Search (122 results, page 2 of 7)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Göbel, S.: Aspekte der Mathematikliteratur : Untersuchungen in verschiedenen Datenbanken (1997) 0.00 
    0.0016775922 = product of:
  0.025163881 = sum of:
    0.025163881 = weight(_text_:und in 2166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025163881 = score(doc=2166,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.39180204 = fieldWeight in 2166, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2166)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Literaturdatenbanken wurden eigentlich mit zwei Zielen aufgebaut: einerseits Fachliteratur zu archivieren und zu dokumentieren und andererseits die Literaturhinweise den Wissenschaftlern für Recherchen zur Verfügung zu stellen. Aus diesen gespeicherten Datenmengen kann man baer auch allgemeine Erkenntnisse über die Literatur eines Fachgebietes und das Verhalten der Forscher gewinnen. Vor allem seit den sechziger Jahren, seit dem Aufbau des Science Citation Index - in dem man auch nach zitierten Arbeiten suchen kann - gibt es eine Fülle von informationswisenschaftlichen und wissenssoziologischen Untersuchungen mit Datenbanken
  2. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.00 
    0.0014190577 = product of:
  0.021285865 = sum of:
    0.021285865 = sum of:
      0.0055813594 = weight(_text_:information in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0055813594 = score(doc=5171,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.015704507 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015704507 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, 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=5171)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.6, S.549-568
  3. Stock, W.G.: Forschung im internationalen Vergleich - Wissenschaftsindikatoren auf Zitationsbasis : ISI Essential Science Indicators (2002) 0.00 
    0.0011722532 = product of:
  0.017583797 = sum of:
    0.017583797 = weight(_text_:und in 474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017583797 = score(doc=474,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.27378 = fieldWeight in 474, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=474)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Bewertung wissenschaftlicher Forschungsergebnisse aus einer elektronischen Datenbank heraus? Rangordnungen der wichtigsten Institutionen, Wissenschaftler, Zeitschriften und sogar Länder in Fachdisziplinen nach Einfluss? Markierung "heißer", hochaktueller Artikel? Auflisten der hochzitierten Forschungsfronten in den einzelnen Wissenschaftsdisziplinen? Und das alles auf Knopfdruck und nicht mittels umständlicher szientometrischer Verfahren? Geht so etwas überhaupt? Es geht. Mit den "Essential Science Indicators" (ESI) legt das ISl ein webbasiertes Informationssystem zur Wissenschaftsevaluation vor, das einzigartige Ergebnisse präsentiert und in der Tat ausgesprochen einfach zu bedienen ist. Aber es geht, verglichen mit ausgeklügelten Methoden der empirischen Wissenschaftsforschung, nicht alles. Wo liegen die Grenzen des Systems? Wir werden die Arbeitsweise der ESI, seine Datenbasis, die eingesetzten informetrischen Algorithmen - und deren methodischen Probleme, die Suchoberfläche sowie die Ergebnisdarstellung skizzieren. Als Beispiel dienen uns Aspekte deutscher Forschung. Etwa: In welcher Disziplin haben Deutschlands Forscher den größten internationalen Einfluss? Welches deutsche Institut der Neurowissenschaften kann aufglobaler Ebene mitmischen? Oder: Welcher in Deutschland tätige Wissenschaftler führt eine disziplinspezifische Rangordnung an?Letztlich: Wer braucht die "Essential Science Indicators"? - Wir testeten die Essential Science Indicators Mitte Februar 2002 anhand der Version vom 1. Januar 2002, die das Zehn-Jahres-Intervall 1991 bis 2000 sowie die ersten zehn Monate aus 2001 berücksichtigt.
