Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.048351478 = sum of:
  0.029973017 = product of:
    0.11989207 = sum of:
      0.11989207 = weight(_text_:authors in 4370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11989207 = score(doc=4370,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 4370, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4370)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01837846 = product of:
    0.03675692 = sum of:
      0.03675692 = weight(_text_:k in 4370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03675692 = score(doc=4370,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 4370, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4370)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper proposes a methodology which discriminates the articles by the target authors ("true" articles) from those by other homonymous authors ("false" articles). Author name searches for 2,595 "source" authors in six subject fields retrieved about 629,000 articles. In order to extract true articles from the large amount of the retrieved articles, including many false ones, two filtering stages were applied. At the first stage any retrieved article was eliminated as false if either its affiliation addresses had little similarity to those of its source article or there was no citation relationship between the journal of the retrieved article and that of its source article. At the second stage, a sample of retrieved articles was subjected to manual judgment, and utilizing the judgment results, discrimination functions based on logistic regression were defined. These discrimination functions demonstrated both the recall ratio and the precision of about 95% and the accuracy (correct answer ratio) of 90-95%. Existence of common coauthor(s), address similarity, title words similarity, and interjournal citation relationships between the retrieved and source articles were found to be the effective discrimination predictors. Whether or not the source author was from a specific country was also one of the important predictors. Furthermore, it was shown that a retrieved article is almost certainly true if it was cited by, or cocited with, its source article. The method proposed in this study would be effective when dealing with a large number of articles whose subject fields and affiliation addresses vary widely.

0.047185194 = sum of:
  0.021194125 = product of:
    0.0847765 = sum of:
      0.0847765 = weight(_text_:authors in 5123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0847765 = score(doc=5123,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 5123, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5123)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02599107 = product of:
    0.05198214 = sum of:
      0.05198214 = weight(_text_:k in 5123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05198214 = score(doc=5123,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.2788889 = fieldWeight in 5123, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5123)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Studies of the concentration of author productivity based upon counts of papers by individual authors will produce measures that change systematically with sample size. Yoshikane, Kageura, and Tsuji seek a statistical framework which will avoid this scale effect problem. Using the number of authors in a field as an absolute concentration measure, and Gini's index as a relative concentration measure, they describe four literatures form both viewpoints with measures insensitive to one another. Both measures will increase with sample size. They then plot profiles of the two measures on the basis of a Monte-Carlo simulation of 1000 trials for 20 equally spaced intervals and compare the characteristics of the literatures. Using data from conferences hosted by four academic societies between 1992 and 1997, they find a coefficient of loss exceeding 0.15 indicating measures will depend highly on sample size. The simulation shows that a larger sample size leads to lower absolute concentration and higher relative concentration. Comparisons made at the same sample size present quite different results than the original data and allow direct comparison of population characteristics.

0.012978698 = product of:
  0.025957396 = sum of:
    0.025957396 = product of:
      0.103829585 = sum of:
        0.103829585 = weight(_text_:authors in 1727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.103829585 = score(doc=1727,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 1727, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1727)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study examines whether there are some general trends across subject fields regarding the factors affecting the number of citations of articles, focusing especially on those factors that are not directly related to the quality or content of articles (extrinsic factors). For this purpose, from 6 selected subject fields (condensed matter physics, inorganic and nuclear chemistry, electric and electronic engineering, biochemistry and molecular biology, physiology, and gastroenterology), original articles published in the same year were sampled (n?=?230-240 for each field). Then, the citation counts received by the articles in relatively long citation windows (6 and 11 years after publication) were predicted by negative binomial multiple regression (NBMR) analysis for each field. Various article features about author collaboration, cited references, visibility, authors' achievements (measured by past publications and citedness), and publishing journals were considered as the explanatory variables of NBMR. Some generality across the fields was found with regard to the selected predicting factors and the degree of significance of these predictors. The Price index was the strongest predictor of citations, and number of references was the next. The effects of number of authors and authors' achievement measures were rather weak.