Search (148 results, page 2 of 8)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Mohammadi, E.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? : a survey of user motivations (2016) 0.01 
    0.009676432 = product of:
  0.067735024 = sum of:
    0.067735024 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 2897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067735024 = score(doc=2897,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.3164402 = fieldWeight in 2897, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2897)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Although Mendeley bookmarking counts appear to correlate moderately with conventional citation metrics, it is not known whether academic publications are bookmarked in Mendeley in order to be read or not. Without this information, it is not possible to give a confident interpretation of altmetrics derived from Mendeley. In response, a survey of 860 Mendeley users shows that it is reasonable to use Mendeley bookmarking counts as an indication of readership because most (55%) users with a Mendeley library had read or intended to read at least half of their bookmarked publications. This was true across all broad areas of scholarship except for the arts and humanities (42%). About 85% of the respondents also declared that they bookmarked articles in Mendeley to cite them in their publications, but some also bookmark articles for use in professional (50%), teaching (25%), and educational activities (13%). Of course, it is likely that most readers do not record articles in Mendeley and so these data do not represent all readers. In conclusion, Mendeley bookmark counts seem to be indicators of readership leading to a combination of scholarly impact and wider professional impact.
  2. Metrics in research : for better or worse? (2016) 0.01 
    0.0077411463 = product of:
  0.05418802 = sum of:
    0.05418802 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05418802 = score(doc=3312,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.25315216 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Content
    Inhalt: Metrics in Research - For better or worse? / Jozica Dolenc, Philippe Hünenberger Oliver Renn - A brief visual history of research metrics / Oliver Renn, Jozica Dolenc, Joachim Schnabl - Bibliometry: The wizard of O's / Philippe Hünenberger - The grip of bibliometrics - A student perspective / Matthias Tinzl - Honesty and transparency to taxpayers is the long-term fundament for stable university funding / Wendelin J. Stark - Beyond metrics: Managing the performance of your work / Charlie Rapple - Scientific profiling instead of bibliometrics: Key performance indicators of the future / Rafael Ball - More knowledge, less numbers / Carl Philipp Rosenau - Do we really need BIBLIO-metrics to evaluate individual researchers? / Rüdiger Mutz - Using research metrics responsibly and effectively as a researcher / Peter I. Darroch, Lisa H. Colledge - Metrics in research: More (valuable) questions than answers / Urs Hugentobler - Publication of research results: Use and abuse / Wilfred F. van Gunsteren - Wanted: Transparent algorithms, interpretation skills, common sense / Eva E. Wille - Impact factors, the h-index, and citation hype - Metrics in research from the point of view of a journal editor / Renato Zenobi - Rashomon or metrics in a publisher's world / Gabriella Karger - The impact factor and I: A love-hate relationship / Jean-Christophe Leroux - Personal experiences bringing altmetrics to the academic market / Ben McLeish - Fatally attracted by numbers? / Oliver Renn - On computable numbers / Gerd Folkers, Laura Folkers - ScienceMatters - Single observation science publishing and linking observations to create an internet of science / Lawrence Rajendran.
  3. Adler, R.; Ewing, J.; Taylor, P.: Citation statistics : A report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS) (2008) 0.01 
    0.00580586 = product of:
  0.040641017 = sum of:
    0.040641017 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040641017 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.18986413 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    This is a report about the use and misuse of citation data in the assessment of scientific research. The idea that research assessment must be done using "simple and objective" methods is increasingly prevalent today. The "simple and objective" methods are broadly interpreted as bibliometrics, that is, citation data and the statistics derived from them. There is a belief that citation statistics are inherently more accurate because they substitute simple numbers for complex judgments, and hence overcome the possible subjectivity of peer review. But this belief is unfounded. - Relying on statistics is not more accurate when the statistics are improperly used. Indeed, statistics can mislead when they are misapplied or misunderstood. Much of modern bibliometrics seems to rely on experience and intuition about the interpretation and validity of citation statistics. - While numbers appear to be "objective", their objectivity can be illusory. The meaning of a citation can be even more subjective than peer review. Because this subjectivity is less obvious for citations, those who use citation data are less likely to understand their limitations. - The sole reliance on citation data provides at best an incomplete and often shallow understanding of research - an understanding that is valid only when reinforced by other judgments. Numbers are not inherently superior to sound judgments.
