Search (20 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.02 
    0.024431534 = product of:
  0.04886307 = sum of:
    0.04886307 = product of:
      0.09772614 = sum of:
        0.09772614 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09772614 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  2. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.02 
    0.021594629 = product of:
  0.043189257 = sum of:
    0.043189257 = product of:
      0.086378515 = sum of:
        0.086378515 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.086378515 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  3. Száva-Kováts, E.: Indirect-collective referencing (ICR) in the elite journal literature of physics : I: a literature science study on the journal level (2001) 0.02 
    0.016263176 = product of:
  0.03252635 = sum of:
    0.03252635 = product of:
      0.0650527 = sum of:
        0.0650527 = weight(_text_:1997 in 5180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0650527 = score(doc=5180,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1637463 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.3972774 = fieldWeight in 5180, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5180)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In the second bibliometric paper SzavaKovtas uses ``indirectcollective references, ICR'' to mean such instances as those in which an author refers to, ``the references contained therein,'' when referring to another source. Having previously shown a high instance of occurrences in Physical Reviews, he now uses the January 1997 issues of 40 journals from the ISI physics category plus two optics journals, an instrumentation journal, and a physics journal launched in 1997, to locate ICR. The phenomena exists in all but one of the sampled journals and in the next, but unsampled, issue of that journal. Overall 17% of papers sampled display ICR with little fluctuation within internal categories.
  4. Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002) 0.02 
    0.015269709 = product of:
  0.030539418 = sum of:
    0.030539418 = product of:
      0.061078835 = sum of:
        0.061078835 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061078835 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
  5. Thelwall, M.; Vaughan, L.; Björneborn, L.: Webometrics (2004) 0.01 
    0.014227318 = product of:
  0.028454635 = sum of:
    0.028454635 = product of:
      0.05690927 = sum of:
        0.05690927 = weight(_text_:1997 in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05690927 = score(doc=4279,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1637463 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.3475454 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web-related phenomena, emerged from the realization that methods originally designed for bibliometric analysis of scientific journal article citation patterns could be applied to the Web, with commercial search engines providing the raw data. Almind and Ingwersen (1997) defined the field and gave it its name. Other pioneers included Rodriguez Gairin (1997) and Aguillo (1998). Larson (1996) undertook exploratory link structure analysis, as did Rousseau (1997). Webometrics encompasses research from fields beyond information science such as communication studies, statistical physics, and computer science. In this review we concentrate on link analysis, but also cover other aspects of webometrics, including Web log fle analysis. One theme that runs through this chapter is the messiness of Web data and the need for data cleansing heuristics. The uncontrolled Web creates numerous problems in the interpretation of results, for instance, from the automatic creation or replication of links. The loose connection between top-level domain specifications (e.g., com, edu, and org) and their actual content is also a frustrating problem. For example, many .com sites contain noncommercial content, although com is ostensibly the main commercial top-level domain. Indeed, a skeptical researcher could claim that obstacles of this kind are so great that all Web analyses lack value. As will be seen, one response to this view, a view shared by critics of evaluative bibliometrics, is to demonstrate that Web data correlate significantly with some non-Web data in order to prove that the Web data are not wholly random. A practical response has been to develop increasingly sophisticated data cleansing techniques and multiple data analysis methods.
  6. Vaughan, L.; Shaw , D.: Bibliographic and Web citations : what Is the difference? (2003) 0.01 
    0.014227318 = product of:
  0.028454635 = sum of:
    0.028454635 = product of:
      0.05690927 = sum of:
        0.05690927 = weight(_text_:1997 in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05690927 = score(doc=5176,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1637463 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.3475454 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Vaughn, and Shaw look at the relationship between traditional citation and Web citation (not hyperlinks but rather textual mentions of published papers). Using English language research journals in ISI's 2000 Journal Citation Report - Information and Library Science category - 1209 full length papers published in 1997 in 46 journals were identified. Each was searched in Social Science Citation Index and on the Web using Google phrase search by entering the title in quotation marks, and followed for distinction where necessary with sub-titles, author's names, and journal title words. After removing obvious false drops, the number of web sites was recorded for comparison with the SSCI counts. A second sample from 1992 was also collected for examination. There were a total of 16,371 web citations to the selected papers. The top and bottom ranked four journals were then examined and every third citation to every third paper was selected and classified as to source type, domain, and country of origin. Web counts are much higher than ISI citation counts. Of the 46 journals from 1997, 26 demonstrated a significant correlation between Web and traditional citation counts, and 11 of the 15 in the 1992 sample also showed significant correlation. Journal impact factor in 1998 and 1999 correlated significantly with average Web citations per journal in the 1997 data, but at a low level. Thirty percent of web citations come from other papers posted on the web, and 30percent from listings of web based bibliographic services, while twelve percent come from class reading lists. High web citation journals often have web accessible tables of content.
