Search (93 results, page 5 of 5)

0.0077285287 = product of:
  0.015457057 = sum of:
    0.015457057 = product of:
      0.030914115 = sum of:
        0.030914115 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030914115 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15980367 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045634337 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.

0.0077285287 = product of:
  0.015457057 = sum of:
    0.015457057 = product of:
      0.030914115 = sum of:
        0.030914115 = weight(_text_:22 in 3011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030914115 = score(doc=3011,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15980367 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045634337 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3011, 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=3011)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2009 11:05:56

0.0077285287 = product of:
  0.015457057 = sum of:
    0.015457057 = product of:
      0.030914115 = sum of:
        0.030914115 = weight(_text_:22 in 34) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030914115 = score(doc=34,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15980367 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045634337 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 34, 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=34)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

12.11.2020 13:22:09

0.0076358644 = product of:
  0.015271729 = sum of:
    0.015271729 = product of:
      0.030543458 = sum of:
        0.030543458 = weight(_text_:j in 86) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030543458 = score(doc=86,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14500295 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045634337 = queryNorm
            0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 86, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=86)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.00636322 = product of:
  0.01272644 = sum of:
    0.01272644 = product of:
      0.02545288 = sum of:
        0.02545288 = weight(_text_:j in 1135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02545288 = score(doc=1135,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14500295 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045634337 = queryNorm
            0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 1135, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1135)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.00636322 = product of:
  0.01272644 = sum of:
    0.01272644 = product of:
      0.02545288 = sum of:
        0.02545288 = weight(_text_:j in 3094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02545288 = score(doc=3094,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14500295 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045634337 = queryNorm
            0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 3094, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3094)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.00636322 = product of:
  0.01272644 = sum of:
    0.01272644 = product of:
      0.02545288 = sum of:
        0.02545288 = weight(_text_:j in 4916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02545288 = score(doc=4916,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14500295 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045634337 = queryNorm
            0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 4916, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4916)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.00636322 = product of:
  0.01272644 = sum of:
    0.01272644 = product of:
      0.02545288 = sum of:
        0.02545288 = weight(_text_:j in 369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02545288 = score(doc=369,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14500295 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045634337 = queryNorm
            0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 369, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=369)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.006182823 = product of:
  0.012365646 = sum of:
    0.012365646 = product of:
      0.024731291 = sum of:
        0.024731291 = weight(_text_:22 in 2182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024731291 = score(doc=2182,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15980367 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045634337 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2182, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2182)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: c't 2002, H.23, S.229 (T.J. Schult): "Mac-Anwender hatten bisher keine große Auswahl bei Multimedia-Enzyklopädien: entweder ein grottenschlechtes Kosmos Kompaktwissen, das dieses Jahr letztmalig erscheinen soll und sich dabei als Systhema Universallexikon tarnt. Oder ein Brockhaus in Text und Bild mit exzellenten Texten, aber flauer Medienausstattung. Die von Acclaim in Deutschland vertriebenen Britannica-Enzyklopädien stellen eine ausgezeichnete Alternative für den des Englischen Kundigen dar. Während früher nur Einfach-Britannicas auf dem Mac liefen, gilt dies nun für alle drei Versionen Student, Deluxe und Ultimate Reference Suite. Die Suite enthält dabei nicht nur alle 75 000 Artikel der 32 Britannica-Bände, sondern auch die 15 000 der Student Encyclopaedia, eines eigenen Schülerlexikons, das durch sein einfaches Englisch gerade für Nicht-Muttersprachler als Einstieg taugt. Wer es noch elementarer haben möchte, klickt sich zur Britannica Elementary Encyclopaedia, welche unter der gleichen Oberfläche wie die anderen Werke zugänglich ist. Schließlich umfasst die Suite einen Weltatlas sowie einsprachige Wörterbücher und Thesauri von Merriam-Webster in der Collegiate- und Student-Ausbaustufe mit allein 555 000 Definitionen, Synonymen und Antonymen. Wer viel in englischer Sprache recherchiert oder gar schreibt, leckt sich angesichts dieses Angebots (EUR 99,95) die Finger, zumal die Printausgabe gut 1600 Euro kostet. Die Texte sind einfach kolossal - allein das Inhaltsverzeichnis des Artikels Germany füllt sieben Bildschirmseiten. Schon die Inhalte aus den BritannicaBänden bieten mehr als doppelt so viel Text wie die rund tausend Euro kostende Brockhaus Enzyklopädie digital (c't 22/02, S. 38). Allein die 220 000 thematisch einsortierten Web-Links sind das Geld wert. Wer die 2,4 Gigabyte belegende Komplettinstallation wählt, muss sogar nie mehr die DVD (alternativ vier CD-ROMs) einlegen. Dieses Jahr muss sich niemand mehr mit dem Britannica-typischen Kuddelmuddel aus Lexikonartikeln und vielen, vielen Jahrbüchern herumschlagen - außer dem Basistext der drei Enzyklopädien sind 'nur' die zwei Jahrbücher 2001 und 2002 getrennt aufgeführt. Wer des Englischen mächtig ist, mag hier die gute Gelegenheit zum Kauf nutzen."

0.006182823 = product of:
  0.012365646 = sum of:
    0.012365646 = product of:
      0.024731291 = sum of:
        0.024731291 = weight(_text_:22 in 2010) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024731291 = score(doc=2010,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15980367 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045634337 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2010, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2010)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Wikipedia (the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit) is having a huge impact on how a great many people gather information about the world. So, it is important for epistemologists and information scientists to ask whether people are likely to acquire knowledge as a result of having access to this information source. In other words, is Wikipedia having good epistemic consequences? After surveying the various concerns that have been raised about the reliability of Wikipedia, this article argues that the epistemic consequences of people using Wikipedia as a source of information are likely to be quite good. According to several empirical studies, the reliability of Wikipedia compares favorably to the reliability of traditional encyclopedias. Furthermore, the reliability of Wikipedia compares even more favorably to the reliability of those information sources that people would be likely to use if Wikipedia did not exist (viz., Web sites that are as freely and easily accessible as Wikipedia). In addition, Wikipedia has a number of other epistemic virtues (e.g., power, speed, and fecundity) that arguably outweigh any deficiency in terms of reliability. Even so, epistemologists and information scientists should certainly be trying to identify changes (or alternatives) to Wikipedia that will bring about even better epistemic consequences. This article suggests that to improve Wikipedia, we need to clarify what our epistemic values are and to better understand why Wikipedia works as well as it does. Somebody who reads Wikipedia is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom, says Mr. McHenry, Britannica's former editor. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him. One wonders whether people like Mr. McHenry would prefer there to be no public lavatories at all. The Economist (Vol. 379, April 22, 2006, pp. 14-15)

