Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.009349307 = product of:
  0.03739723 = sum of:
    0.03739723 = product of:
      0.07479446 = sum of:
        0.07479446 = weight(_text_:source in 4474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07479446 = score(doc=4474,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22758624 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045906994 = queryNorm
            0.32864225 = fieldWeight in 4474, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4474)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

There has been much recent interest in extracting information from collections of Web links. One tool that has been used is Ingwersen's Web impact factor. It has been demonstrated that several versions of this metric can produce results that correlate with research ratings of British universities showing that, despite being a measure of a purely Internet phenomenon, the results are susceptible to a wider interpretation. This paper addresses the question of which is the best possible domain to count backlinks from, if research is the focus of interest. WIFs for British universities calculated from several different source domains are compared, primarily the .edu, .ac.uk and .uk domains, and the entire Web. The results show that all four areas produce WIFs that correlate strongly with research ratings, but that none produce incontestably superior figures. It was also found that the WIF was less able to differentiate in more homogeneous subsets of universities, although positive results are still possible.

0.0077910894 = product of:
  0.031164357 = sum of:
    0.031164357 = product of:
      0.062328715 = sum of:
        0.062328715 = weight(_text_:source in 978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062328715 = score(doc=978,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22758624 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045906994 = queryNorm
            0.27386856 = fieldWeight in 978, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=978)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

All known previous Web link studies have used the Web page as the primary indivisible source document for counting purposes. Arguments are presented to explain why this is not necessarily optimal and why other alternatives have the potential to produce better results. This is despite the fact that individual Web files are often the only choice if search engines are used for raw data and are the easiest basic Web unit to identify. The central issue is of defining the Web "document": that which should comprise the single indissoluble unit of coherent material. Three alternative heuristics are defined for the educational arena based upon the directory, the domain and the whole university site. These are then compared by implementing them an a set of 108 UK university institutional Web sites under the assumption that a more effective heuristic will tend to produce results that correlate more highly with institutional research productivity. It was discovered that the domain and directory models were able to successfully reduce the impact of anomalous linking behavior between pairs of Web sites, with the latter being the method of choice. Reasons are then given as to why a document model an its own cannot eliminate all anomalies in Web linking behavior. Finally, the results from all models give a clear confirmation of the very strong association between the research productivity of a UK university and the number of incoming links from its peers' Web sites.

0.0062197642 = product of:
  0.024879057 = sum of:
    0.024879057 = product of:
      0.049758114 = sum of:
        0.049758114 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049758114 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16075848 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045906994 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, 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=77)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22

0.004664823 = product of:
  0.018659292 = sum of:
    0.018659292 = product of:
      0.037318584 = sum of:
        0.037318584 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037318584 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16075848 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045906994 = 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