-
Positionspapier der DMV zur Verwendung bibliometrischer Daten (2020)
0.04
0.04448698 = product of:
0.06673047 = sum of:
0.054615162 = weight(_text_:im in 5738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054615162 = score(doc=5738,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.37866634 = fieldWeight in 5738, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5738)
0.01211531 = product of:
0.03634593 = sum of:
0.03634593 = weight(_text_:online in 5738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03634593 = score(doc=5738,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.23471867 = fieldWeight in 5738, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5738)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Bibliometrische Daten werden heute zunehmend in der Evaluation von Forschungsergebnissen benutzt. Diese Anwendungen reichen von der (indirekten) Verwendung bei der Peer-Evaluation von Drittmittelanträgen über die Beurteilung von Bewerbungen in Berufungskommissionen oder Anträgen für Forschungszulagen bis hin zur systematischen Erhebung von forschungsorientierten Kennzahlen von Institutionen. Mit diesem Dokument will die DMV ihren Mitgliedern eine Diskussionsgrundlage zur Verwendung bibliometrischer Daten im Zusammenhang mit der Evaluation von Personen und Institutionen im Fachgebiet Mathematik zur Verfügung stellen, insbesondere auch im Vergleich zu anderen Fächern. Am Ende des Texts befindet sich ein Glossar, in dem die wichtigsten Begriffe kurz erläutert werden.
- Issue
- Online: 21.02.2020.
-
Wang, S.; Ma, Y.; Mao, J.; Bai, Y.; Liang, Z.; Li, G.: Quantifying scientific breakthroughs by a novel disruption indicator based on knowledge entities : On the rise of scrape-and-report scholarship in online reviews research (2023)
0.01
0.013450166 = product of:
0.040350497 = sum of:
0.040350497 = product of:
0.060525745 = sum of:
0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025961377 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 882, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=882)
0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03456437 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 882, 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=882)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 1.2023 18:37:33
-
Asubiaro, T.V.; Onaolapo, S.: ¬A comparative study of the coverage of African journals in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef (2023)
0.01
0.013450166 = product of:
0.040350497 = sum of:
0.040350497 = product of:
0.060525745 = sum of:
0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025961377 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03456437 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- This is the first study that evaluated the coverage of journals from Africa in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef. A list of active journals published in each of the 55 African countries was compiled from Ulrich's periodicals directory and African Journals Online (AJOL) website. Journal master lists for Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef were searched for the African journals. A total of 2,229 unique active African journals were identified from Ulrich (N = 2,117, 95.0%) and AJOL (N = 243, 10.9%) after removing duplicates. The volume of African journals in Web of Science and Scopus databases is 7.4% (N = 166) and 7.8% (N = 174), respectively, compared to the 45.6% (N = 1,017) covered in CrossRef. While making up only 17.% of all the African journals, South African journals had the best coverage in the two most authoritative databases, accounting for 73.5% and 62.1% of all the African journals in Web of Science and Scopus, respectively. In contrast, Nigeria published 44.5% of all the African journals. The distribution of the African journals is biased in favor of Medical, Life and Health Sciences and Humanities and the Arts in the three databases. The low representation of African journals in CrossRef, a free indexing infrastructure that could be harnessed for building an African-centric research indexing database, is concerning.
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 14:09:06
-
Reichmann, G.; Schlögl, C.: Möglichkeiten zur Steuerung der Ergebnisse einer Forschungsevaluation (2021)
0.01
0.01201222 = product of:
0.03603666 = sum of:
0.03603666 = weight(_text_:im in 5660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03603666 = score(doc=5660,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.24985497 = fieldWeight in 5660, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5660)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Ein Leistungsvergleich zwischen den (ehemaligen) Instituten für Informationswissenschaft der Universitäten Düsseldorf und Graz auf Basis der Forschungsleistung für einen Zeitraum von zehn Jahren zeigt, wie sehr die Ergebnisse einer Forschungsevaluation gesteuert werden können. Durch die Wahl "geeigneter" Indikatoren gelingt es - je nach Wunsch - entweder das eine oder das andere Institut an die erste Stelle zu bringen. Hält man sich dagegen an das wissenschaftliche Gebot der Unparteilichkeit, führt dies im hier gezeigten Anwendungsbeispiel zu gemischten Ergebnissen.
-
Krattenthaler, C.: Was der h-Index wirklich aussagt (2021)
0.01
0.01201222 = product of:
0.03603666 = sum of:
0.03603666 = weight(_text_:im in 407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03603666 = score(doc=407,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.24985497 = fieldWeight in 407, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=407)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Diese Note legt dar, dass der sogenannte h-Index (Hirschs bibliometrischer Index) im Wesentlichen dieselbe Information wiedergibt wie die Gesamtanzahl von Zitationen von Publikationen einer Autorin oder eines Autors, also ein nutzloser bibliometrischer Index ist. Dies basiert auf einem faszinierenden Satz der Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie, der hier ebenfalls erläutert wird.
-
Rohman, A.: ¬The emergence, peak, and abeyance of an online information ground : the lifecycle of a Facebook group for verifying information during violence (2021)
0.01
0.0077401884 = product of:
0.023220565 = sum of:
0.023220565 = product of:
0.06966169 = sum of:
0.06966169 = weight(_text_:online in 153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06966169 = score(doc=153,freq=10.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.4498688 = fieldWeight in 153, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=153)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Information grounds emerge as people share information with others in a common place. Many studies have investigated the emergence of information grounds in public places. This study pays attention to the emergence, peak, and abeyance of an online information ground. It investigates a Facebook group used by youth for sharing information when misinformation spread wildly during the 2011 violence in Ambon, Indonesia. The findings demonstrate change and continuity in an online information ground; it became an information hub when reaching a peak cycle, and an information repository when entering into abeyance. Despite this period of nonactivity, the friendships and collective memories resulting from information ground interactions last over time and can be used for reactivating the online information ground when new needs emerge. Illuminating the lifecycles of an online information ground, the findings have potential to explain the dynamic of users' interactions with others and with information in quotidian spaces.
-
Tausch, A.: Zitierungen sind nicht alles : Classroom Citation, Libcitation und die Zukunft bibliometrischer und szientometrischer Leistungsvergleiche (2022)
0.01
0.007507637 = product of:
0.022522911 = sum of:
0.022522911 = weight(_text_:im in 827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022522911 = score(doc=827,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.15615936 = fieldWeight in 827, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=827)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Die multivariaten Rankings, die auf den mit den Eigenwerten gewichteten Factorscores beruhen, zeigen in der Tabelle 6, welche 15 österreichischen Politikwissenschaftler*innen sich auf den Weltmärkten der Wissenschaften am besten bewährten. Außerdem zeigen diese Methoden in Tabelle 10 auch, dass die im Beitrag analysierten führenden akademischen Verlage der Welt insbesondere für Wissenschaftler*innen der jüngeren Generation gute Weggefährten sein werden, um in Zeiten institutioneller und finanzieller Unsicherheit die Ergebnisse der Wissenschaft verlässlich um den Globus zu verbreiten und die akademischen Karrieren zu befördern.
-
Dederke, J.; Hirschmann, B.; Johann, D.: ¬Der Data Citation Index von Clarivate : Eine wertvolle Ressource für die Forschung und für Bibliotheken? (2022)
0.01
0.005769195 = product of:
0.017307585 = sum of:
0.017307585 = product of:
0.051922753 = sum of:
0.051922753 = weight(_text_:online in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051922753 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.33531237 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- B.I.T. Online. 25(2022) H.1, S.21-
-
Wiggers, G.; Verberne, S.; Loon, W. van; Zwenne, G.-J.: Bibliometric-enhanced legal information retrieval : combining usage and citations as flavors of impact relevance (2023)
0.01
0.005731291 = product of:
0.017193872 = sum of:
0.017193872 = product of:
0.051581617 = sum of:
0.051581617 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051581617 = score(doc=1022,freq=8.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1022, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1022)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Bibliometric-enhanced information retrieval uses bibliometrics (e.g., citations) to improve ranking algorithms. Using a data-driven approach, this article describes the development of a bibliometric-enhanced ranking algorithm for legal information retrieval, and the evaluation thereof. We statistically analyze the correlation between usage of documents and citations over time, using data from a commercial legal search engine. We then propose a bibliometric boost function that combines usage of documents with citation counts. The core of this function is an impact variable based on usage and citations that increases in influence as citations and usage counts become more reliable over time. We evaluate our ranking function by comparing search sessions before and after the introduction of the new ranking in the search engine. Using a cost model applied to 129,571 sessions before and 143,864 sessions after the intervention, we show that our bibliometric-enhanced ranking algorithm reduces the time of a search session of legal professionals by 2 to 3% on average for use cases other than known-item retrieval or updating behavior. Given the high hourly tariff of legal professionals and the limited time they can spend on research, this is expected to lead to increased efficiency, especially for users with extremely long search sessions.
-
Manley, S.: Letters to the editor and the race for publication metrics (2022)
0.01
0.00537668 = product of:
0.01613004 = sum of:
0.01613004 = product of:
0.048390117 = sum of:
0.048390117 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048390117 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 6. 4.2022 19:22:26
-
Radford, M.L.; Kitzie, V.; Mikitish, S.; Floegel, D.; Radford, G.P.; Connaway, L.S.: "People are reading your work," : scholarly identity and social networking sites (2020)
0.00
0.00499627 = product of:
0.01498881 = sum of:
0.01498881 = product of:
0.04496643 = sum of:
0.04496643 = weight(_text_:online in 5983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04496643 = score(doc=5983,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.29038906 = fieldWeight in 5983, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5983)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Scholarly identity refers to endeavors by scholars to promote their reputation, work and networks using online platforms such as ResearchGate, Academia.edu and Twitter. This exploratory research investigates benefits and drawbacks of scholarly identity efforts and avenues for potential library support. Design/methodology/approach Data from 30 semi-structured phone interviews with faculty, doctoral students and academic librarians were qualitatively analyzed using the constant comparisons method (Charmaz, 2014) and Goffman's (1959, 1967) theoretical concept of impression management. Findings Results reveal that use of online platforms enables academics to connect with others and disseminate their research. scholarly identity platforms have benefits, opportunities and offer possibilities for developing academic library support. They are also fraught with drawbacks/concerns, especially related to confusion, for-profit models and reputational risk. Research limitations/implications This exploratory study involves analysis of a small number of interviews (30) with self-selected social scientists from one discipline (communication) and librarians. It lacks gender, race/ethnicity and geographical diversity and focuses exclusively on individuals who use social networking sites for their scholarly identity practices. Social implications Results highlight benefits and risks of scholarly identity work and the potential for adopting practices that consider ethical dilemmas inherent in maintaining an online social media presence. They suggest continuing to develop library support that provides strategic guidance and information on legal responsibilities regarding copyright. Originality/value This research aims to understand the benefits and drawbacks of Scholarly Identity platforms and explore what support academic libraries might offer. It is among the first to investigate these topics comparing perspectives of faculty, doctoral students and librarians.
-
Tay, W.; Zhang, X.; Karimi , S.: Beyond mean rating : probabilistic aggregation of star ratings based on helpfulness (2020)
0.00
0.004895325 = product of:
0.0146859735 = sum of:
0.0146859735 = product of:
0.04405792 = sum of:
0.04405792 = weight(_text_:online in 5917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04405792 = score(doc=5917,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.284522 = fieldWeight in 5917, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5917)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The star-rating mechanism of customer reviews is used universally by the online population to compare and select merchants, movies, products, and services. The consensus opinion from aggregation of star ratings is used as a proxy for item quality. Online reviews are noisy and effective aggregation of star ratings to accurately reflect the "true quality" of products and services is challenging. The mean-rating aggregation model is widely used and other aggregation models are also proposed. These existing aggregation models rely on a large number of reviews to tolerate noise. However, many products rarely have reviews. We propose probabilistic aggregation models for review ratings based on the Dirichlet distribution to combat data sparsity in reviews. We further propose to exploit the "helpfulness" social information and time to filter noisy reviews and effectively aggregate ratings to compute the consensus opinion. Our experiments on an Amazon data set show that our probabilistic aggregation models based on "helpfulness" achieve better performance than the statistical and heuristic baseline approaches.
-
Lorentzen, D.G.: Bridging polarised Twitter discussions : the interactions of the users in the middle (2021)
0.00
0.0046085827 = product of:
0.013825747 = sum of:
0.013825747 = product of:
0.04147724 = sum of:
0.04147724 = weight(_text_:22 in 182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04147724 = score(doc=182,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 182, 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=182)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Milard, B.; Pitarch, Y.: Egocentric cocitation networks and scientific papers destinies (2023)
0.00
0.0046085827 = product of:
0.013825747 = sum of:
0.013825747 = product of:
0.04147724 = sum of:
0.04147724 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04147724 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, 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=918)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 21. 3.2023 19:22:14
-
Hellsten, I.; Leydesdorff, L.: Automated analysis of actor-topic networks on twitter : new approaches to the analysis of socio-semantic networks (2020)
0.00
0.0040794373 = product of:
0.012238312 = sum of:
0.012238312 = product of:
0.036714934 = sum of:
0.036714934 = weight(_text_:online in 5610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036714934 = score(doc=5610,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 5610, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5610)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Social media data provide increasing opportunities for the automated analysis of large sets of textual documents. So far, automated tools have been developed either to account for the social networks among participants in the debates, or to analyze the content of these debates. Less attention has been paid to mapping co-occurrences of actors (participants) and topics (content) in online debates that can be considered as socio-semantic networks. We propose a new, automated approach that uses the whole matrix of co-addressed topics and actors for understanding and visualizing online debates. We show the advantages of the new approach with the analysis of two data sets: first, a large set of English-language Twitter messages at the Rio?+?20 meeting, in June 2012 (72,077 tweets), and second, a smaller data set of Dutch-language Twitter messages on bird flu related to poultry farming in 2015-2017 (2,139 tweets). We discuss the theoretical, methodological, and substantive implications of our approach, also for the analysis of other social media data.
-
Costas, R.; Rijcke, S. de; Marres, N.: "Heterogeneous couplings" : operationalizing network perspectives to study science-society interactions through social media metrics (2021)
0.00
0.0040794373 = product of:
0.012238312 = sum of:
0.012238312 = product of:
0.036714934 = sum of:
0.036714934 = weight(_text_:online in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036714934 = score(doc=215,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 215, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=215)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Social media metrics have a genuine networked nature, reflecting the networking characteristics of the social media platform from where they are derived. This networked nature has been relatively less explored in the literature on altmetrics, although new network-level approaches are starting to appear. A general conceptualization of the role of social media networks in science communication, and particularly of social media as a specific type of interface between science and society, is still missing. The aim of this paper is to provide a conceptual framework for appraising interactions between science and society in multiple directions, in what we call heterogeneous couplings. Heterogeneous couplings are conceptualized as the co-occurrence of science and non-science objects, actors, and interactions in online media environments. This conceptualization provides a common framework to study the interactions between science and non-science actors as captured via online and social media platforms. The conceptualization of heterogeneous couplings opens wider opportunities for the development of network applications and analyses of the interactions between societal and scholarly entities in social media environments, paving the way toward more advanced forms of altmetrics, social (media) studies of science, and the conceptualization and operationalization of more advanced science-society studies.
-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.00
0.0038404856 = product of:
0.011521457 = sum of:
0.011521457 = product of:
0.03456437 = sum of:
0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03456437 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Cerda-Cosme, R.; Méndez, E.: Analysis of shared research data in Spanish scientific papers about COVID-19 : a first approach (2023)
0.00
0.0038404856 = product of:
0.011521457 = sum of:
0.011521457 = product of:
0.03456437 = sum of:
0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03456437 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 916, 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=916)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 21. 3.2023 19:22:02
-
Zhang, Y.; Wu, M.; Zhang, G.; Lu, J.: Stepping beyond your comfort zone : diffusion-based network analytics for knowledge trajectory recommendation (2023)
0.00
0.0038404856 = product of:
0.011521457 = sum of:
0.011521457 = product of:
0.03456437 = sum of:
0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03456437 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:07:12
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Why are coauthored academic articles more cited : higher quality or larger audience? (2023)
0.00
0.0038404856 = product of:
0.011521457 = sum of:
0.011521457 = product of:
0.03456437 = sum of:
0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03456437 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
