Search (214 results, page 2 of 11)

0.0046781353 = product of:
  0.05613762 = sum of:
    0.05613762 = weight(_text_:internet in 1151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05613762 = score(doc=1151,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.58348763 = fieldWeight in 1151, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1151)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

Variables measuring the nature and level of Internet usage by natural scientists improve the explanatory power of a traditional bibliographic model of scholarly productivity. The data used to construct these variables come from log files generated by the internal accounting modules of the UNIX operating system. The effects of Internet usage on productivity are quntifiable, and it is possible to calculate tradeoffs between Internet usage and the more traditional inputs

Theme

Internet

0.004296107 = product of:
  0.051553283 = sum of:
    0.051553283 = weight(_text_:systeme in 2030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051553283 = score(doc=2030,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17439179 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.2956176 = fieldWeight in 2030, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2030)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

Vom 5. bis 7. November 2003 findet auf Initiative und in der Verantwortung der Zentralbibliothek des Forschungszentrums Jülich die Konferenz "Bibliometric Analysis in Science and Research" statt: Bibliometrische Indikatoren, Bibliomefrisches Mapping, Webmetrie und Forschungspolitik stehen auf dem Programm. Nach einer Phase der Beruhigung auf dem Bibliometriesektor scheint dieses Forschungsfeld nun von der Bibliothekswissenschaft wieder eine Belebung zu erfahren. Vor allem in den 80erJahren wurden Gesetze von Bradford, Lotka und Zipf heiß diskutiert. Halbwertszeiten, Forschungsfronten und Kernzeitschriften sind Dank der Datenbanken des ISI problemlos aufzuspüren und werden gerne zur Selbstbespiegelung der Wissenschaft benutzt (Diodalo 1994). Die Zeitschrifen Scientometrics und die JASIST belegen, dass die mathematischen Modellierungen auf diesem Gebiet noch immer nicht an ihre Grenzen gestoßen sind. Und Vereinigungen wie die Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftsforschung oder die ISSI und deren Diskussionsliste oder Sigmetrics zeigen, dass nach wie vor eine starke Community auf diesem Gebiet aktiv ist. Andererseits hat der Begriff Bibliometrie ein wenig von seinem schillernden Glanz verloren und wird gerne durch Mapping, Cybermetrics (gleichnamig das "International Journal of Scientometrics, Informetrics and Bibliometrics"), Information Mining und anders in modernere Kontexte gesetzt (Park/Thelwall 2003). War es das relativierende Wissenschaftsverständnis, der Wegfall der konkurrierenden politischen Systeme oder die stürmische Medienentwicklung in der Wissenschaft, welche die Bibliometrie aus der Bibliotheks- und Informationsdiskussion vorübergehend verschwinden ließ?

0.0039059445 = product of:
  0.046871334 = sum of:
    0.046871334 = weight(_text_:informatik in 976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046871334 = score(doc=976,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1662844 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.1024737 = idf(docFreq=730, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.2818745 = fieldWeight in 976, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.1024737 = idf(docFreq=730, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=976)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Field

Informatik

0.0039059445 = product of:
  0.046871334 = sum of:
    0.046871334 = weight(_text_:informatik in 4678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046871334 = score(doc=4678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1662844 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.1024737 = idf(docFreq=730, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.2818745 = fieldWeight in 4678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.1024737 = idf(docFreq=730, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4678)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Field

Informatik

0.0038434798 = product of:
  0.046121757 = sum of:
    0.046121757 = weight(_text_:internet in 813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046121757 = score(doc=813,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.47938398 = fieldWeight in 813, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=813)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

The Internet, and more specifically the World Wide Web, is quickly becoming one of our main information sources. Systematic evaluation and analysis can help us understand how this medium works, grows, and changes, and how it influences our lives and research. New approaches in informetrics can provide an appropriate means towards achieving the above goals, and towards establishing a sound theory. This paper presents a selective review of research based on the Internet, using bibliometric and informetric methods and tools. Some of these studies clearly show the applicability of bibliometric laws to the Internet, while others establish new definitions and methods based on the respective definitions for printed sources. Both informetrics and Internet research can gain from these additional methods.

Theme

Internet

0.0036612197 = product of:
  0.043934636 = sum of:
    0.043934636 = weight(_text_:internet in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043934636 = score(doc=3890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.45665127 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Theme

Internet

0.0035086013 = product of:
  0.042103216 = sum of:
    0.042103216 = weight(_text_:internet in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042103216 = score(doc=1376,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.43761572 = fieldWeight in 1376, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1376)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

This article examines the impact of the Internet and the age distribution of research scholars on academic citation age with a mathematical model proposed by Barnett, Fink, and Debus (1989) and a revised model that incorporates information about the online environment and scholar age distribution. The modified model fits the data well, accounting for 99.6% of the variance for science citations and 99.8% for social science citations. The Internet's impact on the aging process of academic citations has been very small, accounting for only 0.1% for the social sciences and 0.8% for the sciences. Rather than resulting in the use of more recent citations, the Internet appears to have lengthened the average life of academic citations by 6 to 8 months. The aging of scholars seems to have a greater impact, accounting for 2.8% of the variance for the sciences and 0.9% for the social sciences. However, because the diffusion of the Internet and the aging of the professoriate are correlated over this time period, differentiating their effects is somewhat problematic.

Theme

Internet

0.0033135382 = product of:
  0.039762456 = sum of:
    0.039762456 = product of:
      0.07952491 = sum of:
        0.07952491 = weight(_text_:allgemein in 4868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07952491 = score(doc=4868,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17123379 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.254347 = idf(docFreq=627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.46442303 = fieldWeight in 4868, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.254347 = idf(docFreq=627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4868)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Theme

Katalogfragen allgemein

0.0032029 = product of:
  0.0384348 = sum of:
    0.0384348 = weight(_text_:internet in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0384348 = score(doc=4907,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.39948666 = fieldWeight in 4907, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4907)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

The author examines patterns of productivity in the Internet mailing lists, also known as discussion lists or discussion groups. Datasets have been collected from electronic archives of two Internet mailing lists, the LINGUIST and the History of the English Language. Theoretical models widely used in informetric research have been applied to fit the distribution of posted messages over the population of authors. The Generalized Inverse Poisson-Gaussian and Poisson-lognormal distributions show excellent results in both datasets, while Lotka and Yule-Simon distribution demonstrate poor-to-mediocre fits. In the mailing list where moderation and quality control are enforced to a higher degree, i.e., the LINGUIST, Lotka, and Yule-Simon distributions perform better. The findings can be plausibly explained by the lesser applicability of the success-breedssuccess model to the information production in the electronic communication media, such as Internet mailing lists, where selectivity of publications is marginal or nonexistent. The hypothesis is preliminary, and needs to be validated against the larger variety of datasets. Characteristics of the quality control, competitiveness, and the reward structure in Internet mailing lists as compared to professional scholarly journals are discussed.

Theme

Internet

0.0032029 = product of:
  0.0384348 = sum of:
    0.0384348 = weight(_text_:internet in 386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0384348 = score(doc=386,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.39948666 = fieldWeight in 386, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=386)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

This study explores the factors influencing citations to Internet studies by assessing the relative explanatory power of three perspectives: normative theory, the social constructivist approach, and a natural growth mechanism. Using data on 7,700+ articles of Internet studies published in 100+ Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)-listed journals in 2000-2009, the study adopted a multilevel model to disentangle the impact between article- and journal-level factors on citations. This research strategy resulted in a number of both expected and surprising findings. The primary determinants for citations are found to be journal-level factors, accounting for 14% of the variances in citations of Internet studies. The impact of some, if not all, article-level factors on citations are moderated by journal-level factors. Internet studies, like studies in other areas (e.g., management, demography, and ecology), are cited more for rhetorical purposes, as suggested by the social constructivist approach, rather than as a form of reward, as argued by normative theory. The impact of time on citations varies across journals, which creates a growing "citation gap" for Internet studies published in journals with different characteristics.

0.0031707096 = product of:
  0.038048513 = sum of:
    0.038048513 = weight(_text_:internet in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038048513 = score(doc=1111,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.39547163 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1111)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

The h-index can be a useful metric for evaluating a person's output of Internet media. Here I advocate and demonstrate adaption of the h-index and the g-index to the top video content creators on YouTube. The h-index for Internet video media is based on videos and their view counts. The h-index is defined as the number of videos with >=h × 10**5 views. The g-index is defined as the number of videos with >=g × 10**5 views on average. When compared with a video creator's total view count, the h-index and g-index better capture both productivity and impact in a single metric.

0.0029435712 = product of:
  0.035322852 = sum of:
    0.035322852 = product of:
      0.070645705 = sum of:
        0.070645705 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070645705 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, 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=5509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419

0.0029435712 = product of:
  0.035322852 = sum of:
    0.035322852 = product of:
      0.070645705 = sum of:
        0.070645705 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070645705 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = 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)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.0029435712 = product of:
  0.035322852 = sum of:
    0.035322852 = product of:
      0.070645705 = sum of:
        0.070645705 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070645705 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, 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=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Source

Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22

0.002601774 = product of:
  0.031221285 = sum of:
    0.031221285 = product of:
      0.06244257 = sum of:
        0.06244257 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06244257 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, 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=3690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:22:35

0.002601774 = product of:
  0.031221285 = sum of:
    0.031221285 = product of:
      0.06244257 = sum of:
        0.06244257 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06244257 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = 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)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.0025756247 = product of:
  0.030907497 = sum of:
    0.030907497 = product of:
      0.061814994 = sum of:
        0.061814994 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061814994 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, 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=6902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:29

0.0025756247 = product of:
  0.030907497 = sum of:
    0.030907497 = product of:
      0.061814994 = sum of:
        0.061814994 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061814994 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, 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=4689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:55

0.0022647926 = product of:
  0.027177509 = sum of:
    0.027177509 = weight(_text_:internet in 3458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027177509 = score(doc=3458,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.28247973 = fieldWeight in 3458, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3458)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

Continued development of the Internet requires the development of efficient, easy-to-use search engines. Ideally, such development should call upon knowledge and skills from a variety of disciplines, including computer science, information science, psychology, and ergonomics. The current study is intended to determine whether search engines shows a pattern of interdisciplinarity. 2 disciplines were selected as the focus for the study: computer science, and library/information science. A citation analysis was conducted to measure levels of interdisciplinary research and publishing in Internet search engine design and development. The results show a higher level of interdisciplinarity among library and information scientists than among computer scientists or among any of those categorized as 'other'. This is reflected both in the types of journals in which the authors publish, and in the references they cite to support their work. However, almost no authors published articles or cited references in fields such as cognitive science, ergonomics, or psychology. The results of this study are analyzed in terms of the writings of Patrick Wilson, Bruno Latour, Pierre Bordieu, Fritz Ringer, and Thomas Pinelli, focusing on cognitive authority within a profession, interaction between disciplines, and information-gathering habits of professionals. Suggestions for further research are given

0.0022190344 = product of:
  0.02662841 = sum of:
    0.02662841 = weight(_text_:internet in 3360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02662841 = score(doc=3360,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.27677247 = fieldWeight in 3360, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3360)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

The number of physics and astronomy preprints (manuscripts intended for publication but circulated for peer comment prior to submission) available electronically has increased dramatically over the past 5 years and Internet accessible preprint Web servers at the Stanford Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC) and the Los Alamos National Laboratoty (LANL) provide unrestricted access to citations and full text of many of these papers long before they appear in print. Includes data for periodicals ranked by number of citations to preprints and electronic preprints (e-prints). Identifies the growing importance of e-prints in the published literature and addresses areas of concern regarding their future role in scientific communication, including: inclusion of e-prints in abstracting and indexing services; connecting electronic periodicals with e-prints; guidelines for withdrawal and revision of e-prints; and maintaining the integritiy of the e-print servers

Theme

Internet