Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Wilson, C.S."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Wilson, C.S.; Tenopir, C.: Local citation analysis, publishing and reading patterns : using multiple methods to evaluate faculty use of an academic library's research collection (2008) 0.00 
    0.0026630638 = product of:
  0.018641446 = sum of:
    0.01445804 = weight(_text_:web in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01445804 = score(doc=1960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
    0.004183407 = weight(_text_:information in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004183407 = score(doc=1960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    This study assessed the intermix of local citation analysis and survey of journal use and reading patterns for evaluating an academic library's research collection. Journal articles and their cited references from faculties at the University of New South Wales were downloaded from the Web of Science (WoS) and journal impact factors from the Journal Citation Reports. The survey of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) academic staff asked both reader-related and reading-related questions. Both methods showed that academics in medicine published more and had more coauthors per paper than academics in the other faculties; however, when correlated with the number of students and academic staff, science published more and engineering published in higher impact journals. When recalled numbers of articles published were compared to actual numbers, all faculties over-estimated their productivity by nearly two-fold. The distribution of cited serial references was highly skewed with over half of the titles cited only once. The survey results corresponded with U.S. university surveys with one exception: Engineering academics reported the highest number of article readings and read mostly for research related activities. Citation analysis data showed that the UNSW library provided the majority of journals in which researchers published and cited, mostly in electronic formats. However, the availability of non-journal cited sources was low. The joint methods provided both confirmatory and contradictory results and proved useful in evaluating library research collections.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1393-1408
  2. Bhavnani, S.K.; Wilson, C.S.: Information scattering (2009) 0.00 
    0.0013229096 = product of:
  0.018520733 = sum of:
    0.018520733 = weight(_text_:information in 3816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018520733 = score(doc=3816,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.42933714 = fieldWeight in 3816, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3816)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    Information scattering is an often observed phenomenon related to information collections where there are a few sources that have many items of relevant information about a topic, while most sources have only a few. This entry discusses the original discovery of the phenomenon, the types of information scattering observed across many different information collections, methods that have been used to analyze the phenomenon, explanations for why and how information scattering occurs, and how these results have informed the design of systems and search strategies. The entry concludes with future challenges related to building computational models to more precisely describe the process of information scatter, and algorithms which help users to gather highly scattered information.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  3. Hood, W.W.; Wilson, C.S.: ¬The relationship of records in multiple databases to their usage or citedness (2005) 0.00 
    4.1834073E-4 = product of:
  0.00585677 = sum of:
    0.00585677 = weight(_text_:information in 3680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00585677 = score(doc=3680,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3680, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3680)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.9, S.1004-1007
  4. Hood, W.W.; Wilson, C.S.: ¬The scatter of documents over databases in different subject domains : how many databases are needed? (2001) 0.00 
    2.988148E-4 = product of:
  0.004183407 = sum of:
    0.004183407 = weight(_text_:information in 6936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004183407 = score(doc=6936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 6936, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6936)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.14, S.1242-1254
  5. Hood, W.W.; Wilson, C.S.: Overlap in bibliographic databases (2003) 0.00 
    2.988148E-4 = product of:
  0.004183407 = sum of:
    0.004183407 = weight(_text_:information in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004183407 = score(doc=1868,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.12, S.1091-1103
  6. 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 
    2.988148E-4 = product of:
  0.004183407 = sum of:
    0.004183407 = weight(_text_:information in 2846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004183407 = score(doc=2846,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2846, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2846)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.6, S.1083-1096

Authors

Themes