Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalalgorithmen"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014) 0.03
    0.03037249 = product of:
      0.06074498 = sum of:
        0.06074498 = sum of:
          0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0108246 = score(doc=1431,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
          0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04992038 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, 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=1431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Properties of a percentile-based rating scale needed in bibliometrics are formulated. Based on these properties, P100 was recently introduced as a new citation-rank approach (Bornmann, Leydesdorff, & Wang, 2013). In this paper, we conceptualize P100 and propose an improvement which we call P100'. Advantages and disadvantages of citation-rank indicators are noted.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:05:18
    Type
    a
  2. Karlsson, A.; Hammarfelt, B.; Steinhauer, H.J.; Falkman, G.; Olson, N.; Nelhans, G.; Nolin, J.: Modeling uncertainty in bibliometrics and information retrieval : an information fusion approach (2015) 0.00
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = product of:
          0.009567685 = sum of:
            0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009567685 = score(doc=1696,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  3. White, H. D.: Co-cited author retrieval and relevance theory : examples from the humanities (2015) 0.00
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = product of:
          0.008118451 = sum of:
            0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 1687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008118451 = score(doc=1687,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1687, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1687)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  4. Bar-Ilan, J.; Levene, M.: ¬The hw-rank : an h-index variant for ranking web pages (2015) 0.00
    0.0016913437 = product of:
      0.0033826875 = sum of:
        0.0033826875 = product of:
          0.006765375 = sum of:
            0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 1694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.006765375 = score(doc=1694,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1694, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1694)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  5. Abdelkareem, M.A.A.: In terms of publication index, what indicator is the best for researchers indexing, Google Scholar, Scopus, Clarivate or others? (2018) 0.00
    0.0011839407 = product of:
      0.0023678814 = sum of:
        0.0023678814 = product of:
          0.0047357627 = sum of:
            0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 4548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0047357627 = score(doc=4548,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 4548, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4548)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    I believe that Google Scholar is the most popular academic indexing way for researchers and citations. However, some other indexing institutions may be more professional than Google Scholar but not as popular as Google Scholar. Other indexing websites like Scopus and Clarivate are providing more statistical figures for scholars, institutions or even journals. On account of publication citations, always Google Scholar shows higher citations for a paper than other indexing websites since Google Scholar consider most of the publication platforms so he can easily count the citations. While other databases just consider the citations come from those journals that are already indexed in their database
  6. Mayr, P.: Bradfordizing als Re-Ranking-Ansatz in Literaturinformationssystemen (2011) 0.00
    0.0010148063 = product of:
      0.0020296127 = sum of:
        0.0020296127 = product of:
          0.0040592253 = sum of:
            0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0040592253 = score(doc=4292,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  7. Mayr, P.: Bradfordizing mit Katalogdaten : Alternative Sicht auf Suchergebnisse und Publikationsquellen durch Re-Ranking (2010) 0.00
    0.0010148063 = product of:
      0.0020296127 = sum of:
        0.0020296127 = product of:
          0.0040592253 = sum of:
            0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 4301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0040592253 = score(doc=4301,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 4301, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4301)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a