Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × type_ss:"m"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Mayr, P.: Information Retrieval-Mehrwertdienste für Digitale Bibliotheken: : Crosskonkordanzen und Bradfordizing (2010) 0.02 
    0.020983625 = product of:
  0.12590174 = sum of:
    0.12590174 = weight(_text_:ranking in 4910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12590174 = score(doc=4910,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.62106377 = fieldWeight in 4910, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4910)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    In dieser Arbeit werden zwei Mehrwertdienste für Suchsysteme vorgestellt, die typische Probleme bei der Recherche nach wissenschaftlicher Literatur behandeln können. Die beiden Mehrwertdienste semantische Heterogenitätsbehandlung am Beispiel Crosskonkordanzen und Re-Ranking auf Basis von Bradfordizing, die in unterschiedlichen Phasen der Suche zum Einsatz kommen, werden in diesem Buch ausführlich beschrieben und evaluiert. Für die Tests wurden Fragestellungen und Daten aus zwei Evaluationsprojekten (CLEF und KoMoHe) verwendet. Die intellektuell bewerteten Dokumente stammen aus insgesamt sieben Fachdatenbanken der Fächer Sozialwissenschaften, Politikwissenschaft, Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Psychologie und Medizin. Die Ergebnisse dieser Arbeit sind in das GESIS-Projekt IRM eingeflossen.
    RSWK
    Dokumentationssprache / Heterogenität / Information Retrieval / Ranking / Evaluation
    Subject
    Dokumentationssprache / Heterogenität / Information Retrieval / Ranking / Evaluation
  2. Gingras, Y.: Bibliometrics and research evaluation : uses and abuses (2016) 0.01 
    0.008076601 = product of:
  0.0484596 = sum of:
    0.0484596 = weight(_text_:ranking in 3805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0484596 = score(doc=3805,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.23904754 = fieldWeight in 3805, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3805)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    The research evaluation market is booming. "Ranking," "metrics," "h-index," and "impact factors" are reigning buzzwords. Government and research administrators want to evaluate everything -- teachers, professors, training programs, universities -- using quantitative indicators. Among the tools used to measure "research excellence," bibliometrics -- aggregate data on publications and citations -- has become dominant. Bibliometrics is hailed as an "objective" measure of research quality, a quantitative measure more useful than "subjective" and intuitive evaluation methods such as peer review that have been used since scientific papers were first published in the seventeenth century. In this book, Yves Gingras offers a spirited argument against an unquestioning reliance on bibliometrics as an indicator of research quality. Gingras shows that bibliometric rankings have no real scientific validity, rarely measuring what they pretend to. Although the study of publication and citation patterns, at the proper scales, can yield insights on the global dynamics of science over time, ill-defined quantitative indicators often generate perverse and unintended effects on the direction of research. Moreover, abuse of bibliometrics occurs when data is manipulated to boost rankings. Gingras looks at the politics of evaluation and argues that using numbers can be a way to control scientists and diminish their autonomy in the evaluation process. Proposing precise criteria for establishing the validity of indicators at a given scale of analysis, Gingras questions why universities are so eager to let invalid indicators influence their research strategy.
  3. Scholarly metrics under the microscope : from citation analysis to academic auditing (2015) 0.00 
    0.0022567778 = product of:
  0.013540667 = sum of:
    0.013540667 = product of:
      0.040622 = sum of:
        0.040622 = weight(_text_:22 in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040622 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4654, 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=4654)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    22. 1.2017 17:12:50

Authors

Languages

Subjects

Classifications