  4. Zitatenanalyse und verwandte Verfahren : Vorträge einer öffentlichen Sitzung während der 32. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Dokumentation, Oktober 1979 (1980) 0.00 
    0.0010484952 = product of:
  0.015727427 = sum of:
    0.015727427 = weight(_text_:und in 417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015727427 = score(doc=417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=417)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
  5. Czepel, R.: ¬Die Geographie der wissenschaftlichen Zitierung (2003) 0.00 
    9.378026E-4 = product of:
  0.014067038 = sum of:
    0.014067038 = weight(_text_:und in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014067038 = score(doc=2273,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.219024 = fieldWeight in 2273, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2273)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Ein britischer Forscher hat sich die Mühe gemacht, die geografischen Muster der Zitierungen von 1981 bis zur Gegenwart freizulegen. Das Ergebnis: Die publizistische Wahrnehmung ist in der Wissenschaft äußerst ungleich verteilt. Die USA dominieren mit großem Abstand vor dem Rest der WeIt. Und auch dort konzentrieren sich die Verweise auf einige wenige Ballungsräume der Forschung. Michael Batty vom Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis in London bediente sich für seine Analyse der Datenbank "ISIHighlyCited.com" (http: //www.isihighlycited.com/), in der Forscher aus verschiedenen Disziplinen aufgelistet werden, die die weltweit meisten Zitate auf sich gezogen haben. In diesen Ranglisten nehmen die akademischen Edelschmieden aus den USA etwa jene Rolle ein, die Österreichische Athleten im Alpinschisport besetzen. Einzig der Forschungsraum London kann mit der Konkurrenz aus Übersee halbwegs mithalten. Der Artikel "Citation Geography: It's About Location" von Michael Batty erschien im Magazin "The Scientist" (Band 17, Heft 16/10, Ausgabe vom 25.8.03; http://www.thescientist.com/yr2003/aug/opinion 030825.html). Die Zeitschrift ist nach individueller Registrierung frei zugänglich. Der Homepage des Autors http: //www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/citations/ können weitere Details entnommen werden. Ob die Anzahl derZitate auch etwas über die wissenschaftliche Qualität aussagt, ist genau so Gegenstand von Diskussionen, wie dies etwa bei den "Impact-Faktoren" von Journalen der Fall ist (vgl. "Kann wissenschaftliche Qualität gemessen werden?", http://science.orf.at/science/news/58648). Ganz wertfrei kann man die ISI-Daten jedenfalls dazu verwenden, um herauszufinden, in welchem Land, in welcher Stadt und in welcher Institution die meist zitierten Forscher dieses Erdballs sitzen. Das Ergebnis dieser von Michael Batty erstellten "Geografie derwissenschaftlichen Zitierung" ist eindeutig: Einige Wenige ziehen den Großteil der publizistischen Aufmerksamkeit auf sich - und lassen für den Rest nur wenig über. Diese Aussage gilt gleichermaßen für Ranglisten von Städten, Institutionen und Ländern. Und: In allen drei Fällen kommen die Spitzereiter aus dem US-amerikanischen Raum.
  6. Marx, W.: Wie mißt man Forschungsqualität? : der Science Citation Index - ein Maßstab für die Bewertung (1996) 0.00 
    8.387961E-4 = product of:
  0.012581941 = sum of:
    0.012581941 = weight(_text_:und in 5036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012581941 = score(doc=5036,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 5036, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5036)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Ein überfordertes Gutachter-System, knapper fließende Forschungsgelder sowie die starke Faszination von Ranglisten bewirken zunehmend den Einsatz bibliometrischer Methoden zur Messung von Forschungsqualität. Grundlage der meisten Bewertungen ist der Science Citation Index, der nun auch in der Version als Online-Datenbank für umfangreiche Analysen genutzt werden kann. Erweiterungen der Retrievalsprache beim Host STN International ermöglichen statistische Analysen, die bisher nur dem SCI-Hersteller und wenigen Spezialisten vorbehalten waren. Voraussetzung für eine sinnvolle Anwendung sind vor allem die Wahl geeigneter Selektionskriterien sowie die sorgfältige Interpretation der Ergebnisse im Rahmen der Grenzen dieser Methoden
  7. Klein, A.: Von der Schneeflocke zur Lawine : Möglichkeiten der Nutzung freier Zitationsdaten in Bibliotheken (2017) 0.00 
    7.3394657E-4 = product of:
  0.011009198 = sum of:
    0.011009198 = weight(_text_:und in 4002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011009198 = score(doc=4002,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 4002, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4002)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Zitationen spielen eine wichtige Rolle im wissenschaftlichen Diskurs, in der Recherchepraxis sowie im Bereich der Bibliometrie. In jüngster Zeit gibt es zunehmend Initiativen, die Zitationen als Open Data zur freien Nachnutzung verfügbar machen. Der Beitrag beschreibt den Stand der Entwicklung dieser Initiativen und zeigt, dass in nächster Zeit eine kritische Masse von Daten entstehen könnte, aus denen sich gerade für Bibliotheken neue Perspektiven ergeben. Als konkrete Möglichkeit zur Partizipation für Bibliotheken wird das DFG-Projekt Linked Open Citation Database (LOC-DB) vorgestellt.