  7. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01 
    0.012956778 = product of:
  0.025913555 = sum of:
    0.025913555 = product of:
      0.05182711 = sum of:
        0.05182711 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05182711 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  8. Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001) 0.01 
    0.010688796 = product of:
  0.021377591 = sum of:
    0.021377591 = product of:
      0.042755183 = sum of:
        0.042755183 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042755183 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    16.12.2001 14:01:22
  9. Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006) 0.01 
    0.010688796 = product of:
  0.021377591 = sum of:
    0.021377591 = product of:
      0.042755183 = sum of:
        0.042755183 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042755183 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:20:01
  10. wst: Cut-and-paste-Wissenschaft (2003) 0.01 
    0.009161824 = product of:
  0.018323649 = sum of:
    0.018323649 = product of:
      0.036647297 = sum of:
        0.036647297 = weight(_text_:22 in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036647297 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "Mikhail Simkin und Vwani Roychowdhury von der University of Califomia, Los Angeles, haben eine in der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft verbreitete Unsitte erstmals quantitativ erfasst. Die Wissenschaftler analysierten die Verbreitung von Druckfehlern in den Literaturlisten wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten (www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0212043). 78 Prozent aller zitierten Aufsätze - so schätzen die Forscher - haben die zitierenden Wissenschaftler demnach nicht gelesen, sondern nur per 'cut and paste' von einer Vorlage in ihre eigene Literaturliste übernommen. Das könne man beispielsweise abschätzen aus der Analyse fehlerhafter Seitenangaben in der Literaturliste eines 1973 veröffentlichten Aufsatzes über die Struktur zweidimensionaler Kristalle: Dieser Aufsatz ist rund 4300 mal zitiert worden. In 196 Fällen enthalten die Zitate jedoch Fehler in der Jahreszahl, dem Band der Zeitschrift oder der Seitenzahl, die als Indikatoren für cut and paste genommen werden können, denn man kann, obwohl es Milliarden Möglichkeiten gibt, nur 45 verschiedene Arten von Druckfehlern unterscheiden. In erster Näherung ergibt sich eine Obergrenze für die Zahl der `echten Leser' daher aus der Zahl der unterscheidbaren Druckfehler (45) geteilt durch die Gesamtzahl der Publikationen mit Druckfehler (196), das macht etwa 22 Prozent."
  11. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.01 
    0.009161824 = product of:
  0.018323649 = sum of:
    0.018323649 = product of:
      0.036647297 = sum of:
        0.036647297 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036647297 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    3. 1.2007 17:22:03
  12. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.01 
    0.009161824 = product of:
  0.018323649 = sum of:
    0.018323649 = product of:
      0.036647297 = sum of:
        0.036647297 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036647297 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    6. 4.2008 19:04:22
  13. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.01 
    0.009161824 = product of:
  0.018323649 = sum of:
    0.018323649 = product of:
      0.036647297 = sum of:
        0.036647297 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036647297 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05
  14. Ma, N.; Guan, J.; Zhao, Y.: Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis (2008) 0.01 
    0.009161824 = product of:
  0.018323649 = sum of:
    0.018323649 = product of:
      0.036647297 = sum of:
        0.036647297 = weight(_text_:22 in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036647297 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2064, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2064)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    31. 7.2008 14:22:05
  15. Case, D.O.; Higgins, G.M.: How can we investigate citation behavior? : A study of reasons for citing literature in communication (2000) 0.01 
    0.008214145 = product of:
  0.01642829 = sum of:
    0.01642829 = product of:
      0.03285658 = sum of:
        0.03285658 = weight(_text_:1997 in 4775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03285658 = score(doc=4775,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1637463 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.2006554 = fieldWeight in 4775, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4775)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Authors' motivation for citing documents are addressed through a literature review and an empirical study. Replicating an investigation in psychology, the works of 2 highly-cited authors in the discipline of communication were identified, and all of the authros who cited them during the period 1995-1997 were surveyed. The instrument posed 32 questions about why a certain document was cited, plus questions about the citer's relationship to the cited author and document. Most findings were similar to the psychology study, including a tendency to cite 'concept markers' representing a genre of work. Authors in communication were more likely to have an interpersonal connection to cited authors, and to cite literatire reviews - their most common reason for citation. 3 types of judgements about cited works were found to best predict citation: (1) that the work was novel, well-known, and a concept-marker; (2) that citing it might promote the authority of one's own work; and (3) that the work deserved criticism. Suggestions are made for further research, especially regarding the anomalous role of creativity in cited works
  16. Hyland, K.: Self-citation and self-reference : credibility and promotion in academic publication (2003) 0.01 
    0.008214145 = product of:
  0.01642829 = sum of:
    0.01642829 = product of:
      0.03285658 = sum of:
        0.03285658 = weight(_text_:1997 in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03285658 = score(doc=5156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1637463 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.2006554 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Hyland examines self referencing practices by analyzing their textual uses in 240 randomly chosen research papers and 800 abstracts across 80 expert selected journals from 1997 and 1998 in eight disciplines, as a key to their author's assumptions as to their own role in the research process and to the practices of their disciplines. Scanned texts produced a corpus of nearly 1.5 million words which was searched using WordPilot for first person pronouns and all mentions of an author's previous work. There were 6,689 instances of self reference in the papers and 459 in the abstracts; on the average 28 cases per paper, 17% of which were self citations. There was one self mention in every two abstracts. Nearly 70% of self reference and mention occurred in humanities and social science papers, but biologists employed the most self citation overall and 12% of hard science citations were found to be self citations. Interviews indicated that self citation was deemed important in establishing authority by fitting oneself into the research framework. Self mention arises in four main contexts: stating the goal or the structure of the paper, explaining a procedure, stating results or a claim, and elaborating an argument.
  17. Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008) 0.01 
    0.0076348544 = product of:
  0.015269709 = sum of:
    0.015269709 = product of:
      0.030539418 = sum of:
        0.030539418 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030539418 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 6.2008 12:54:12
  18. White, H.D.; Wellman, B.; Nazer, N.: Does Citation Reflect Social Structure? : Longitudinal Evidence From the "Globenet" Interdisciplinary Research Group (2004) 0.01 
    0.0065713157 = product of:
  0.013142631 = sum of:
    0.013142631 = product of:
      0.026285263 = sum of:
        0.026285263 = weight(_text_:1997 in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026285263 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1637463 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.16052432 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6322508 = idf(docFreq=3179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Many authors have posited a social component in citation, the consensus being that the citers and citees often have interpersonal as well as intellectual ties. Evidence for this belief has been rather meager, however, in part because social networks researchers have lacked bibliometric data (e.g., pairwise citation counts from online databases), and citation analysts have lacked sociometric data (e.g., pairwise measures of acquaintanceship). In 1997 Nazer extensively measured personal relationships and communication behaviors in what we call "Globenet," an international group of 16 researchers from seven disciplines that was established in 1993 to study human development. Since Globenet's membership is known, it was possible during 2002 to obtain citation records for all members in databases of the Institute for Scientific Information. This permitted examination of how members cited each other (intercited) in journal articles over the past three decades and in a 1999 book to which they all contributed. It was also possible to explore links between the intercitation data and the social and communication data. Using network-analytic techniques, we look at the growth of intercitation over time, the extent to which it follows disciplinary or interdisciplinary lines, whether it covaries with degrees of acquaintanceship, whether it reflects Globenet's organizational structure, whether it is associated with particular in-group communication patterns, and whether it is related to the cocitation of Globenet members. Results show cocitation to be a powerful predictor of intercitation in the journal articles, while being an editor or co-author is an important predictor in the book. Intellectual ties based an shared content did better as predictors than content-neutral social ties like friendship. However, interciters in Globenet communicated more than did noninterciters.
  19. Wildner, B.: Web of Science - Scopus : Auf der Suche nach Zitierungen (2006) 0.01 
    0.0061078835 = product of:
  0.012215767 = sum of:
    0.012215767 = product of:
      0.024431534 = sum of:
        0.024431534 = weight(_text_:22 in 5034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024431534 = score(doc=5034,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5034, 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=5034)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    4. 6.2006 17:22:15
  20. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.01 
    0.0061078835 = product of:
  0.012215767 = sum of:
    0.012215767 = product of:
      0.024431534 = sum of:
        0.024431534 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024431534 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15786676 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04508122 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35

Authors

Languages

  • e 15
  • d 5

Types

  • a 20
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Themes