-
Rousseau, R.; Zuccala, A.: ¬A classification of author co-citations : definitions and search strategies (2004)
0.05
0.045627873 = sum of:
0.044528976 = product of:
0.1781159 = sum of:
0.1781159 = weight(_text_:author's in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1781159 = score(doc=2266,freq=4.0), product of:
0.33926067 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.05048407 = queryNorm
0.52501196 = fieldWeight in 2266, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2266)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.0010988972 = product of:
0.0032966915 = sum of:
0.0032966915 = weight(_text_:s in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0032966915 = score(doc=2266,freq=2.0), product of:
0.054888178 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05048407 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2266, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2266)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The term author co-citation is defined and classified according to four distinct forms: the pure first-author co-citation, the pure author co-citation, the general author co-citation, and the special co-authorlco-citation. Each form can be used to obtain one count in an author co-citation study, based an a binary counting rule, which either recognizes the co-citedness of two authors in a given reference list (1) or does not (0). Most studies using author co-citations have relied solely an first-author cocitation counts as evidence of an author's oeuvre or body of work contributed to a research field. In this article, we argue that an author's contribution to a selected field of study should not be limited, but should be based an his/her complete list of publications, regardless of author ranking. We discuss the implications associated with using each co-citation form and show where simple first-author co-citations fit within our classification scheme. Examples are given to substantiate each author co-citation form defined in our classification, including a set of sample Dialog(TM) searches using references extracted from the SciSearch database.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.6, S.513-529
-
Zuccala, A.; Someren, M. van; Bellen, M. van: ¬A machine-learning approach to coding book reviews as quality indicators : toward a theory of megacitation (2014)
0.03
0.03258564 = sum of:
0.031486742 = product of:
0.12594697 = sum of:
0.12594697 = weight(_text_:author's in 1530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12594697 = score(doc=1530,freq=2.0), product of:
0.33926067 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.05048407 = queryNorm
0.3712395 = fieldWeight in 1530, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1530)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.0010988972 = product of:
0.0032966915 = sum of:
0.0032966915 = weight(_text_:s in 1530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0032966915 = score(doc=1530,freq=2.0), product of:
0.054888178 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05048407 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1530, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1530)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- A theory of "megacitation" is introduced and used in an experiment to demonstrate how a qualitative scholarly book review can be converted into a weighted bibliometric indicator. We employ a manual human-coding approach to classify book reviews in the field of history based on reviewers' assessments of a book author's scholarly credibility (SC) and writing style (WS). In total, 100 book reviews were selected from the American Historical Review and coded for their positive/negative valence on these two dimensions. Most were coded as positive (68% for SC and 47% for WS), and there was also a small positive correlation between SC and WS (r = 0.2). We then constructed a classifier, combining both manual design and machine learning, to categorize sentiment-based sentences in history book reviews. The machine classifier produced a matched accuracy (matched to the human coding) of approximately 75% for SC and 64% for WS. WS was found to be more difficult to classify by machine than SC because of the reviewers' use of more subtle language. With further training data, a machine-learning approach could be useful for automatically classifying a large number of history book reviews at once. Weighted megacitations can be especially valuable if they are used in conjunction with regular book/journal citations, and "libcitations" (i.e., library holding counts) for a comprehensive assessment of a book/monograph's scholarly impact.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.11, S.2248-2260
-
Zuccala, A.; Breum, M.; Bruun, K.; Wunsch, B.T.: Metric assessments of books as families of works (2018)
0.01
0.012945412 = product of:
0.025890823 = sum of:
0.025890823 = product of:
0.038836233 = sum of:
0.03553954 = weight(_text_:k in 4018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03553954 = score(doc=4018,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18021692 = queryWeight, product of:
3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
0.05048407 = queryNorm
0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 4018, 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=4018)
0.0032966915 = weight(_text_:s in 4018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0032966915 = score(doc=4018,freq=2.0), product of:
0.054888178 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05048407 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4018, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4018)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.146-157
-
Zuccala, A.: Modeling the invisible college (2006)
0.00
7.69228E-4 = product of:
0.001538456 = sum of:
0.001538456 = product of:
0.004615368 = sum of:
0.004615368 = weight(_text_:s in 3350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.004615368 = score(doc=3350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.054888178 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05048407 = queryNorm
0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 3350, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3350)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.2, S.152-168
-
Zuccala, A.: Author cocitation analysis is to intellectual structure as Web colink analysis is to ... ? (2006)
0.00
5.494486E-4 = product of:
0.0010988972 = sum of:
0.0010988972 = product of:
0.0032966915 = sum of:
0.0032966915 = weight(_text_:s in 6008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0032966915 = score(doc=6008,freq=2.0), product of:
0.054888178 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05048407 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 6008, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6008)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.11, S.1487-1502
-
Zuccala, A.; Leeuwen, T.van: Book reviews in humanities research evaluations (2011)
0.00
5.494486E-4 = product of:
0.0010988972 = sum of:
0.0010988972 = product of:
0.0032966915 = sum of:
0.0032966915 = weight(_text_:s in 4771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0032966915 = score(doc=4771,freq=2.0), product of:
0.054888178 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05048407 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4771, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4771)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.10, S.1979-1991
-
Zuccala, A.; Guns, R.; Cornacchia, R.; Bod, R.: Can we rank scholarly book publishers? : a bibliometric experiment with the field of history (2015)
0.00
5.494486E-4 = product of:
0.0010988972 = sum of:
0.0010988972 = product of:
0.0032966915 = sum of:
0.0032966915 = weight(_text_:s in 2037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0032966915 = score(doc=2037,freq=2.0), product of:
0.054888178 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05048407 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2037, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2037)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.7, S.1333-1347
-
Zuccala, A.; Thelwall, M.; Oppenheim, C.; Dhiensa, R.: Web intelligence analyses of digital libraries : a case study of the National electronic Library for Health (NeLH) (2007)
0.00
4.3955885E-4 = product of:
8.791177E-4 = sum of:
8.791177E-4 = product of:
0.002637353 = sum of:
0.002637353 = weight(_text_:s in 838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.002637353 = score(doc=838,freq=2.0), product of:
0.054888178 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.05048407 = queryNorm
0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 838, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=838)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of documentation. 63(2007) no.4, S.558-589