Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Informationsmittel"
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Zhao, D.; Strotmann, A.: Mapping knowledge domains on Wikipedia : an author bibliographic coupling analysis of traditional Chinese medicine (2022) 0.00
    0.004243058 = product of:
      0.012729174 = sum of:
        0.012729174 = product of:
          0.038187522 = sum of:
            0.038187522 = weight(_text_:network in 608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.038187522 = score(doc=608,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043569047 = queryNorm
                0.1968132 = fieldWeight in 608, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=608)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose Wikipedia has the lofty goal of compiling all human knowledge. The purpose of the present study is to map the structure of the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) knowledge domain on Wikipedia, to identify patterns of knowledge representation on Wikipedia and to test the applicability of author bibliographic coupling analysis, an effective method for mapping knowledge domains represented in published scholarly documents, for Wikipedia data. Design/methodology/approach We adapted and followed the well-established procedures and techniques for author bibliographic coupling analysis (ABCA). Instead of bibliographic data from a citation database, we used all articles on TCM downloaded from the English version of Wikipedia as our dataset. An author bibliographic coupling network was calculated and then factor analyzed using SPSS. Factor analysis results were visualized. Factors were labeled upon manual examination of articles that authors who load primarily in each factor have significantly contributed references to. Clear factors were interpreted as topics. Findings Seven TCM topic areas are represented on Wikipedia, among which Acupuncture-related practices, Falun Gong and Herbal Medicine attracted the most significant contributors to TCM. Acupuncture and Qi Gong have the most connections to the TCM knowledge domain and also serve as bridges for other topics to connect to the domain. Herbal medicine is weakly linked to and non-herbal medicine is isolated from the rest of the TCM knowledge domain. It appears that specific topics are represented well on Wikipedia but their conceptual connections are not. ABCA is effective for mapping knowledge domains on Wikipedia but document-based bibliographic coupling analysis is not. Originality/value Given the prominent position of Wikipedia for both information users and for researchers on knowledge organization and information retrieval, it is important to study how well knowledge is represented and structured on Wikipedia. Such studies appear largely missing although studies from different perspectives both about Wikipedia and using Wikipedia as data are abundant. Author bibliographic coupling analysis is effective for mapping knowledge domains represented in published scholarly documents but has never been applied to mapping knowledge domains represented on Wikipedia.
  2. Meho, L.I.; Rogers, Y.: Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers : a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science (2008) 0.00
    0.003279447 = product of:
      0.009838341 = sum of:
        0.009838341 = product of:
          0.029515022 = sum of:
            0.029515022 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.029515022 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043569047 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.