 = product of:
  0.018205874 = sum of:
    0.018205874 = product of:
      0.036411747 = sum of:
        0.036411747 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036411747 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    28. 7.2018 10:00:22
  9. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010) 0.00 
    0.0037928906 = product of:
  0.015171562 = sum of:
    0.015171562 = product of:
      0.030343125 = sum of:
        0.030343125 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030343125 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, 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=4200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:29:23
  10. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012) 0.00 
    0.0037928906 = product of:
  0.015171562 = sum of:
    0.015171562 = product of:
      0.030343125 = sum of:
        0.030343125 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030343125 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    6. 4.2012 18:16:22
  11. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.00 
    0.0037928906 = product of:
  0.015171562 = sum of:
    0.015171562 = product of:
      0.030343125 = sum of:
        0.030343125 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030343125 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  12. Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017) 0.00 
    0.0037928906 = product of:
  0.015171562 = sum of:
    0.015171562 = product of:
      0.030343125 = sum of:
        0.030343125 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030343125 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Authors

Themes