Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.05961582 = product of:
  0.11923164 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=3998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
    0.1106488 = weight(_text_:standards in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1106488 = score(doc=3998,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.49242854 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In this study, reference standards and reference multipliers are suggested as a means to compare the citation impact of earlier research publications in physics (from the period of "Little Science" in the early 20th century) with that of contemporary papers (from the period of "Big Science," beginning around 1960). For the development of time-specific reference standards, the authors determined (a) the mean citation rates of papers in selected physics journals as well as (b) the mean citation rates of all papers in physics published in 1900 (Little Science) and in 2000 (Big Science); this was accomplished by relying on the processes of field-specific standardization in bibliometry. For the sake of developing reference multipliers with which the citation impact of earlier papers can be adjusted to the citation impact of contemporary papers, they combined the reference standards calculated for 1900 and 2000 into their ratio. The use of reference multipliers is demonstrated by means of two examples involving the time adjusted h index values for Max Planck and Albert Einstein.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.10, S.2061-20690

0.020887807 = product of:
  0.041775614 = sum of:
    0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01699316 = score(doc=3329,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
    0.024782453 = product of:
      0.049564905 = sum of:
        0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049564905 = score(doc=3329,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article studies citation practices in the arts and humanities from a theoretical and conceptual viewpoint, drawing on studies from fields like linguistics, history, library & information science, and the sociology of science. The use of references in the humanities is discussed in connection with the growing interest in the possibilities of applying citation analysis to humanistic disciplines. The study shows how the use of references within the humanities is connected to concepts of originality, to intellectual organization, and to searching and writing. Finally, it is acknowledged that the use of references is connected to stylistic, epistemological, and organizational differences, and these differences must be taken into account when applying citation analysis to humanistic disciplines.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.2, S.310-318

0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 1036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=1036,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1036, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1036)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Historically, co-citation models have been based only on bibliographic information. Full-text analysis offers the opportunity to significantly improve the quality of the signals upon which these co-citation models are based. In this work we study the effect of reference proximity on the accuracy of co-citation clusters. Using a corpus of 270,521 full text documents from 2007, we compare the results of traditional co-citation clustering using only the bibliographic information to results from co-citation clustering where proximity between reference pairs is factored into the pairwise relationships. We find that accounting for reference proximity from full text can increase the textual coherence (a measure of accuracy) of a co-citation cluster solution by up to 30% over the traditional approach based on bibliographic information.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.9, S.1759-17676

0.0044597755 = product of:
  0.017839102 = sum of:
    0.017839102 = weight(_text_:information in 1015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017839102 = score(doc=1015,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 1015, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1015)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article provides an overview of studies that have used citation analysis in the field of humanities in the period 1951 to 2010. The work is based on an exhaustive search in databases-particularly those in library and information science-and on citation chaining from papers on citation analysis. The results confirm that use of this technique in the humanities is limited, and although there was some growth in the 1970s and 1980s, it has stagnated in the past 2 decades. Most of the work has been done by research staff, but almost one third involves library staff, and 15% has been done by students. The study also showed that less than one fourth of the works used a citation database such as the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and that 21% of the works were in publications other than library and information science journals. The United States has the greatest output, and English is by far the most frequently used language, and 13.9% of the studies are in other languages.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.8, S.1751-1755

0.0034331365 = product of:
  0.013732546 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 3308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=3308,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3308, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3308)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.1, S.1-12

0.0030344925 = product of:
  0.01213797 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=3335,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Using the Scopus dataset (1996-2007) a grand matrix of aggregated journal-journal citations was constructed. This matrix can be compared in terms of the network structures with the matrix contained in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI). Because the Scopus database contains a larger number of journals and covers the humanities, one would expect richer maps. However, the matrix is in this case sparser than in the case of the ISI data. This is because of (a) the larger number of journals covered by Scopus and (b) the historical record of citations older than 10 years contained in the ISI database. When the data is highly structured, as in the case of large journals, the maps are comparable, although one may have to vary a threshold (because of the differences in densities). In the case of interdisciplinary journals and journals in the social sciences and humanities, the new database does not add a lot to what is possible with the ISI databases.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.2, S.352-369

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 4058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=4058,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4058, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4058)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.3, S.474-482

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 3436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=3436,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3436, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3436)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.4, S.787-801

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=943,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.1076-1080

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 5217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=5217,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5217, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5217)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.5, S.499-508

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.2, S.334-344