Search (488 results, page 2 of 25)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Xiong, C.: Knowledge based text representations for information retrieval (2016) 0.03 
    0.026633129 = product of:
  0.053266257 = sum of:
    0.053266257 = product of:
      0.15979877 = sum of:
        0.15979877 = weight(_text_:3a in 5820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15979877 = score(doc=5820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4264955 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 5820, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5820)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Language and Information Technologies. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.cmu.edu%2F~cx%2Fpapers%2Fknowledge_based_text_representation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0SaTSvhWLTh__Uz_HtOtl3.
  2. Waltman, L.; Calero-Medina, C.; Kosten, J.; Noyons, E.C.M.; Tijssen, R.J.W.; Eck, N.J. van; Leeuwen, T.N. van; Raan, A.F.J. van; Visser, M.S.; Wouters, P.: ¬The Leiden ranking 2011/2012 : data collection, indicators, and interpretation (2012) 0.03 
    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.
  3. Lu, K.; Kipp, M.E.I.: Understanding the retrieval effectiveness of collaborative tags and author keywords in different retrieval environments : an experimental study on medical collections (2014) 0.03 
    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
  4. Colliander, C.: ¬A novel approach to citation normalization : a similarity-based method for creating reference sets (2015) 0.03 
    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
  5. Lingard, R.G.: Information, truth and meaning : a response to Budd's prolegomena (2013) 0.03 
    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.
  6. Zuccala, A.; Guns, R.; Cornacchia, R.; Bod, R.: Can we rank scholarly book publishers? : a bibliometric experiment with the field of history (2015) 0.03 
    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.
  7. Gorrell, G.; Bontcheva, K.: Classifying Twitter favorites : Like, bookmark, or Thanks? (2016) 0.03 
    0.025965689 = product of:
  0.051931378 = sum of:
    0.051931378 = product of:
      0.103862755 = sum of:
        0.103862755 = weight(_text_:500 in 2487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.103862755 = score(doc=2487,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.33772033 = fieldWeight in 2487, 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=2487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Since its foundation in 2006, Twitter has enjoyed a meteoric rise in popularity, currently boasting over 500 million users. Its short text nature means that the service is open to a variety of different usage patterns, which have evolved rapidly in terms of user base and utilization. Prior work has categorized Twitter users, as well as studied the use of lists and re-tweets and how these can be used to infer user profiles and interests. The focus of this article is on studying why and how Twitter users mark tweets as "favorites"-a functionality with currently poorly understood usage, but strong relevance for personalization and information access applications. Firstly, manual analysis and classification are carried out on a randomly chosen set of favorited tweets, which reveal different approaches to using this functionality (i.e., bookmarks, thanks, like, conversational, and self-promotion). Secondly, an automatic favorites classification approach is proposed, based on the categories established in the previous step. Our machine learning experiments demonstrate a high degree of success in matching human judgments in classifying favorites according to usage type. In conclusion, we discuss the purposes to which these data could be put, in the context of identifying users' patterns of interests.
  8. Sweller, J.; Ayres, P.; Kalyuga, S.: Cognitive load theory (2011) 0.03 
    0.025965689 = product of:
  0.051931378 = sum of:
    0.051931378 = product of:
      0.103862755 = sum of:
        0.103862755 = weight(_text_:500 in 3784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.103862755 = score(doc=3784,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.33772033 = fieldWeight in 3784, 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=3784)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Series
    Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies ; 500
  9. Perianes-Rodriguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: ¬The impact of classification systems in the evaluation of the research performance of the Leiden Ranking universities (2018) 0.03 
    0.025965689 = product of:
  0.051931378 = sum of:
    0.051931378 = product of:
      0.103862755 = sum of:
        0.103862755 = weight(_text_:500 in 4374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.103862755 = score(doc=4374,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.33772033 = fieldWeight in 4374, 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=4374)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this article, we investigate the consequences of choosing different classification systems-namely, the way publications (or journals) are assigned to scientific fields-for the ranking of research units. We study the impact of this choice on the ranking of 500 universities in the 2013 edition of the Leiden Ranking in two cases. First, we compare a Web of Science (WoS) journal-level classification system, consisting of 236 subject categories, and a publication-level algorithmically constructed system, denoted G8, consisting of 5,119 clusters. The result is that the consequences of the move from the WoS to the G8 system using the Top 1% citation impact indicator are much greater than the consequences of this move using the Top 10% indicator. Second, we compare the G8 classification system and a publication-level alternative of the same family, the G6 system, consisting of 1,363 clusters. The result is that, although less important than in the previous case, the consequences of the move from the G6 to the G8 system under the Top 1% indicator are still of a large order of magnitude.
  10. Cronin, B.: Thinking about data (2013) 0.02 
    0.023855226 = product of:
  0.047710452 = sum of:
    0.047710452 = product of:
      0.095420904 = sum of:
