Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"White, H.D."
  1. Buzydlowski, J.W.; White, H.D.; Lin, X.: Term Co-occurrence Analysis as an Interface for Digital Libraries (2002) 0.04
    0.036865193 = product of:
      0.07373039 = sum of:
        0.07373039 = product of:
          0.14746077 = sum of:
            0.14746077 = weight(_text_:22 in 1339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.14746077 = score(doc=1339,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052364815 = 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
  2. White, H.D.: Literature retrieval for interdisciplinary syntheses (1996) 0.01
    0.013856115 = product of:
      0.02771223 = sum of:
        0.02771223 = product of:
          0.05542446 = sum of:
            0.05542446 = weight(_text_:library in 7262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05542446 = score(doc=7262,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052364815 = queryNorm
                0.40253976 = fieldWeight in 7262, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7262)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Considers practical ways of performing interdisciplinary searches, particularly onlines searches, for subjects with the aim of retrieving literature outside the main discipline of the search topic. Discusses the use of bibliographic markers of various types and demonstrates DIALOG's RANK command as a means of revealing interdisciplinarity in any field. Considers retrieval techniques for searchers interested in synthesizing work from their own discipline (in the example, library and information science) with work from another disciplines. Discusses creativity, the connection of hitherto unconnected literatures, the retrieval and assessment of syntheses, and the nature of library browsing
    Source
    Library trends. 45(1996) no.2, S.239-264
  3. White, H.D.: Bibliometric overview of information science (2009) 0.01
    0.01131347 = product of:
      0.02262694 = sum of:
        0.02262694 = product of:
          0.04525388 = sum of:
            0.04525388 = weight(_text_:library in 3753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04525388 = score(doc=3753,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052364815 = queryNorm
                0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 3753, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3753)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This entry presents an account of the core concerns of information science through such means as definitional sketches, identification of themes, historical notes, and bibliometric evidence, including a citation-based map of 121 prominent information scientists of the twentieth century. The attempt throughout is to give concrete and pithy descriptions, to provide numerous specific examples, and to take a critical view of certain received language and ideas in library and information science.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  4. White, H.D.: Citation analysis : history (2009) 0.01
    0.0070709186 = product of:
      0.014141837 = sum of:
        0.014141837 = product of:
          0.028283674 = sum of:
            0.028283674 = weight(_text_:library in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.028283674 = score(doc=3763,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052364815 = queryNorm
                0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 3763, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3763)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    References from publications are at the same time citations to other publications. This entry introduces some of the practical uses of citation data in science and scholarship. At the individual level citations identify and permit the retrieval of specific editions of works, while also suggesting their subject matter, authority, and age. Through citation indexes, retrievals may include not only the earlier items referred to by a given work, but also the later items that cite that given work in turn. Some technical notes on retrieval are included here. Counts of citations received over time, and measures derived from them, reveal the varying impacts of works, authors, journals, organizations, and countries. This has obvious implications for the evaluation of, e.g., library collections, academics, research teams, and science policies. When treated as linkages between pairs of publications, references and citations reveal intellectual ties. Several kinds of links have been defined, such as cocitation, bibliographic coupling, and intercitation. In the aggregate, these links form networks that compactly suggest the intellectual histories of research specialties and disciplines, especially when the networks are visualized through mapping software. Citation analysis is of course not without critics, who have long pointed out imperfections in the data or in analytical techniques. However, the criticisms have generally been met by strong counterarguments from proponents.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  5. White, H.D.; Boell, S.K.; Yu, H.; Davis, M.; Wilson, C.S.; Cole, F.T.H.: Libcitations : a measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences (2009) 0.00
    0.0049998946 = product of:
      0.009999789 = sum of:
        0.009999789 = product of:
          0.019999579 = sum of:
            0.019999579 = weight(_text_:library in 2846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019999579 = score(doc=2846,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052364815 = queryNorm
                0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 2846, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2846)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Bibliometric measures for evaluating research units in the book-oriented humanities and social sciences are underdeveloped relative to those available for journal-oriented science and technology. We therefore present a new measure designed for book-oriented fields: the libcitation count. This is a count of the libraries holding a given book, as reported in a national or international union catalog. As librarians decide what to acquire for the audiences they serve, they jointly constitute an instrument for gauging the cultural impact of books. Their decisions are informed by knowledge not only of audiences but also of the book world (e.g., the reputations of authors and the prestige of publishers). From libcitation counts, measures can be derived for comparing research units. Here, we imagine a match-up between the departments of history, philosophy, and political science at the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney in Australia. We chose the 12 books from each department that had the highest libcitation counts in the Libraries Australia union catalog during 2000 to 2006. We present each book's raw libcitation count, its rank within its Library of Congress (LC) class, and its LC-class normalized libcitation score. The latter is patterned on the item-oriented field normalized citation score used in evaluative bibliometrics. Summary statistics based on these measures allow the departments to be compared for cultural impact. Our work has implications for programs such as Excellence in Research for Australia and the Research Assessment Exercise in the United Kingdom. It also has implications for data mining in OCLC's WorldCat.
  6. White, H.D.: Relevance in theory (2009) 0.00
    0.0039999154 = product of:
      0.007999831 = sum of:
        0.007999831 = product of:
          0.015999662 = sum of:
            0.015999662 = weight(_text_:library in 3872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015999662 = score(doc=3872,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052364815 = queryNorm
                0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 3872, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3872)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates