Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.082977876 = product of:
  0.12446681 = sum of:
    0.104796834 = weight(_text_:systematic in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.104796834 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33191046 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05807226 = queryNorm
        0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.019669976 = product of:
      0.039339952 = sum of:
        0.039339952 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039339952 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20335917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50

0.055891644 = product of:
  0.16767493 = sum of:
    0.16767493 = weight(_text_:systematic in 2274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16767493 = score(doc=2274,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33191046 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05807226 = queryNorm
        0.5051812 = fieldWeight in 2274, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2274)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Recently announced subject cataloging practices at the Library of Congress, calling for systematic duplication of entries at specific and generic levels, are in direct violation of the rule of exclusively specific entry, hitherto accepted by LC. It is argued that if the new practices are justified, consistency calls for their general application, which results in abandonment of the rule. But the new practices do not accomplish their ostensible goals, do not reveal more of the content of LC's collections, do introduce new inconveniences, do constitute a pointless enlargement of catalogs, and hence should be abandoned

0.007834411 = product of:
  0.023503233 = sum of:
    0.023503233 = product of:
      0.047006465 = sum of:
        0.047006465 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047006465 = score(doc=1033,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22229293 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 1033, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1033)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Theme

Citation indexing

0.0070488374 = product of:
  0.021146512 = sum of:
    0.021146512 = product of:
      0.06343953 = sum of:
        0.06343953 = weight(_text_:objects in 3648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06343953 = score(doc=3648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3086582 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05807226 = queryNorm
            0.20553327 = fieldWeight in 3648, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3648)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

One knows one is in the presence of "theory" when fundamental questions of a "why" nature are asked. Too often it happens that those involved in the design of bibliographic information systems have no time for brooding. It is thus noteworthy when someone appears an the bibliographic scene who troubles to address, and pursue with philosophic rigor, fundamental questions about the way we organize information. Such a person is Patrick Wilson, formerly philosophy professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and since 1965, an the faculty of the School of Library and Information Studies, University of California, Berkeley. Bibliographic control is the central concept of Wilson's book Two Kinds of Power. It is represented as a kind of power-a power over knowledge. That power is of two kinds: descriptive and exploitive. Descriptive power is the power to retrieve all writings that satisfy some "evaluatively neutral" description, for instance, all writings by Hobbes or all writings an the subject of eternat recurrence. Descriptive power is achieved insofar as the items in our bibliographic universe are fitted with descriptions and these descriptions are syndetically related. Exploitive power is a less-familiar concept, but it is more important since it can be used to explain why we attempt to order our bibliographic universe in the first place. Exploitive power is the power to obtain the best textual means to an end. Unlike the concept of descriptive power, that of exploitive power has a normative aspect to it. Someone possessing such power would understand the goal of all bibliographic activity; that is, he would understand the diversity of user purposes and the relativity of what is valuable; he would be omniscient both as a bibliographer and as a psychologist. Since exploitive power is ever out of reach, descriptive power is used as a substitute or approximation for it. How adequate this approximation is is the subject of Wilson's book. The particular chapter excerpted in this volume deals with the adequacy of subject access methods. Cutter's statement that one of the objects of a library catalog is to show what the library has an a given subject is generally accepted, as though it were obvious what "being an a given subject" means. It is far from obvious. Wilson challenges the underlying presumption that for any document a heading can be found that is coextensive with its subject. This presumption implies that there is such a thing as the (singular) subject of a document and that it can be identified. But, as Wilson Shows in his elaborate explication, the notion of "subject" is essentially indeterminate, with the consequence that we are limited in our attempts to achieve either descriptive or exploitive power.