  8. Bensman, S.J.: Garfield and the impact factors (2007) 0.00 
    5.2621565E-4 = product of:
  0.0078932345 = sum of:
    0.0078932345 = product of:
      0.015786469 = sum of:
        0.015786469 = weight(_text_:information in 4680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015786469 = score(doc=4680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 4680, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4680)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx
  9. Snyder, H.; Cronin, B.; Davenport, E.: What's the use of citation? : Citation analysis as a literature topic in selected disciplines of the social sciences (1995) 0.00 
    4.8335994E-4 = product of:
  0.007250399 = sum of:
    0.007250399 = product of:
      0.014500798 = sum of:
        0.014500798 = weight(_text_:information in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014500798 = score(doc=1825,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a study to investigate the place and role of citation analysis in selected disciplines in the social sciences, including library and information science. 5 core library and information science periodicals: Journal of documentation; Library quarterly; Journal of the American Society for Information Science; College and research libraries; and the Journal of information science, were studed to determine the percentage of articles devoted to citation analysis and develop an indictive typology to categorize the major foci of research being conducted under the rubric of citation analysis. Similar analysis was conducted for periodicals in other social sciences disciplines. Demonstrates how the rubric can be used to dertermine how citatiion analysis is applied within library and information science and other disciplines. By isolating citation from bibliometrics in general, this work is differentiated from other, previous studies. Analysis of data from a 10 year sample of transdisciplinary social sciences literature suggests that 2 application areas predominate: the validity of citation as an evaluation tool; and impact or performance studies of authors, periodicals, and institutions
    Source
    Journal of information science. 21(1995) no.2, S.75-85
  10. Shapiro, F.R.: Origins of bibliometrics, citation indexing and citation analysis : the neglected legal literature (1992) 0.00 
    4.604387E-4 = product of:
  0.00690658 = sum of:
    0.00690658 = product of:
      0.01381316 = sum of:
        0.01381316 = weight(_text_:information in 4262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01381316 = score(doc=4262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 4262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 43(1992), S.337-339
  11. McCain, K.W.: Co-cited author mapping as a valid representation of intellectual structure (1986) 0.00 
    4.604387E-4 = product of:
  0.00690658 = sum of:
    0.00690658 = product of:
      0.01381316 = sum of:
        0.01381316 = weight(_text_:information in 5505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01381316 = score(doc=5505,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 5505, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5505)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 37(1986), S.111-122
  12. He, Y.; Hui, S.C.: Mining a web database for author cocitation analysis (2002) 0.00 
    4.604387E-4 = product of:
  0.00690658 = sum of:
    0.00690658 = product of:
      0.01381316 = sum of:
        0.01381316 = weight(_text_:information in 2584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01381316 = score(doc=2584,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 2584, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2584)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 38(2002) no.4, S.491-508
  13. Cronin, B.: Bibliometrics and beyond : some thoughts on web-based citation analysis (2001) 0.00 
    4.604387E-4 = product of:
  0.00690658 = sum of:
    0.00690658 = product of:
      0.01381316 = sum of:
        0.01381316 = weight(_text_:information in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01381316 = score(doc=3890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Source
    Journal of information science. 27(2001) no.1, S.1-7
  14. Brooks, T.A.: How good are the best papers of JASIS? (2000) 0.00 
    3.9466174E-4 = product of:
  0.005919926 = sum of:
    0.005919926 = product of:
      0.011839852 = sum of:
        0.011839852 = weight(_text_:information in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011839852 = score(doc=4593,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4593, 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=4593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    A citation analysis examined the 28 best articles published in JASIS from 1969-1996. Best articles tend to single-authored works twice as long as the avergae article published in JASIS. They are cited and self-cited much more often than the average article. The greatest source of references made to the best articles is from JASIS itself. The top 5 best papers focus largely on information retrieval and online searching
    Content
    Top by numbers of citations: (1) Saracevic, T. et al.: A study of information seeking and retrieving I-III (1988); (2) Bates, M.: Information search tactics (1979); (3) Cooper, W.S.: On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness (1973); (4) Marcus, R.S.: A experimental comparison of the effectiveness of computers and humans as search intermediaries (1983); (4) Fidel, R.: Online searching styles (1984)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.5, S.485-486
  15. Chen, C.; Paul, R.J.; O'Keefe, B.: Fitting the Jigsaw of citation : information visualization in domain analysis (2001) 0.00 
    3.9466174E-4 = product of:
  0.005919926 = sum of:
    0.005919926 = product of:
      0.011839852 = sum of:
        0.011839852 = weight(_text_:information in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011839852 = score(doc=5766,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5766, 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=5766)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Domain visualization is one of the new research fronts resulted from the proliferation of information visualization, aiming to reveal the essence of a knowledge domain. Information visualization plays an integral role in modeling and representing intellectual structures associated with scientific disciplines. In this article, the domain of computer graphics is visualized based on author cocitation patterns derived from an 18-year span of the prestigious IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (1982-1999). This domain visualization utilizes a series of visualization and animation techniques, including author cocitation maps, citation time lines, animation of a highdimensional specialty space, and institutional profiles. This approach not only augments traditional domain analysis and the understanding of scientific disciplines, but also produces a persistent and shared knowledge space for researchers to keep track the development of knowledge more effectively. The results of the domain visualization are discussed and triangulated in a broader context of the computer graphics field