        0.095420904 = weight(_text_:22 in 4347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095420904 = score(doc=4347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17616332 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4347, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2013 16:18:36
  11. Grudin, J.: Human-computer interaction (2011) 0.02 
    0.023855226 = product of:
  0.047710452 = sum of:
    0.047710452 = product of:
      0.095420904 = sum of:
        0.095420904 = weight(_text_:22 in 1601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095420904 = score(doc=1601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17616332 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1601, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    27.12.2014 18:54:22
  12. Chowdhury, G.G.: Introduction to modern information retrieval (2010) 0.02 
    0.02077255 = product of:
  0.0415451 = sum of:
    0.0415451 = product of:
      0.0830902 = sum of:
        0.0830902 = weight(_text_:500 in 4903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0830902 = score(doc=4903,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3075407 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.27017626 = fieldWeight in 4903, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4903)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: iwp 62(2011) H.8, S.398-400 (A.R. Brellochs): " ... An der faktisch gegebenen Positionierung als Textbuch für Information Retrieval, einigen Themenfeldern der Informationsvermittlung und des Bibliothekswesens ist zwar grundsätzlich nichts auszusetzen. Leider führt aber die Vielzahl der behandelten Themen dazu, dass trotz des Umfangs von gut 500 Seiten manche für das IR wichtige Themen nur sehr knapp abgehandelt wurden. Diese thematische Überbreite macht den Band leider als generelle Einführung für Leser ohne fachlichen Hintergrund in Informations- oder Bibliothekswissenschaft ungeeignet, denn für diese ist ein großer Teil des Buches nicht ausreichend verständlich.
  13. Williamson, N.J.: Classification issues in 2011 : report (2012) 0.02 
    0.020447336 = product of:
  0.040894672 = sum of:
    0.040894672 = product of:
      0.081789345 = sum of:
        0.081789345 = weight(_text_:22 in 6224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081789345 = score(doc=6224,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17616332 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6224, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6224)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2012 13:17:00
  14. Cronin, B.: ¬The writing on the wall (2015) 0.02 
    0.020447336 = product of:
  0.040894672 = sum of:
    0.040894672 = product of:
      0.081789345 = sum of:
        0.081789345 = weight(_text_:22 in 7297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081789345 = score(doc=7297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17616332 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 7297, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    26. 4.2015 19:27:22
  15. Xiao, G.: ¬A knowledge classification model based on the relationship between science and human needs (2013) 0.02 
    0.020447336 = product of:
  0.040894672 = sum of:
    0.040894672 = product of:
      0.081789345 = sum of:
        0.081789345 = weight(_text_:22 in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081789345 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17616332 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 2.2013 12:36:34
  16. Szostak, R.: Speaking truth to power in classification : response to Fox's review of my work; KO 39:4, 300 (2013) 0.02 
    0.020447336 = product of:
  0.040894672 = sum of:
    0.040894672 = product of:
      0.081789345 = sum of:
        0.081789345 = weight(_text_:22 in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081789345 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17616332 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 591, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=591)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 2.2013 12:35:05
  17. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.02 
    0.020447336 = product of:
  0.040894672 = sum of:
    0.040894672 = product of:
      0.081789345 = sum of:
        0.081789345 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081789345 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17616332 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
  18. Sauperl, S.A.: UDC as a standardisation method for providing titles of documents (2015) 0.02 
    0.020447336 = product of:
  0.040894672 = sum of:
    0.040894672 = product of:
      0.081789345 = sum of:
        0.081789345 = weight(_text_:22 in 2302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081789345 = score(doc=2302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17616332 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2302, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    10.11.2015 10:22:31
  19. Castro, A. de: Mental models may fail when faced with self-referential descriptors (2016) 0.02 
    0.020447336 = product of:
  0.040894672 = sum of:
    0.040894672 = product of:
      0.081789345 = sum of:
        0.081789345 = weight(_text_:22 in 2485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081789345 = score(doc=2485,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17616332 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2485, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2485)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:45:01
  20. Shaw, R.; Golden, P.; Buckland, M.: Using linked library data in working research notes (2015) 0.02 
    0.020447336 = product of:
  0.040894672 = sum of:
    0.040894672 = product of:
      0.081789345 = sum of:
        0.081789345 = weight(_text_:22 in 2555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081789345 = score(doc=2555,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17616332 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050306078 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2555, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2555)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    15. 1.2016 19:22:28

Authors

Types

  • a 447
  • m 30
  • el 14
  • s 12
  • x 5
  • b 4
  • i 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications