Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Thelwall, M."
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events (2011) 0.03
    0.031905405 = product of:
      0.06381081 = sum of:
        0.06381081 = sum of:
          0.021194918 = weight(_text_:2 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.021194918 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05242341 = queryNorm
              0.16371232 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
          0.04261589 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04261589 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05242341 = 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)
    
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:27:06
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.406-418
  2. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.; Cai, D.; Kappas, A.: Sentiment strength detection in short informal text (2010) 0.03
    0.026587836 = product of:
      0.053175673 = sum of:
        0.053175673 = sum of:
          0.017662432 = weight(_text_:2 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.017662432 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05242341 = queryNorm
              0.13642694 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
          0.03551324 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03551324 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05242341 = 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)
    
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:29:23
    Footnote
    Vgl. auch das Erratum in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.419
  3. Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017) 0.03
    0.026587836 = product of:
      0.053175673 = sum of:
        0.053175673 = sum of:
          0.017662432 = weight(_text_:2 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.017662432 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05242341 = queryNorm
              0.13642694 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
          0.03551324 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03551324 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05242341 = 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)
    
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.2, S.174-183
  4. Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.01
    0.010653973 = product of:
      0.021307945 = sum of:
        0.021307945 = product of:
          0.04261589 = sum of:
            0.04261589 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04261589 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05242341 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    19. 3.2016 12:22:00
  5. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016) 0.01
    0.010653973 = product of:
      0.021307945 = sum of:
        0.021307945 = product of:
          0.04261589 = sum of:
            0.04261589 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04261589 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05242341 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    16.11.2016 11:07:22
  6. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.01
    0.010653973 = product of:
      0.021307945 = sum of:
        0.021307945 = product of:
          0.04261589 = sum of:
            0.04261589 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04261589 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05242341 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    28. 7.2018 10:00:22
  7. Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012) 0.01
    0.00887831 = product of:
      0.01775662 = sum of:
        0.01775662 = product of:
          0.03551324 = sum of:
            0.03551324 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03551324 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05242341 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    6. 4.2012 18:16:22
  8. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.01
    0.00887831 = product of:
      0.01775662 = sum of:
        0.01775662 = product of:
          0.03551324 = sum of:
            0.03551324 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03551324 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05242341 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  9. Thelwall, M.; Wilkinson, D.: Public dialogs in social network sites : What is their purpose? (2010) 0.01
    0.0052987295 = product of:
      0.010597459 = sum of:
        0.010597459 = product of:
          0.021194918 = sum of:
            0.021194918 = weight(_text_:2 in 3327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.021194918 = score(doc=3327,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05242341 = queryNorm
                0.16371232 = fieldWeight in 3327, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3327)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.2, S.392-404
  10. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.: Topic-based sentiment analysis for the social web : the role of mood and issue-related words (2013) 0.01
    0.0052987295 = product of:
      0.010597459 = sum of:
        0.010597459 = product of:
          0.021194918 = sum of:
            0.021194918 = weight(_text_:2 in 1004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.021194918 = score(doc=1004,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05242341 = queryNorm
                0.16371232 = fieldWeight in 1004, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1004)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    General sentiment analysis for the social web has become increasingly useful for shedding light on the role of emotion in online communication and offline events in both academic research and data journalism. Nevertheless, existing general-purpose social web sentiment analysis algorithms may not be optimal for texts focussed around specific topics. This article introduces 2 new methods, mood setting and lexicon extension, to improve the accuracy of topic-specific lexical sentiment strength detection for the social web. Mood setting allows the topic mood to determine the default polarity for ostensibly neutral expressive text. Topic-specific lexicon extension involves adding topic-specific words to the default general sentiment lexicon. Experiments with 8 data sets show that both methods can improve sentiment analysis performance in corpora and are recommended when the topic focus is tightest.
  11. Wilkinson, D.; Thelwall, M.: Social network site changes over time : the case of MySpace (2010) 0.00
    0.004415608 = product of:
      0.008831216 = sum of:
        0.008831216 = product of:
          0.017662432 = sum of:
            0.017662432 = weight(_text_:2 in 4106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017662432 = score(doc=4106,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05242341 = queryNorm
                0.13642694 = fieldWeight in 4106, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4106)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The uptake of social network sites (SNSs) has been highly trend-driven, with Friendster, MySpace, and Facebook being successively the most popular. Given that teens are often early adopters of communication technologies, it seems reasonable to assume that the typical user of any particular SNS would change over time, probably becoming older and covering different segments of the population. This article analyzes changes in MySpace self-reported member demographics and behavior from 2007 to 2010 using four large samples of members and focusing on the United States. The results indicate that despite its take-up rate declining, with only about 1 in 10 members being active a year after joining, the dominant (modal) age for active U.S. members remains midadolescence, but has shifted by about 2 years from 15 to 17, and the U.S. dominance of MySpace is shrinking. There also has been a dramatic increase in the median number of Friends for new U.S. members, from 12 to 96-probably due to MySpace's automated Friend Finder. Some factors show little change, however, including the female majority, the 5% minority gay membership, and the approximately 50% private profiles. In addition, there has been an increase in the proportion of Latino/Hispanic U.S. members, suggesting a shifting ethnic profile. Overall, MySpace has surprisingly stable membership demographics and is apparently maintaining its primary youth appeal, perhaps because of its music orientation.
  12. Thelwall, M.; Buckley, K.; Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment strength detection for the social web (2012) 0.00
    0.004415608 = product of:
      0.008831216 = sum of:
        0.008831216 = product of:
          0.017662432 = sum of:
            0.017662432 = weight(_text_:2 in 4972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017662432 = score(doc=4972,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05242341 = queryNorm
                0.13642694 = fieldWeight in 4972, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4972)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Sentiment analysis is concerned with the automatic extraction of sentiment-related information from text. Although most sentiment analysis addresses commercial tasks, such as extracting opinions from product reviews, there is increasing interest in the affective dimension of the social web, and Twitter in particular. Most sentiment analysis algorithms are not ideally suited to this task because they exploit indirect indicators of sentiment that can reflect genre or topic instead. Hence, such algorithms used to process social web texts can identify spurious sentiment patterns caused by topics rather than affective phenomena. This article assesses an improved version of the algorithm SentiStrength for sentiment strength detection across the social web that primarily uses direct indications of sentiment. The results from six diverse social web data sets (MySpace, Twitter, YouTube, Digg, Runners World, BBC Forums) indicate that SentiStrength 2 is successful in the sense of performing better than a baseline approach for all data sets in both supervised and unsupervised cases. SentiStrength is not always better than machine-learning approaches that exploit indirect indicators of sentiment, however, and is particularly weaker for positive sentiment in news-related discussions. Overall, the results suggest that, even unsupervised, SentiStrength is robust enough to be applied to a wide variety of different social web contexts.
  13. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: ¬An automatic method for extracting citations from Google Books (2015) 0.00
    0.004415608 = product of:
      0.008831216 = sum of:
        0.008831216 = product of:
          0.017662432 = sum of:
            0.017662432 = weight(_text_:2 in 1658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017662432 = score(doc=1658,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05242341 = queryNorm
                0.13642694 = fieldWeight in 1658, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1658)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.2, S.309-320
  14. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ResearchGate articles : age, discipline, audience size, and impact (2017) 0.00
    0.004415608 = product of:
      0.008831216 = sum of:
        0.008831216 = product of:
          0.017662432 = sum of:
            0.017662432 = weight(_text_:2 in 3349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017662432 = score(doc=3349,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05242341 = queryNorm
                0.13642694 = fieldWeight in 3349, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3349)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.2, S.468-479