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.4, S.315-330
  16. Larsen, B.: Exploiting citation overlaps for information retrieval : generating a boomerang effect from the network of scientific papers (2002) 0.00 
    3.9466174E-4 = product of:
  0.005919926 = sum of:
    0.005919926 = product of:
      0.011839852 = sum of:
        0.011839852 = weight(_text_:information in 4175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011839852 = score(doc=4175,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4175, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4175)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
  17. Boyack, K.W.; Small, H.; Klavans, R.: Improving the accuracy of co-citation clustering using full text (2013) 0.00 
    3.9466174E-4 = product of:
  0.005919926 = sum of:
    0.005919926 = product of:
      0.011839852 = sum of:
        0.011839852 = weight(_text_:information in 1036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011839852 = score(doc=1036,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    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
  18. Alvarez, P.; Pulgarin, A.: ¬The Rasch model : measuring the impact of scientific journals: analytical chemistry (1996) 0.00 
    3.7209064E-4 = product of:
  0.0055813594 = sum of:
    0.0055813594 = product of:
      0.011162719 = sum of:
        0.011162719 = weight(_text_:information in 8505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011162719 = score(doc=8505,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 8505, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8505)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.6, S.458-467
  19. Wouters, P.; Vries, R. de: Formally citing the Web (2004) 0.00 
    3.4805894E-4 = product of:
  0.005220884 = sum of:
    0.005220884 = product of:
      0.010441768 = sum of:
        0.010441768 = weight(_text_:information in 3093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010441768 = score(doc=3093,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.20526241 = fieldWeight in 3093, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3093)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    How do authors refer to Web-based information sources in their formal scientific publications? It is not yet weIl known how scientists and scholars actually include new types of information sources, available through the new media, in their published work. This article reports an a comparative study of the lists of references in 38 scientific journals in five different scientific and social scientific fields. The fields are sociology, library and information science, biochemistry and biotechnology, neuroscience, and the mathematics of computing. As is weIl known, references, citations, and hyperlinks play different roles in academic publishing and communication. Our study focuses an hyperlinks as attributes of references in formal scholarly publications. The study developed and applied a method to analyze the differential roles of publishing media in the analysis of scientific and scholarly literature references. The present secondary databases that include reference and citation data (the Web of Science) cannot be used for this type of research. By the automated processing and analysis of the full text of scientific and scholarly articles, we were able to extract the references and hyperlinks contained in these references in relation to other features of the scientific and scholarly literature. Our findings show that hyperlinking references are indeed, as expected, abundantly present in the formal literature. They also tend to cite more recent literature than the average reference. The large majority of the references are to Web instances of traditional scientific journals. Other types of Web-based information sources are less weIl represented in the lists of references, except in the case of pure e-journals. We conclude that this can be explained by taking the role of the publisher into account. Indeed, it seems that the shift from print-based to electronic publishing has created new roles for the publisher. By shaping the way scientific references are hyperlinking to other information sources, the publisher may have a large impact an the availability of scientific and scholarly information.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.14, S.1250-1260
  20. Steele, T.W.; Stier, J.C.: ¬The impact of interdisciplinary research in the environmental sciences : a forestry case study (2000) 0.00 
    3.4178712E-4 = product of:
  0.0051268064 = sum of:
    0.0051268064 = product of:
      0.010253613 = sum of:
        0.010253613 = weight(_text_:information in 4592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010253613 = score(doc=4592,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 4592, 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=4592)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Interdisciplinary research has been identified as a critical means of addressing some of our planet's most urgent environmental problems. Yet relatively little is known about the processes and impact of interdisciplinary approaches to environmental sciences. This study used citation analysis and ordinary least squares regression to investigate the relationship between an article's citation rate and its degree of interdisciplinarity in one area of environmental science; viz., forestry. 3 types of interdisciplinarity were recognized - authorspip, subject matter, and cited literature - and each was quantified using Brillouin's diversity index. Data consisted of more than 750 articles published in the journal 'Forest Science' during the 10year period 1985-1994. The results indicate that borrowing was the most influencial method of interdisciplinary information transfer. Articles that drew information from a diverse set of journals were cited with greater frequency than articles having smaller or more narrowly focused bibliographies. This finding provides empirical evidence that interdisciplinary methods have made a measurable and positive impact on the forestry literature
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.5, S.476-484

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 106
  • d 15
  • chi 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 116
  • m 3
  • s 3
  • el 2
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications