Search (25 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0076062274 = product of:
  0.015212455 = sum of:
    0.015212455 = product of:
      0.03042491 = sum of:
        0.03042491 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03042491 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13106237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170

0.0076062274 = product of:
  0.015212455 = sum of:
    0.015212455 = product of:
      0.03042491 = sum of:
        0.03042491 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03042491 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13106237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 853, 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=853)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.3, S.3-23

0.0076062274 = product of:
  0.015212455 = sum of:
    0.015212455 = product of:
      0.03042491 = sum of:
        0.03042491 = weight(_text_:22 in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03042491 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13106237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 102, 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=102)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.007380193 = product of:
  0.014760386 = sum of:
    0.014760386 = product of:
      0.029520772 = sum of:
        0.029520772 = weight(_text_:c in 7658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029520772 = score(doc=7658,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 7658, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7658)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Large scale uncitedness refers to the significant proportion of articles that do not receive a single citation within 5 years of publication. Notes the brief and troubled history of this area of inquiry, which was prone to miscalculation, misinterpretation, and politicization. Reassesses large scale uncitedness as both a general phenomenon in the scholarly communication system (with data for the physical sciences, social sciences and humanities) and a case study of library and information science, where its rate was reported to be 72%. The study was in 4 parts: examination of the problem of disaggregation in the study of uncitedness; review of the reaction of the popular press and scholars to uncitedness; a case study of uncitedness in C&RL; and a brief summary with suggestions for further research. Data disaggregation was found to be essential in interpreting citation data from tools such as Science Citation Index, Arts and Humanities Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index; which do not differentiate between articles and marginal materials (book reviews, letters, obituaries). Stresses the dangers of conclusions from uncitedness data

0.0061501605 = product of:
  0.012300321 = sum of:
    0.012300321 = product of:
      0.024600642 = sum of:
        0.024600642 = weight(_text_:c in 5067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024600642 = score(doc=5067,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1291003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037426826 = queryNorm
            0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 5067, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5067)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Enthält u.a. die Beiträge: INGWERSEN, P.: Information science as a cognitive science; MEDER, N.: Objekt-orientierte Wissensdarstellung und -navigation; SPIESS, M.: Repräsentation unsicheren Wissens; HENRICHS, N.: Begriffswandel in Datenbanken: kontextuelle Inhaltsanalyse für Disambiguierung und ideengeschichtliche Analyse; VOGT, C. u. R. WILLE: Formale Begriffsanalyse: Darstellung und Analyse von bibliographischen Daten; RITTBERGER, M.: Online-Retrieval und Hypertext: auf dem Weg zu verknüpften Datenbanken und offenen Hypertextsystemen; SCHOPEN, M.: GRIPS-Menu: Unterstützung von Endnutzerrecherchen in Literaturdatenbanken des DIMDI; KLOSE, G. u. T. PIRLEIN: Wissensmodellierung in LILOG; DANIEL, H.-D.: Peer-review als Qualitätsfilter im wissenschaftlichen Publikationswesen