Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.039222304 = product of:
  0.07844461 = sum of:
    0.07844461 = product of:
      0.15688922 = sum of:
        0.15688922 = weight(_text_:v in 7742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15688922 = score(doc=7742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24291293 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04986484 = queryNorm
            0.64586604 = fieldWeight in 7742, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

V,310 S

0.03510519 = product of:
  0.07021038 = sum of:
    0.07021038 = product of:
      0.14042076 = sum of:
        0.14042076 = weight(_text_:22 in 1339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14042076 = score(doc=1339,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17461817 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04986484 = queryNorm
            0.804159 = fieldWeight in 1339, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2003 17:25:39
22. 2.2003 18:16:22

0.021547083 = product of:
  0.043094166 = sum of:
    0.043094166 = product of:
      0.17237666 = sum of:
        0.17237666 = weight(_text_:author's in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17237666 = score(doc=5581,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.33509937 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04986484 = queryNorm
            0.5144046 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study explores the tendency of authors to recite themselves and others in multiple works over time, using the insights gained to build citation theory. The set of all authors whom an author cites is defined as that author's citation identity. The study explains how to retrieve citation identities from the Institute for Scientific Information's files on Dialog and how to deal with idiosyncrasies of these files. As the author's oeuvre grows, the identity takes the form of a core-and-scatter distribution that may be divided into authors cited only once (unicitations) and authors cited at least twice (recitations). The latter group, especially those recited most frequently, are interpretable as symbols of a citer's main substantive concerns. As illustrated by the top recitees of eight information scientists, identities are intelligible, individualized, and wide-ranging. They are ego-centered without being egotistical. They are often affected by social ties between citers and citees, but the universal motivator seems to be the perceived relevance of the citees' works. Citing styles in identities differ: "scientific-paper style" authors recite heavily, adding to core; "bibliographic-essay style" authors are heavy on unicitations, adding to scatter; "literature-review style" authors do both at once. Identities distill aspects of citers' intellectual lives, such as orienting figures, interdisciplinary interests, bidisciplinary careers, and conduct in controversies. They can also be related to past schemes for classifying citations in categories such as positive-negative and perfunctory- organic; indeed, one author's frequent recitation of another, whether positive or negative, may be the readiest indicator of an organic relation between them. The shape of the core-and-scatter distribution of names in identities can be explained by the principle of least effort. Citers economize on effort by frequently reciting only a relatively small core of names in their identities. They also economize by frequent use of perfunctory citations, which require relatively little context, and infrequent use of negative citations, which require contexts more laborious to set

0.016342627 = product of:
  0.032685254 = sum of:
    0.032685254 = product of:
      0.06537051 = sum of:
        0.06537051 = weight(_text_:v in 5099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06537051 = score(doc=5099,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24291293 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04986484 = queryNorm
            0.26911086 = fieldWeight in 5099, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5099)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article extends relevance theory (RT) from linguistic pragmatics into information retrieval. Using more than 50 retrieval experiments from the literature as examples, it applies RT to explain the frequency distributions of documents on relevance scales with three or more points. The scale points, which judges in experiments must consider in addition to queries and documents, are communications from researchers. In RT, the relevance of a communication varies directly with its cognitive effects and inversely with the effort of processing it. Researchers define and/or label the scale points to measure the cognitive effects of documents on judges. However, they apparently assume that all scale points as presented are equally easy for judges to process. Yet the notion that points cost variable effort explains fairly well the frequency distributions of judgments across them. By hypothesis, points that cost more effort are chosen by judges less frequently. Effort varies with the vagueness or strictness of scale-point labels and definitions. It is shown that vague scales tend to produce U- or V-shaped distributions, while strict scales tend to produce right-skewed distributions. These results reinforce the paper's more general argument that RT clarifies the concept of relevance in the dialogues of retrieval evaluation.