Search (447 results, page 1 of 23)

0.090481505 = product of:
  0.18096301 = sum of:
    0.18096301 = sum of:
      0.14688411 = weight(_text_:500 in 661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14688411 = score(doc=661,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050306078 = queryNorm
          0.47760868 = fieldWeight in 661, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=661)
      0.034078896 = weight(_text_:22 in 661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034078896 = score(doc=661,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17616332 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050306078 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 661, 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=661)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Explicit definition of the limits of citation analysis demands additional tests for the validity of citation analysis. The stability of citation rankings over time can be regarded as confirming the validity of evaluative citation analysis. This stability over time was investigated for two sets of citation records from the Web of Science (Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia, PA) for articles published in journals classified in Journal Citation Reports as Mathematics. These sets are of all such articles for the 1960s and for the 1970s. This study employs only descriptive statistics and draws no inferences to any larger population. The study found a high correlation from one decade to the next of rankings among sets of most highly cited articles. However, the study found a low correlation for rankings among articles whose ranks were the 500 directly below those of the 500 most cited. This perhaps expected result is discussed in terms of the Glänzel-Schubert-Schoepflin stochastic model for citation processes and also in connection with an account of the purposes of evaluative citation analysis. This interpretative context suggests why the limitations of citation analysis may be inherent to citation analysis even when it is done well.

Date

22. 3.2013 19:23:35

0.08276498 = product of:
  0.16552997 = sum of:
    0.16552997 = sum of:
      0.124635294 = weight(_text_:500 in 1464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.124635294 = score(doc=1464,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050306078 = queryNorm
          0.40526438 = fieldWeight in 1464, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1464)
      0.040894672 = weight(_text_:22 in 1464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040894672 = score(doc=1464,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17616332 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050306078 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1464, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1464)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.493-500

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.06897083 = product of:
  0.13794166 = sum of:
    0.13794166 = sum of:
      0.103862755 = weight(_text_:500 in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.103862755 = score(doc=664,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050306078 = queryNorm
          0.33772033 = fieldWeight in 664, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=664)
      0.034078896 = weight(_text_:22 in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034078896 = score(doc=664,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17616332 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050306078 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 664, 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=664)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2013 19:34:49

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.3, S.500-515

0.062317647 = product of:
  0.124635294 = sum of:
    0.124635294 = product of:
      0.24927059 = sum of:
        0.24927059 = weight(_text_:500 in 1279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24927059 = score(doc=1279,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.81052876 = fieldWeight in 1279, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1279)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.051931378 = product of:
  0.103862755 = sum of:
    0.103862755 = product of:
      0.20772551 = sum of:
        0.20772551 = weight(_text_:500 in 4118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20772551 = score(doc=4118,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.67544067 = fieldWeight in 4118, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4118)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23972/full. Vgl. das Erratum in JASIST 69(2018) no.3, S.500.

0.05140944 = product of:
  0.10281888 = sum of:
    0.10281888 = product of:
      0.20563775 = sum of:
        0.20563775 = weight(_text_:500 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20563775 = score(doc=4463,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.6686521 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The goal of this article is to explore the manifestation of culture in the design of English-language and Chinese-language corporate websites, using Hofstede's dimensions of culture. Data were gathered from the 2010 Global 500 list published by Fortune magazine. Only multinational corporations that have both English-language and Chinese-language websites were analyzed (N=223). The results indicate that the Chinese-language and English-language websites differ significantly in 4 out of Hofstede's 5 cultural dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, and long-term and short-term dimensions. Cultural differences are indeed reflected in the website designs of the Global 500 corporations, though not exactly in the direction predicted by Hofstede's model.

0.05140944 = product of:
  0.10281888 = sum of:
    0.10281888 = product of:
      0.20563775 = sum of:
        0.20563775 = weight(_text_:500 in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20563775 = score(doc=4647,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.6686521 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2018-6-500.

Source

Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.6, S.500-516

0.0415451 = product of:
  0.0830902 = sum of:
    0.0830902 = product of:
      0.1661804 = sum of:
        0.1661804 = weight(_text_:500 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1661804 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.5403525 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The S-shaped functional relation between the mean citation score and the proportion of top 10% publications for the 500 Leiden Ranking universities is explained using results of the shifted Lotka function. Also the concave or convex relation between the proportion of top 100?% publications, for different fractions ?, is explained using the obtained new informetric model.

0.0415451 = product of:
  0.0830902 = sum of:
    0.0830902 = product of:
      0.1661804 = sum of:
        0.1661804 = weight(_text_:500 in 4793) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1661804 = score(doc=4793,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.5403525 = fieldWeight in 4793, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4793)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.490-500

0.039949693 = product of:
  0.079899386 = sum of:
    0.079899386 = product of:
      0.23969816 = sum of:
        0.23969816 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23969816 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4264955 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.03672103 = product of:
  0.07344206 = sum of:
    0.07344206 = product of:
      0.14688411 = sum of:
        0.14688411 = weight(_text_:500 in 3152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14688411 = score(doc=3152,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.47760868 = fieldWeight in 3152, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We investigate the citation distributions of the 500 universities in the 2013 edition of the Leiden Ranking produced by The Centre for Science and Technological Studies. We use a Web of Science data set consisting of 3.6 million articles published in 2003 to 2008 and classified into 5,119 clusters. The main findings are the following. First, the universality claim, according to which all university-citation distributions, appropriately normalized, follow a single functional form, is not supported by the data. Second, the 500 university citation distributions are all highly skewed and very similar. Broadly speaking, university citation distributions appear to behave as if they differ by a relatively constant scale factor over a large, intermediate part of their support. Third, citation-impact differences between universities account for 3.85% of overall citation inequality. This percentage is greatly reduced when university citation distributions are normalized using their mean normalized citation scores (MNCSs) as normalization factors. Finally, regarding practical consequences, we only need a single explanatory model for the type of high skewness characterizing all university citation distributions, and the similarity of university citation distributions goes a long way in explaining the similarity of the university rankings obtained with the MNCS and the Top 10% indicator.

0.036351964 = product of:
  0.07270393 = sum of:
    0.07270393 = product of:
      0.14540786 = sum of:
        0.14540786 = weight(_text_:500 in 5150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14540786 = score(doc=5150,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.47280845 = fieldWeight in 5150, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5150)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article investigates the error rates in shelf-ready cataloged monographs from Ingram Coutts Information Services that were received at The University of Western Ontario. Using quality control reports from a period of two years, over 500 cataloging errors were entered into a database organized by frequency, severity, and other factors. With this information, we analyzed the frequency of errors and their root causes. We found that overall error rates are low, and the quality of shelf-ready cataloging has improved since first implementing the outsourcing program.

0.031158824 = product of:
  0.062317647 = sum of:
    0.062317647 = product of:
      0.124635294 = sum of:
        0.124635294 = weight(_text_:500 in 4360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.124635294 = score(doc=4360,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.40526438 = fieldWeight in 4360, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Sentiment analysis is a challenging new task related to text mining and natural language processing. Although there are, at present, several studies related to this theme, most of these focus mainly on English texts. The resources available for opinion mining (OM) in other languages are still limited. In this article, we present a new Arabic corpus for the OM task that has been made available to the scientific community for research purposes. The corpus contains 500 movie reviews collected from different web pages and blogs in Arabic, 250 of them considered as positive reviews, and the other 250 as negative opinions. Furthermore, different experiments have been carried out on this corpus, using machine learning algorithms such as support vector machines and Nave Bayes. The results obtained are very promising and we are encouraged to continue this line of research.

0.031158824 = product of:
  0.062317647 = sum of:
    0.062317647 = product of:
      0.124635294 = sum of:
        0.124635294 = weight(_text_:500 in 1762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.124635294 = score(doc=1762,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.40526438 = fieldWeight in 1762, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1762)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of documentation. 69(2013) no.4, S.500-506

0.031158824 = product of:
  0.062317647 = sum of:
    0.062317647 = product of:
      0.124635294 = sum of:
        0.124635294 = weight(_text_:500 in 3703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.124635294 = score(doc=3703,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.40526438 = fieldWeight in 3703, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3703)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of documentation. 73(2017) no.3, S.500-508

0.025965689 = product of:
  0.051931378 = sum of:
    0.051931378 = product of:
      0.103862755 = sum of:
        0.103862755 = weight(_text_:500 in 514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.103862755 = score(doc=514,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.33772033 = fieldWeight in 514, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=514)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 is a ranking of universities based on bibliometric indicators of publication output, citation impact, and scientific collaboration. The ranking includes 500 major universities from 41 different countries. This paper provides an extensive discussion of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012. The ranking is compared with other global university rankings, in particular the Academic Ranking of World Universities (commonly known as the Shanghai Ranking) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. The comparison focuses on the methodological choices underlying the different rankings. Also, a detailed description is offered of the data collection methodology of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 and of the indicators used in the ranking. Various innovations in the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 are presented. These innovations include (1) an indicator based on counting a university's highly cited publications, (2) indicators based on fractional rather than full counting of collaborative publications, (3) the possibility of excluding non-English language publications, and (4) the use of stability intervals. Finally, some comments are made on the interpretation of the ranking and a number of limitations of the ranking are pointed out.

0.025965689 = product of:
  0.051931378 = sum of:
    0.051931378 = product of:
      0.103862755 = sum of:
        0.103862755 = weight(_text_:500 in 1215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.103862755 = score(doc=1215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.33772033 = fieldWeight in 1215, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.3, S.483-500

0.025965689 = product of:
  0.051931378 = sum of:
    0.051931378 = product of:
      0.103862755 = sum of:
        0.103862755 = weight(_text_:500 in 1663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.103862755 = score(doc=1663,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.33772033 = fieldWeight in 1663, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1663)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.3, S.489-500

0.025965689 = product of:
  0.051931378 = sum of:
    0.051931378 = product of:
      0.103862755 = sum of:
        0.103862755 = weight(_text_:500 in 1761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.103862755 = score(doc=1761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.33772033 = fieldWeight in 1761, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl. auch: Budd, J.M.: A reply to Lingard. In: Journal of documentation. 69(2013) no.4, S.500-506.

0.025965689 = product of:
  0.051931378 = sum of:
    0.051931378 = product of:
      0.103862755 = sum of:
        0.103862755 = weight(_text_:500 in 2037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.103862755 = score(doc=2037,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.33772033 = fieldWeight in 2037, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2037)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is a publisher ranking study based on a citation data grant from Elsevier, specifically, book titles cited in Scopus history journals (2007-2011) and matching metadata from WorldCat® (i.e., OCLC numbers, ISBN codes, publisher records, and library holding counts). Using both resources, we have created a unique relational database designed to compare citation counts to books with international library holdings or libcitations for scholarly book publishers. First, we construct a ranking of the top 500 publishers and explore descriptive statistics at the level of publisher type (university, commercial, other) and country of origin. We then identify the top 50 university presses and commercial houses based on total citations and mean citations per book (CPB). In a third analysis, we present a map of directed citation links between journals and book publishers. American and British presses/publishing houses tend to dominate the work of library collection managers and citing scholars; however, a number of specialist publishers from Europe are included. Distinct clusters from the directed citation map indicate a certain degree of regionalism and subject specialization, where some journals produced in languages other than English tend to cite books published by the same parent press. Bibliometric rankings convey only a small part of how the actual structure of the publishing field has evolved; hence, challenges lie ahead for developers of new citation indices for books and bibliometricians interested in measuring book and publisher impacts.