0.005090576 = product of:
  0.010181152 = sum of:
    0.010181152 = product of:
      0.020362305 = sum of:
        0.020362305 = weight(_text_:j in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020362305 = score(doc=5906,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14500295 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045634337 = queryNorm
            0.14042683 = fieldWeight in 5906, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Enthält u.a. die folgenden Beiträge: RIESENHUBER, H.: Am Ende steht das Wort: Kultur und Technik als Verbündete - ein Plädoyer; STEIDEL, M.: Von Bindestrich-Informatik bis Chaostheorie (Hüthig); HEMPELMANN, G.: Laudatio für das Arbeitsbuch (Markt & Technik); GÖTZ, B.: Voll daneben: sind Computerbücher noch immer anwendergerecht?; SCHOLZ, H.-W.: Das Buch lernt sprechen, singen und tanzen (Langenscheidt); STUMPF, P.: Der Laptop als Gourmet-Führer (Rossipaul); BURNELEIT, H.-D.: Wer zu früh kommt, den bestraft der Markt (C.H. Beck); KEMP, A. de: Erzfeind oder Kumpel: das ist nicht die Frage (Springer); SCHOLZ, I.: Alles digital (Elektronisches Publizieren); MERTENS, E.: Wichtig ist die Einführung beim Kunden (Olms); SCHRÖDER, M.: Database publishing; GRUNDMANN, U.: Champagner von der CD (EMS/Econ); PRIBILLA, P.: Any to any (Siemens); HEKER, H.: Rechtsfragen der elektronischen Textkommunikation; PLENZ, R.: Verlegen mit Äpfeln und Quark (DTP); PLENZ, R.: Typographische Qualifikation entscheidet (DTP); LIEDER, R.: Cover mit der Maus (Sybex); STYRNOL, H.: Kompetenz schlägt heiße Nadel; KAETZ, R.: Akzente mit Butterfly (Laden-Präsentation); RINKA, M.: Flankierende Maßnahmen Zeitschriften; ZEBOLD, P.: Tools für den Verkauf (Zeitschriften); STEINBECK, P.: Lose-Disketten-Werk; STEINHAUS, I.: Man trägt Diskette; BORISCH, M.: Kompetenter Partner auch für fun und action; KESSLER, C.: Schneller schlau (Wissenssoftware, MSPI); KRAPP, S.: Computer am Dienstag (CAD), Chaos am Mittwoch (CAM), oder: wieviel EDV braucht der Azubi?; STEINBRINK, B.: Multimedia: Standards für die Verlagswelt (Markt & Technik); MONDEL, N.: Der Krieg der Systeme findet nicht statt (Tewi); FERCHL, I.: Online in den Markt (Springer); FERCHL, I.: Nicht hurtig, HÜthig; BLAHACEK, R.: Alle Stückerln (Erb-Verl.); MENZEL, M.: Porsche oder Goggo (Rossipaul); MENZEL, M.: Sharebären und MS-Dosen (Systhema); MENZEL, M.: Populär, aber nicht platt (Tewi); MENZEL, M.: Von Funk zu Fuzzy (Franzis); GRUNDMANN, U.: Aktive Lebenshilfe: und das möglichst preisgünstig (Data-Becker); GRUNDMANN, U.: Die roten Dreiecke bleiben sich treu (Addison-Wesley); GRUNDMANN, U.: Große Bücher für wenig Geld (BHV); GRUNDMANN, U.: ... nämlich ein Dos-Buch genauso zu vermarkten wie 'Scarlet' (Sybex); MENZEL, M.: Langsam einsickern (dtv/Beck); SCHMITZ, A.: Le style c'est l'homme (Rowohlt); SCHINZEL, W.H.: CD-ROM: eine Erfolgsstory; QUEISSER, M.: Kataloge auf der Silberscheibe; SOMMERFELD, B.: Ran an Eunet; LESSMAN, F. u. H. KELLER: Online mit KNO; ZAAG, J.: Vorreiter (KNO); SCHÖDER, M.: Arno Schmidts anderer Zettelkasten (Relationale Datenbanken); WIESNER, M.: One world of informations: OSI und EDI; WEIGEL, F.: Intermezzo mit X12, Libe für EDI (Harrassowitz);

0.005090576 = product of:
  0.010181152 = sum of:
    0.010181152 = product of:
      0.020362305 = sum of:
        0.020362305 = weight(_text_:j in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020362305 = score(doc=3611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14500295 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045634337 = queryNorm
            0.14042683 = fieldWeight in 3611, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3611)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.002545288 = product of:
  0.005090576 = sum of:
    0.005090576 = product of:
      0.010181152 = sum of:
        0.010181152 = weight(_text_:j in 3993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010181152 = score(doc=3993,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14500295 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045634337 = queryNorm
            0.070213415 = fieldWeight in 3993, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3993)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)