  4. Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986) 0.01 
    0.005786181 = product of:
  0.040503263 = sum of:
    0.040503263 = product of:
      0.08100653 = sum of:
        0.08100653 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08100653 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
  5. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.01 
    0.005786181 = product of:
  0.040503263 = sum of:
    0.040503263 = product of:
      0.08100653 = sum of:
        0.08100653 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08100653 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  6. Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987) 0.01 
    0.005786181 = product of:
  0.040503263 = sum of:
    0.040503263 = product of:
      0.08100653 = sum of:
        0.08100653 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08100653 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Source
    Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22
  7. Schramm, R.: Kerninformationen mittels formaler Bewertungskritierien (1996) 0.01 
    0.005530036 = product of:
  0.03871025 = sum of:
    0.03871025 = product of:
      0.0774205 = sum of:
        0.0774205 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 6258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0774205 = score(doc=6258,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.42793027 = fieldWeight in 6258, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6258)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Die Ermittlung von Kerninformationen mittels informetrischer Methoden erfordert die Nutzung formaler Bewertungskriterien wie Publikationshäufigkeit, Zitierhäufigkeit und Patentfamiliengröße. Es werden die Zeitabhängigkeit, die Austauschbarkeit und die Voraussetzungen für die Anwendung der formalen Bewertungskriterien erläutert.
  8. Dorsch, I.; Haustein, S.: Bibliometrie (2023) 0.01 
    0.005530036 = product of:
  0.03871025 = sum of:
    0.03871025 = product of:
      0.0774205 = sum of:
        0.0774205 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0774205 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.42793027 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Die Bibliometrie ist eine sozialwissenschaftliche Disziplin, die historisch gesehen auf drei Entwicklungen fußt: die positivistisch-funktionalistische Philosophie, soziale Fakten objektiv untersuchen zu können; die Entwicklung von Zitationsindizes und -analyse, um Forschungsleistung zu messen; und die Entdeckung mathematischer Gesetzmäßigkeiten, die die Anwendung von Indikatoren in der Wissenschaftsevaluation ermöglichten.
  9. Su, Y.; Han, L.-F.: ¬A new literature growth model : variable exponential growth law of literature (1998) 0.01 
    0.0051143095 = product of:
  0.035800166 = sum of:
    0.035800166 = product of:
      0.07160033 = sum of:
        0.07160033 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07160033 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:22:35
  10. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.01 
    0.0051143095 = product of:
  0.035800166 = sum of:
    0.035800166 = product of:
      0.07160033 = sum of:
        0.07160033 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07160033 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  11. Diodato, V.: Dictionary of bibliometrics (1994) 0.01 
    0.005062908 = product of:
  0.035440356 = sum of:
    0.035440356 = product of:
      0.07088071 = sum of:
        0.07088071 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07088071 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, 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=5666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)
  12. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990) 0.01 
    0.005062908 = product of:
  0.035440356 = sum of:
    0.035440356 = product of:
      0.07088071 = sum of:
        0.07088071 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07088071 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:29
  13. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990) 0.01 
    0.005062908 = product of:
  0.035440356 = sum of:
    0.035440356 = product of:
      0.07088071 = sum of:
        0.07088071 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07088071 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:55
  14. Kahl, M.: Zitatenanalyse mit den Journal Citation Reports des Institute for Scientific Information : ein Hilfsmittel für die Zeitschriftenauswahl in wissenschaftlichen Bibliotheken? (1995) 0.00 
    0.0048387814 = product of:
  0.03387147 = sum of:
    0.03387147 = product of:
      0.06774294 = sum of:
        0.06774294 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06774294 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.37443897 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Die Häufigkeit von Zitierungen wissenschaftlicher Publikationen kann in erster Näherung als Maßstab für ihre inhaltliche Qualität gelten. Die Journal Citation Reports (JCR) des ISI ordnen über die Auszählung von Referenzen aus mehreren tausend Fachzeitschriften durch diverse bibliometrische Indikatoren Zeitschriften einen bestimmten Wert zu. Der Aufbau der Datensammlung sowie die verwendeten Indikatoren werden näher beschrieben. 2 Methoden werden vorgestellt, mit denen in Anwendung der JCR eine Menge von Kernzeitschriften für ein Fachgebiet ermittelt werden kann. Probleme der Zuverlässigkeit bei der Sammlung und Verarbeitung der Zitierdaten durch die JCR werden dargestellt. Die Anwendbarkeit einer Zitatenanalyse für den Bestandsaufbau bei Fachzeitschriften wird untersucht. Sie kann zur Entscheidungsfindung beitragen, andere Methoden aber nicht ersetzen
  15. Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005) 0.00 
    0.0043396354 = product of:
  0.030377446 = sum of:
    0.030377446 = product of:
      0.06075489 = sum of:
        0.06075489 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06075489 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    20. 1.2007 17:02:22
  16. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.00 
    0.0043396354 = product of:
  0.030377446 = sum of:
    0.030377446 = product of:
      0.06075489 = sum of:
        0.06075489 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06075489 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
  17. Harter, S.P.; Cheng, Y.-R.: Colinked descriptors : improving vocabulary selection for end-user searching (1996) 0.00 
    0.0041475273 = product of:
  0.029032689 = sum of:
    0.029032689 = product of:
      0.058065377 = sum of:
        0.058065377 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058065377 = score(doc=4216,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.3209477 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  18. Schneider, J.W.; Borlund, P.: Introduction to bibliometrics for construction and maintenance of thesauri : methodical considerations (2004) 0.00 
    0.0041475273 = product of:
  0.029032689 = sum of:
    0.029032689 = product of:
      0.058065377 = sum of:
        0.058065377 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 4423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058065377 = score(doc=4423,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.3209477 = fieldWeight in 4423, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  19. Herb, U.: Relevanz von Impact-Maßen für Open Access (2013) 0.00 
    0.0041475273 = product of:
  0.029032689 = sum of:
    0.029032689 = product of:
      0.058065377 = sum of:
        0.058065377 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058065377 = score(doc=926,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.3209477 = fieldWeight in 926, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=926)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Die Anwendung bibliometrischer Verfahren ist sowohl für Wissenschaftler als auch für Organisationen höchst relevant: Individuelle Karriere und Evaluierung von Fachbereichen sind abhängig von der Bewertung des Publikationsverhaltens. Der Beitrag eruiert, warum Open-Access-Publikationen in solchen Bewertungen benachteiligt werden, wie die in der Evaluierung üblicherweise herangezogenen bibliometrischen Verfahren (v.a. der Journal impact Factor JIF) funktionieren, welche Alternativen zu diesen zitationsbasierten Verfahren existieren und zu welchen Ergebnissen sie kommen. Unter der Annahme, dass Open-Access-Publikationen nicht qua geringer Qualität geringere Wertschätzung in der Evaluierung und bei Berufungskommissionen erfahren, sondern aufgrund methodischer Eigenheiten der Evaluierungsinstrumente, wird diskutiert, inwiefern alternative Qualitätsmessungsverfahren sich vorteilhaft auf die Akzeptanz von Open Access auswirken können.
  20. Informations- und Wissensverarbeitung in den Sozialwissenschaften : Beiträge zur Umsetzung neuer Informationstechnologien (1994) 0.00 
    0.0034562727 = product of:
  0.024193907 = sum of:
    0.024193907 = product of:
      0.048387814 = sum of:
        0.048387814 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 5067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048387814 = score(doc=5067,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.2674564 = fieldWeight in 5067, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5067)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Die Beiträge behandeln aus verschiedenen Blickwinkeln einen durch die Begriffe Sozialwissenschaft-Informatik-Information abgegrenzten, interdisziplinären Themenkomplex. Gerade in den Sozialwissenschaften haben die qualitative Textinterpretation und die Suche nach typischen, einzelnen Fällen ihren festen Stellenwert, und automatische Informationssuche und Informationsaufbereitung sind zu unverzichtbaren Forschungsinstrumenten geworden. Dieser Band enthält eine Vielzahl von Fachbeiträgen, die im Rahmen entsprechender Spezialveranstaltungen entstanden sind oder eigens für diesen Band geschrieben wurden. Sowohl als Einführungen wie auch im Rahmen spezieller Fragestellungen werden Ansätze aus den Gebieten Künstliche Intelligenz, Bilderkennung, Kommunikationsnetze, Hypertext, Szientometrie, Bibliometrie u.a., jeweils mit Bezug auf sozialwissenschaftliche Anwendung, vorgestellt

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 131
  • d 14
  • m 1
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 142
  • el 4
  • s 3
  • m 2
  • r 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications