Search (155 results, page 2 of 8)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Nicolaisen, J.: ¬The J-shaped distribution of citedness (2002) 0.00 
    0.00395732 = product of:
  0.01187196 = sum of:
    0.01187196 = weight(_text_:a in 3765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01187196 = score(doc=3765,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 3765, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3765)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    A new approach for investigating the correlation between research quality and citation counts is presented and applied to a case study of the relationship between peer evaluations reflected in scholarly book reviews and the citation frequencies of reviewed books. Results of the study designate a J-shaped distribution between the considered variables, presumably caused by a skewed allocation of negative citations. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research.
    Type
    a
  2. Kostoff, R.N.: ¬The use and misuse of citation analysis in research evaluation (1998) 0.00 
    0.00395732 = product of:
  0.01187196 = sum of:
    0.01187196 = weight(_text_:a in 4129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01187196 = score(doc=4129,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 4129, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4129)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Leydesdorff, in his 1998 paper 'Theories of citation?', addresses the history of citations and citation analysis, and the transformation of a reference mechanism into a purportedly quantitative measure of research impact/quality. Examines different facets of citations and citation analysis, and discusses the validity of citation analysis as a useful measure of research impact/quality
    Footnote
    Contribution to a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'
    Type
    a
  3. Magri, M.; Solari, A.: ¬The SCI Journal Citation Reports : a potential tool for studying journals? (1996) 0.00 
    0.003793148 = product of:
  0.011379444 = sum of:
    0.011379444 = weight(_text_:a in 5076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011379444 = score(doc=5076,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 5076, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5076)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Analyses 6 indicators of the Science Citation Index Journals Citation Reports over a 19 year period: number of total citations, number of citations to the previous 2 years, number of source items, impact factor, immediacy index and cited half life. Proposes a box plot method to aggregate the values of each indicator so as to obtain at a glance portrayals of the JCR population from 1974 to 1993. This 'rereading' of the JCR, which presents the JCR product differently, makes it possible to shed new light on the large sub population of journals not at the top of the rankings
    Type
    a
  4. Larsen, B.: Exploiting citation overlaps for information retrieval : generating a boomerang effect from the network of scientific papers (2002) 0.00 
    0.003754243 = product of:
  0.011262729 = sum of:
    0.011262729 = weight(_text_:a in 4175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011262729 = score(doc=4175,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 4175, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4175)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Type
    a
  5. Leydesdorff, L.; Salah, A.A.A.: Maps on the basis of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index : the journals Leonardo and Art Journal versus "digital humanities" as a topic (2010) 0.00 
    0.003754243 = product of:
  0.011262729 = sum of:
    0.011262729 = weight(_text_:a in 3436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011262729 = score(doc=3436,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 3436, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3436)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The possibilities of using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) for journal mapping have not been sufficiently recognized because of the absence of a Journal Citations Report (JCR) for this database. A quasi-JCR for the A&HCI ([2008]) was constructed from the data contained in the Web of Science and is used for the evaluation of two journals as examples: Leonardo and Art Journal. The maps on the basis of the aggregated journal-journal citations within this domain can be compared with maps including references to journals in the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. Art journals are cited by (social) science journals more than by other art journals, but these journals draw upon one another in terms of their own references. This cultural impact in terms of being cited is not found when documents with a topic such as digital humanities are analyzed. This community of practice functions more as an intellectual organizer than a journal.
    Type
    a
  6. Schulz-DuBois, E.O.: Arbeiten deutscher Wissenschaftler, die weltweit am häufigsten zitiert wurden (1984) 0.00 
    0.0035395343 = product of:
  0.010618603 = sum of:
    0.010618603 = weight(_text_:a in 359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010618603 = score(doc=359,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 359, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=359)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Type
    a
  7. Small, H.; Sweeney, E.: Clustering the Science Citation Index using co-citations (1985) 0.00 
    0.0035395343 = product of:
  0.010618603 = sum of:
    0.010618603 = weight(_text_:a in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010618603 = score(doc=1064,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Type
    a
  8. Cozzens, S.E.: What do citations count? : the rhetoric-first model (1989) 0.00 
    0.0035395343 = product of:
  0.010618603 = sum of:
    0.010618603 = weight(_text_:a in 2828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010618603 = score(doc=2828,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 2828, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2828)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Type
    a
  9. Bensman, S.J.: Garfield and the impact factors (2007) 0.00 
    0.0035395343 = product of:
  0.010618603 = sum of:
    0.010618603 = weight(_text_:a in 4680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010618603 = score(doc=4680,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 4680, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4680)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Type
    a
  10. Alvarez, P.; Pulgarin, A.: ¬The Rasch model : measuring the impact of scientific journals: analytical chemistry (1996) 0.00 
    0.0035395343 = product of:
  0.010618603 = sum of:
    0.010618603 = weight(_text_:a in 8505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010618603 = score(doc=8505,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 8505, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8505)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Focuses on a way to determine a ranking of science journals according to the number of citations-to and items-published data used by Science Citation Insitute of Citation Reports of the Institute for Science Information to determine journal ranking by impact factor. Applies latent traits theory to bibliometrics
    Type
    a
  11. Kostoff, R.N.: Citation analysis cross field normalization : a new paradigm (1997) 0.00 
    0.0035395343 = product of:
  0.010618603 = sum of:
    0.010618603 = weight(_text_:a in 464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010618603 = score(doc=464,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 464, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=464)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Proposes a new paradigm for comparing quality of published papers across different disciplines. This method uses a figure of merit of the ratio of actual citations received to the potential maximum number of citations that could have been received. It is analogous to approaches used to compare performance in physical systems, and appears intrinsically more useful than present approaches
    Type
    a
  12. Cronin, B.: Metatheorizing citation (1998) 0.00 
    0.0035395343 = product of:
  0.010618603 = sum of:
    0.010618603 = weight(_text_:a in 5127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010618603 = score(doc=5127,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 5127, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5127)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Reviews a variety of perspectives on citation. Argues that citations have multiple articulations in that they inform our understanding of the sociocultural, cognitive, and textual aspects of scientific communication. Proposes 2 metatheoretical frameworks as a means of negotiating the interpretative differences which characterize the various discourse communities concerned with citation theory and practice
    Footnote
    Contribution to a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'
    Type
    a
  13. MacRoberts, M.H.; MacRoberts, B.R.: Problems of citation analysis : a study of uncited and seldom-cited influences (2010) 0.00 
    0.0035395343 = product of:
  0.010618603 = sum of:
    0.010618603 = weight(_text_:a in 3308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010618603 = score(doc=3308,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 3308, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3308)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    To determine influences on the production of a scientific article, the content of the article must be studied. We examined articles in biogeography and found that most of the influence is not cited, specific types of articles that are influential are cited while other types of that also are influential are not cited, and work that is uncited and seldom cited is used extensively. As a result, evaluative citation analysis should take uncited work into account.
    Type
    a
  14. Moed, H.F.; Bruin, R.E.D.; Leeuwen, T.N.V.: New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance : database description, overview of indicators and first applications (1995) 0.00 
    0.0035117732 = product of:
  0.010535319 = sum of:
    0.010535319 = weight(_text_:a in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010535319 = score(doc=3376,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Gives an outline of a new bibliometric database based upon all articles published by authors from the Netherlands and processed during 1980-1993 by ISI for the SCI, SSCI and AHCI. Describes various types of information added to the database: data on articles citing the Dutch publications; detailed citation data on ISI journals and subfields; and a classification system of the main publishing organizations. Also gives an overview of the types of bibliometric indicators constructed. and discusses their relationship to indicators developed by other researchers in the field. Gives 2 applications to illustrate the potentials of the database and of the bibliometric indicators derived from it: one that represents a synthesis of 'classical' macro indicator studies on the one hand and bibliometric analyses of research groups on the other; and a second that gives for the first time a detailed analysis of a country's publications per institutional sector
    Type
    a
  15. Száva-Kováts, E.: Indirect-collective referencing (ICR) : life course, nature, and importance of a special kind of science referencing (1999) 0.00 
    0.0035117732 = product of:
  0.010535319 = sum of:
    0.010535319 = weight(_text_:a in 4298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010535319 = score(doc=4298,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 4298, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4298)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Indirect collective referencing (ICR) is a special kind of indirect referencing, in an act making reference to all references cited in a directly cited paper. In this research the literature phenomenon of ICR is defined in the narrowest sense, taking into account only its indisputable minimum. To reveal the life course of this phenomenon, a longitudinal section was taken in the representative elite general physics journal, The Physical Review, processing more than 4.200 journal papers from 1897 to 1997 and their close to 84.00 formal references. This investigation showed that the ICR phenomenon has existed in the journal for a century now; that the frequency and intensity of the phenomenon have been constantly increasing in both absolute and relative terms since the last, mature period of the Little Science age; and that this growth has accelerated in the publication explosion of the Big Science age. It was shown that the Citation Indexes show only a fraction of the really cited references in the journal
    Type
    a
  16. Chen, C.; Cribbin, T.; Macredie, R.; Morar, S.: Visualizing and tracking the growth of competing paradigms : two case studies (2002) 0.00 
    0.0035117732 = product of:
  0.010535319 = sum of:
    0.010535319 = weight(_text_:a in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010535319 = score(doc=602,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 602, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=602)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    In this article we demonstrate the use of an integrative approach to visualizing and tracking the development of scientific paradigms. This approach is designed to reveal the long-term process of competing scientific paradigms. We assume that a cluster of highly cited and cocited scientific publications in a cocitation network represents the core of a predominant scientific paradigm. The growth of a paradigm is depicted and animated through the rise of citation rates and the movement of its core cluster towards the center of the cocitation network. We study two cases of competing scientific paradigms in the real world: (1) the causes of mass extinctions, and (2) the connections between mad cow disease and a new variant of a brain disease in humans-vCJD. Various theoretical and practical issues concerning this approach are discussed.
    Type
    a
  17. Frandsen, T.F.; Rousseau, R.: Article impact calculated over arbitrary periods (2005) 0.00 
    0.0035117732 = product of:
  0.010535319 = sum of:
    0.010535319 = weight(_text_:a in 3264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010535319 = score(doc=3264,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 3264, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3264)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    In this paper we address the various formulations of impact of articles, usually groups of articles as gauged by citations that these articles receive over a certain period of time. The journal impact factor, as published by ISI (Philadelphia, PA), is the best-known example of a formulation of impact of journals (considered as a set of articles) but many others have been defined in the literature. Impact factors have varying publication and citation periods and the chosen length of these periods enables, e.g., a distinction between synchronous and diachronous impact factors. It is shown how an impact factor for the general case can be defined. Two alternatives for a general impact factor are proposed, depending an whether different publication years are seen as a whole, and hence treating each one of them differently, or by operating with citation periods of identical length but allowing each publication period different starting points.
    Type
    a
  18. Nederhof, A.J.; Visser, M.S.: Quantitative deconstruction of citation impact indicators : waxing field impact but waning journal impact (2004) 0.00 
    0.0035117732 = product of:
  0.010535319 = sum of:
    0.010535319 = weight(_text_:a in 4419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010535319 = score(doc=4419,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 4419, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4419)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    In two case studies of research units, reference values used to benchmark research performance appeared to show contradictory results: the average citation level in the subfields (FCSm) increased world-wide, while the citation level of the journals (JCSm) decreased, where concomitant changes were expected. Explanations were sought in: a shift in preference of document types; a change in publication preference for subfields; and changes in journal coverage. Publishing in newly covered journals with a low impact had a negative effect on impact ratios. However, the main factor behind the increase in FCSm was the distribution of articles across the five-year block periods that were studied. Publication in lower impact journals produced a lagging JCSm. Actual values of JCSm, FCSm, and citations per publication (CPP) values are not very informative either about research performance, or about the development of impact over time in a certain subfield with block indicators. Normalized citation impact indicators are free from such effects and should be consulted primarily in research performance assessments.
    Type
    a
  19. Sidiropoulos, A.; Manolopoulos, Y.: ¬A new perspective to automatically rank scientific conferences using digital libraries (2005) 0.00 
    0.0035117732 = product of:
  0.010535319 = sum of:
    0.010535319 = weight(_text_:a in 1011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010535319 = score(doc=1011,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 1011, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1011)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Citation analysis is performed in order to evaluate authors and scientific collections, such as journals and conference proceedings. Currently, two major systems exist that perform citation analysis: Science Citation Index (SCI) by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and CiteSeer by the NEC Research Institute. The SCI, mostly a manual system up until recently, is based on the notion of the ISI Impact Factor, which has been used extensively for citation analysis purposes. On the other hand the CiteSeer system is an automatically built digital library using agents technology, also based on the notion of ISI Impact Factor. In this paper, we investigate new alternative notions besides the ISI impact factor, in order to provide a novel approach aiming at ranking scientific collections. Furthermore, we present a web-based system that has been built by extracting data from the Databases and Logic Programming (DBLP) website of the University of Trier. Our system, by using the new citation metrics, emerges as a useful tool for ranking scientific collections. In this respect, some first remarks are presented, e.g. on ranking conferences related to databases.
    Type
    a
  20. Zhao, D.; Strotmann, A.: Can citation analysis of Web publications better detect research fronts? (2007) 0.00 
    0.0034978096 = product of:
  0.010493428 = sum of:
    0.010493428 = weight(_text_:a in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010493428 = score(doc=471,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 471, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=471)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    We present evidence that in some research fields, research published in journals and reported on the Web may collectively represent different evolutionary stages of the field, with journals lagging a few years behind the Web on average, and that a "two-tier" scholarly communication system may therefore be evolving. We conclude that in such fields, (a) for detecting current research fronts, author co-citation analyses (ACA) using articles published on the Web as a data source can outperform traditional ACAs using articles published in journals as data, and that (b) as a result, it is important to use multiple data sources in citation analysis studies of scholarly communication for a complete picture of communication patterns. Our evidence stems from comparing the respective intellectual structures of the XML research field, a subfield of computer science, as revealed from three sets of ACA covering two time periods: (a) from the field's beginnings in 1996 to 2001, and (b) from 2001 to 2006. For the first time period, we analyze research articles both from journals as indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) and from the Web as indexed by CiteSeer. We follow up by an ACA of SCI data for the second time period. We find that most trends in the evolution of this field from the first to the second time period that we find when comparing ACA results from the SCI between the two time periods already were apparent in the ACA results from CiteSeer during the first time period.
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 137
  • d 17
  • chi 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 153
  • el 2
  • m 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications