Search (173 results, page 1 of 9)

0.0939979 = product of:
  0.1879958 = sum of:
    0.1879958 = sum of:
      0.08871522 = weight(_text_:r in 8074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08871522 = score(doc=8074,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.51202947 = fieldWeight in 8074, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8074)
      0.09928059 = weight(_text_:22 in 8074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09928059 = score(doc=8074,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 8074, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8074)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Börsenblatt. Nr.50 vom 24.6.1994, S.19-22

0.074175805 = sum of:
  0.042491794 = product of:
    0.16996717 = sum of:
      0.16996717 = weight(_text_:authors in 5946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16996717 = score(doc=5946,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 5946, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5946)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.031684007 = product of:
    0.063368015 = sum of:
      0.063368015 = weight(_text_:r in 5946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.063368015 = score(doc=5946,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.36573532 = fieldWeight in 5946, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5946)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Guidelines for authors of scholarly publications who wish to prepare documents for a publisher on existing text entry devices, word processors and personal computers, adding markup to the text in accordance with the SGML

Type

r

0.0707098 = sum of:
  0.016996717 = product of:
    0.06798687 = sum of:
      0.06798687 = weight(_text_:authors in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06798687 = score(doc=4051,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.28492588 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.053713087 = sum of:
    0.025347205 = weight(_text_:r in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025347205 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05234091 = queryNorm
        0.14629413 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.028365882 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028365882 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05234091 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, 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=4051)

Abstract

Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.06714136 = product of:
  0.13428272 = sum of:
    0.13428272 = sum of:
      0.063368015 = weight(_text_:r in 4988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.063368015 = score(doc=4988,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.36573532 = fieldWeight in 4988, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4988)
      0.07091471 = weight(_text_:22 in 4988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07091471 = score(doc=4988,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4988, 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=4988)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

IATUL proceedings (new series). 4(1995), S.15-22

0.053713087 = product of:
  0.107426174 = sum of:
    0.107426174 = sum of:
      0.05069441 = weight(_text_:r in 3015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05069441 = score(doc=3015,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 3015, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3015)
      0.056731764 = weight(_text_:22 in 3015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056731764 = score(doc=3015,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3015, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3015)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2009 13:09:48

0.05240287 = sum of:
  0.024036987 = product of:
    0.09614795 = sum of:
      0.09614795 = weight(_text_:authors in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09614795 = score(doc=7245,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 7245, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7245)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.028365882 = product of:
    0.056731764 = sum of:
      0.056731764 = weight(_text_:22 in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056731764 = score(doc=7245,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7245, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7245)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The nature and implications of electrocopying are summarised. After a brief review of the principles of copyright, the issue of whether electrocopying infringes copyright is debated. Publishers are aware of the threat that electrocopying poses to their business. The various options available to publishers for responding to electrocopying are summarised. Patterns of scholarly communications and the relationships between authors, publishers and libraries are being challenged. Constructive dialogue is necessary if the issues are to be resolved

Source

Journal of document and text management. 2(1994) no.1, S.10-22

0.04938419 = sum of:
  0.024036987 = product of:
    0.09614795 = sum of:
      0.09614795 = weight(_text_:authors in 5911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09614795 = score(doc=5911,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 5911, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5911)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.025347205 = product of:
    0.05069441 = sum of:
      0.05069441 = weight(_text_:r in 5911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05069441 = score(doc=5911,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 5911, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5911)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

When document components are classified and then recombined during document re-use, a semantic net may serve as the classification language. A theory of analogical inheritance, applied to this semantic net, guides the reorganisation of document components. Authors index paragraphs from various sources with node-link-node triples from a semantic net and then use programs to transverse the semantic net and generate various outlines. The program examines node and link names in deciding which path to take. Describes how these techniques helped in the re-use: parts of an existing book to write a new one

0.045852512 = sum of:
  0.021032363 = product of:
    0.08412945 = sum of:
      0.08412945 = weight(_text_:authors in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08412945 = score(doc=582,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 582, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=582)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.024820147 = product of:
    0.049640294 = sum of:
      0.049640294 = weight(_text_:22 in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049640294 = score(doc=582,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 582, 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=582)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Discusses the publishing of books online on the Internet, in the USA. The issues is treated mainly in relation to trade publishers. Outlines various ways in which such publishers have so far used the Internet, for example in the publishing of the full text of works of fiction, for publishing catalogues, and for presenting authors to the public via bulletin boards or electronic conferences. Notes a number or problems which arise: copyright, payment for accessing items, advertising restrictions, and the ease with which the published unit can be tampered with when available on the Internet. Also discusses collaboration and conflicts between publishers and the technology industry

Source

Publishers weekly. 240(1993) no.47, 22 Nov., S.33-35,38

0.04321117 = sum of:
  0.021032363 = product of:
    0.08412945 = sum of:
      0.08412945 = weight(_text_:authors in 2019) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08412945 = score(doc=2019,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 2019, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2019)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.022178805 = product of:
    0.04435761 = sum of:
      0.04435761 = weight(_text_:r in 2019) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04435761 = score(doc=2019,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.25601473 = fieldWeight in 2019, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2019)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article examines the entry of the major academic publishing houses into the WWW publishing. The study identified that during 1997, traditional academic publishers made significant commitments to putting tables of content, abstracts, and the full-text of their print journals on the Web. At the same time, new services and organizations emerged that could ultimately compete with, or eliminate, the need for certain segments of the industry. The authors suggest that these early experiments in Web publishing began unevenly with areas that needed improvement. The article concludes with a discussion about the implications of the traditional academic publisher's presence on the Web

0.039302155 = sum of:
  0.018027741 = product of:
    0.072110966 = sum of:
      0.072110966 = weight(_text_:authors in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.072110966 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3662, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3662)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.021274412 = product of:
    0.042548824 = sum of:
      0.042548824 = weight(_text_:22 in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042548824 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3662, 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=3662)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A review of recent developments in electronic publishing, with a focus on Open Access (OA) is provided. It describes the two main types of OA, i.e. the `gold' OA journal route and the 'green' repository route, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of the two, and the reactions of the publishing industry to these developments. Quality, cost and copyright issues are explored, as well as some of the business models of OA. It is noted that whilst so far there is no evidence that a shift to OA will lead to libraries cancelling subscriptions to toll-access journals, this may happen in the future, and that despite the apparently compelling reasons for authors to move to OA, so far few have shown themselves willing to do so. Conclusions about the future of scholarly publications are drawn.

Date

8. 7.2010 19:22:45

0.03821993 = sum of:
  0.024036987 = product of:
    0.09614795 = sum of:
      0.09614795 = weight(_text_:authors in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09614795 = score(doc=4631,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.014182941 = product of:
    0.028365882 = sum of:
      0.028365882 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028365882 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4631, 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=4631)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the evolution in terms of shares of scholarly book publications in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in five European countries, i.e. Flanders (Belgium), Finland, Norway, Poland and Slovenia. In addition to aggregate results for the whole of the social sciences and the humanities, the authors focus on two well-established fields, namely, economics & business and history. Design/methodology/approach Comprehensive coverage databases of SSH scholarly output have been set up in Flanders (VABB-SHW), Finland (VIRTA), Norway (NSI), Poland (PBN) and Slovenia (COBISS). These systems allow to trace the shares of monographs and book chapters among the total volume of scholarly publications in each of these countries. Findings As expected, the shares of scholarly monographs and book chapters in the humanities and in the social sciences differ considerably between fields of science and between the five countries studied. In economics & business and in history, the results show similar field-based variations as well as country variations. Most year-to-year and overall variation is rather limited. The data presented illustrate that book publishing is not disappearing from an SSH. Research limitations/implications The results presented in this paper illustrate that the polish scholarly evaluation system has influenced scholarly publication patterns considerably, while in the other countries the variations are manifested only slightly. The authors conclude that generalizations like "performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) are bad for book publishing" are flawed. Research evaluation systems need to take book publishing fully into account because of the crucial epistemic and social roles it serves in an SSH. Originality/value The authors present data on monographs and book chapters from five comprehensive coverage databases in Europe and analyze the data in view of the debates regarding the perceived detrimental effects of research evaluation systems on scholarly book publishing. The authors show that there is little reason to suspect a dramatic decline of scholarly book publishing in an SSH.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.037038147 = sum of:
  0.018027741 = product of:
    0.072110966 = sum of:
      0.072110966 = weight(_text_:authors in 5495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.072110966 = score(doc=5495,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 5495, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5495)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.019010404 = product of:
    0.03802081 = sum of:
      0.03802081 = weight(_text_:r in 5495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03802081 = score(doc=5495,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 5495, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5495)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Electronic publishing brings about some substantial shifts in technological as well as socio-political patterns that were in place during the era of paper publications. The tension between producer and consumer side of the information cycle is the most significant feature of this change. Authors and publishers try to maximise their revenues from the marketing of information and backed by the possibilities of technology they force major changes in legislation governing the area of (public) information access. In this environment, the society's interest in a wide-spread accessibility of electronic data must be balanced by substantial financial investments - a solution that only the rich economies of the world can feel comfortable with

Source

Informationskompetenz - Basiskompetenz in der Informationsgesellschaft: Proceedings des 7. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2000), Hrsg.: G. Knorz u. R. Kuhlen

0.035457354 = product of:
  0.07091471 = sum of:
    0.07091471 = product of:
      0.14182942 = sum of:
        0.14182942 = weight(_text_:22 in 3204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14182942 = score(doc=3204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 3204, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=3204)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

RRZK-Kompass. 1995, Nr.65, S.21-22

0.030865122 = sum of:
  0.015023118 = product of:
    0.06009247 = sum of:
      0.06009247 = weight(_text_:authors in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06009247 = score(doc=461,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.015842004 = product of:
    0.031684007 = sum of:
      0.031684007 = weight(_text_:r in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031684007 = score(doc=461,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Inscriptions are defined as traces of scientific research production that are embodied in material artifacts and media, which encompass a wide variety of nonverbal forms such as graphs, diagrams, and tables. Inscription serves as a fundamental rhetorical device in research outputs and practices. As many inscriptions are deeply rooted in a scientific research paradigm, they can be used to evaluate the level of scientificity of a scientific field. This is specifically helpful to understand the relationships between research traditions in digital humanities (DH), a highly cross-disciplinary between various humanities and scientific traditions. This paper presents a quantitative, community-focused examination of how inscriptions are used in English-language research articles in DH journals. We randomly selected 252 articles published between 2011 and 2020 from a representative DH journal list, and manually classified the inscriptions and author domains in these publications. We found that inscriptions have been increasingly used during the past decade, and their uses are more intensive in publications led by STEM authors comparing to other domains. This study offers a timely survey of the disciplinary landscape of DH from the perspective of inscriptions and sheds light on how different research approaches collaborate and combat in the field of DH.

0.030086564 = product of:
  0.060173128 = sum of:
    0.060173128 = product of:
      0.120346256 = sum of:
        0.120346256 = weight(_text_:22 in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.120346256 = score(doc=4823,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22
18. 6.2000 9:11:22

0.028365882 = product of:
  0.056731764 = sum of:
    0.056731764 = product of:
      0.11346353 = sum of:
        0.11346353 = weight(_text_:22 in 5919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11346353 = score(doc=5919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5919, 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=5919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Infodoc. 19(1993) H.3, S.20-22

0.028365882 = product of:
  0.056731764 = sum of:
    0.056731764 = product of:
      0.11346353 = sum of:
        0.11346353 = weight(_text_:22 in 6381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11346353 = score(doc=6381,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6381, 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=6381)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Zeit. Nr.xx vom ???, S.22

0.028365882 = product of:
  0.056731764 = sum of:
    0.056731764 = product of:
      0.11346353 = sum of:
        0.11346353 = weight(_text_:22 in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11346353 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4702, 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=4702)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Advances in librarianship. 22(1998), S.59-75

0.025347205 = product of:
  0.05069441 = sum of:
    0.05069441 = product of:
      0.10138882 = sum of:
        0.10138882 = weight(_text_:r in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10138882 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.5851765 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.025347205 = product of:
  0.05069441 = sum of:
    0.05069441 = product of:
      0.10138882 = sum of:
        0.10138882 = weight(_text_:r in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10138882 = score(doc=243,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.5851765 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Editor

Gokl, R.