Search (352 results, page 1 of 18)

0.07277769 = product of:
  0.14555538 = sum of:
    0.14555538 = sum of:
      0.048839044 = weight(_text_:m in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048839044 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12688358 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.38491225 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
      0.09671634 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09671634 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1785549 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = 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)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)

Type

m

0.048627537 = sum of:
  0.038162027 = product of:
    0.1526481 = sum of:
      0.1526481 = weight(_text_:author's in 3308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1526481 = score(doc=3308,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3426541 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 3308, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3308)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01046551 = product of:
    0.02093102 = sum of:
      0.02093102 = weight(_text_:m in 3308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02093102 = score(doc=3308,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12688358 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.1649624 = fieldWeight in 3308, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3308)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We present a model for estimating the probability that a pair of author names (sharing last name and first initial), appearing an two different Medline articles, refer to the same individual. The model uses a simple yet powerful similarity profile between a pair of articles, based an title, journal name, coauthor names, medical subject headings (MeSH), language, affiliation, and name attributes (prevalence in the literature, middle initial, and suffix). The similarity profile distribution is computed from reference sets consisting of pairs of articles containing almost exclusively author matches versus nonmatches, generated in an unbiased manner. Although the match set is generated automatically and might contain a small proportion of nonmatches, the model is quite robust against contamination with nonmatches. We have created a free, public service ("Author-ity": http://arrowsmith.psych.uic.edu) that takes as input an author's name given an a specific article, and gives as output a list of all articles with that (last name, first initial) ranked by decreasing similarity, with match probability indicated.

0.044135407 = sum of:
  0.031801686 = product of:
    0.12720674 = sum of:
      0.12720674 = weight(_text_:author's in 1530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12720674 = score(doc=1530,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3426541 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.3712395 = fieldWeight in 1530, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1530)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.012333722 = product of:
    0.024667444 = sum of:
      0.024667444 = weight(_text_:m in 1530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024667444 = score(doc=1530,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.12688358 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.19441006 = fieldWeight in 1530, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1530)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A theory of "megacitation" is introduced and used in an experiment to demonstrate how a qualitative scholarly book review can be converted into a weighted bibliometric indicator. We employ a manual human-coding approach to classify book reviews in the field of history based on reviewers' assessments of a book author's scholarly credibility (SC) and writing style (WS). In total, 100 book reviews were selected from the American Historical Review and coded for their positive/negative valence on these two dimensions. Most were coded as positive (68% for SC and 47% for WS), and there was also a small positive correlation between SC and WS (r = 0.2). We then constructed a classifier, combining both manual design and machine learning, to categorize sentiment-based sentences in history book reviews. The machine classifier produced a matched accuracy (matched to the human coding) of approximately 75% for SC and 64% for WS. WS was found to be more difficult to classify by machine than SC because of the reviewers' use of more subtle language. With further training data, a machine-learning approach could be useful for automatically classifying a large number of history book reviews at once. Weighted megacitations can be especially valuable if they are used in conjunction with regular book/journal citations, and "libcitations" (i.e., library holding counts) for a comprehensive assessment of a book/monograph's scholarly impact.

0.04295651 = sum of:
  0.035979502 = product of:
    0.14391801 = sum of:
      0.14391801 = weight(_text_:author's in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14391801 = score(doc=2213,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.3426541 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.42000958 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0069770063 = product of:
    0.013954013 = sum of:
      0.013954013 = weight(_text_:m in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013954013 = score(doc=2213,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12688358 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.10997493 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 55(2004) no.4, S.363-365 (J.W. Schneider): "Theories and methods for mapping scientific frontiers have existed for decades-especially within quantitative studies of science. This book investigates mapping scientific frontiers from the perspective of visual thinking and visual exploration (visual communication). The central theme is construction of visual-spatial representations that may convey insights into the dynamic structure of scientific frontiers. The author's previous book, Information Visualisation and Virtual Environments (1999), also concerns some of the ideas behind and possible benefits of visual communication. This new book takes a special focus an knowledge visualization, particularly in relation to science literature. The book is not a technical tutorial as the focus is an principles of visual communication and ways that may reveal the dynamics of scientific frontiers. The new approach to science mapping presented is the culmination of different approaches from several disciplines, such as philosophy of science, information retrieval, scientometrics, domain analysis, and information visualization. The book therefore addresses an audience with different disciplinary backgrounds and tries to stimulate interdisciplinary research. Chapter 1, The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, introduces a range of examples that illustrate fundamental issues concerning visual communication in general and science mapping in particular. Chapter 2, Mapping the Universe, focuses an the basic principles of cartography for visual communication. Chapter 3, Mapping the Mind, turns the attention inward and explores the design of mind maps, maps that represent our thoughts, experience, and knowledge. Chapter 4, Enabling Techniques for Science Mapping, essentially outlines the author's basic approach to science mapping.

Type

m

0.041587252 = product of:
  0.083174504 = sum of:
    0.083174504 = sum of:
      0.027908025 = weight(_text_:m in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027908025 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12688358 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.21994986 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
      0.05526648 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05526648 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1785549 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, 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=77)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22

0.041587252 = product of:
  0.083174504 = sum of:
    0.083174504 = sum of:
      0.027908025 = weight(_text_:m in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027908025 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12688358 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.21994986 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
      0.05526648 = weight(_text_:22 in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05526648 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1785549 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2017 17:12:50

Type

m

0.040522944 = sum of:
  0.031801686 = product of:
    0.12720674 = sum of:
      0.12720674 = weight(_text_:author's in 4753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12720674 = score(doc=4753,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3426541 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.3712395 = fieldWeight in 4753, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4753)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0087212585 = product of:
    0.017442517 = sum of:
      0.017442517 = weight(_text_:m in 4753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017442517 = score(doc=4753,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12688358 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 4753, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4753)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

International collaborative papers are increasingly common in journals of many disciplines. These types of papers are often cited more frequently. To identify the coauthorship trends within Library and Information Science (LIS), this study analyzed 7,489 papers published in six leading publications (ARIST, IP&M, JAMIA, JASIST, MISQ, and Scientometrics) over the last three decades. Logistic regression tested the relationships between citations received and seven factors: authorship type, author's subregion, country income level, publication year, number of authors, document type, and journal title. The main authorship type since 1995 was national collaboration. It was also the dominant type for all publications studied except ARIST, and for all regions except Africa. For citation counts, the logistic regression analysis found all seven factors were significant. Papers that included international collaboration, Northern European authors, and authors in high-income nations had higher odds of being cited more. Papers from East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Southern Europe had lower odds than North American papers. As discussed in the bibliometric literature, Merton's Matthew Effect sheds light on the differential citation counts based on the authors' subregion. This researcher proposes geographies of invisible colleagues and a geographic scope effect to further investigate the relationships between author geographic affiliation and citation impact.

0.040522944 = sum of:
  0.031801686 = product of:
    0.12720674 = sum of:
      0.12720674 = weight(_text_:author's in 516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12720674 = score(doc=516,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3426541 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.3712395 = fieldWeight in 516, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=516)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0087212585 = product of:
    0.017442517 = sum of:
      0.017442517 = weight(_text_:m in 516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017442517 = score(doc=516,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12688358 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 516, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=516)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study presents an analysis of the use of bibliographic references by individual scientists in three different research areas. The number and type of references that scientists include in their papers are analyzed, the relationship between the number of references and different impact-based indicators is studied from a multivariable perspective, and the referencing patterns of scientists are related to individual factors such as their age and scientific performance. Our results show inter-area differences in the number, type, and age of references. Within each area, the number of references per document increases with journal impact factor and paper length. Top-performance scientists use in their papers a higher number of references, which are more recent and more frequently covered by the Web of Science. Veteran researchers tend to rely more on older literature and non-Web of Science sources. The longer reference lists of top scientists can be explained by their tendency to publish in high impact factor journals, with stricter reference and reviewing requirements. Long reference lists suggest a broader knowledge on the current literature in a field, which is important to become a top scientist. From the perspective of the "handicap principle theory," the sustained use of a high number of references in an author's oeuvre is a costly behavior that may indicate a serious, comprehensive, and solid research capacity, but that only the best researchers can afford. Boosting papers' citations by artificially increasing the number of references does not seem a feasible strategy.

0.036388844 = product of:
  0.07277769 = sum of:
    0.07277769 = sum of:
      0.024419522 = weight(_text_:m in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024419522 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12688358 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.19245613 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
      0.04835817 = weight(_text_:22 in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04835817 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1785549 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 108, 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=108)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 1.1999 16:22:37

0.035525396 = product of:
  0.07105079 = sum of:
    0.07105079 = sum of:
      0.029600931 = weight(_text_:m in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029600931 = score(doc=2751,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.12688358 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.23329206 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
      0.04144986 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04144986 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1785549 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2751, 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=2751)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:05:07

0.035525396 = product of:
  0.07105079 = sum of:
    0.07105079 = sum of:
      0.029600931 = weight(_text_:m in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029600931 = score(doc=402,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.12688358 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.23329206 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
      0.04144986 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04144986 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1785549 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 402, 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=402)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2012 19:35:26

Footnote

Besteht aus 4 Teilen: Teil 1: Eden, D., A. Arndt, A. Hoffer, T. Raschke u. P. Schön: Die Nachrichten für Dokumentation in den Jahren 1950 bis 1962 (S.159-163). Teil 2: Brose, M., E. durst, D. Nitzsche, D. Veckenstedt u. R. Wein: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1963-1975 (S.164-170). Teil 3: Bösel, J., G. Ebert, P. Garz,, M. Iwanow u. B. Russ: Methoden und Ergebnisse einer statistischen Auswertung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1976 bis 1988 (S.171-174). Teil 4: Engelage, H., S. Jansen, R. Mertins, K. Redel u. S. Ring: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) / "Information. Wissenschaft & Praxis" (IWP) 1989-2011 (S.164-170).

0.035525396 = product of:
  0.07105079 = sum of:
    0.07105079 = sum of:
      0.029600931 = weight(_text_:m in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029600931 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.12688358 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.23329206 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.04144986 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04144986 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1785549 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2652, 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=2652)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2016 14:40:53

0.033145823 = product of:
  0.066291645 = sum of:
    0.066291645 = sum of:
      0.017442517 = weight(_text_:m in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017442517 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12688358 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.04884913 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04884913 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1785549 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.

Date

22. 3.2009 12:43:51

0.03237644 = product of:
  0.06475288 = sum of:
    0.06475288 = sum of:
      0.030211324 = weight(_text_:m in 4130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030211324 = score(doc=4130,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.12688358 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.2381027 = fieldWeight in 4130, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4130)
      0.03454155 = weight(_text_:22 in 4130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03454155 = score(doc=4130,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1785549 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4130, 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=4130)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The mapping of scientific fields, based on principles established in the seventies, has recently shown a remarkable development and applications are now booming with progress in computing efficiency. We examine here the convergence of two thematic mapping approaches, citation-based and word-based, which rely on quite different sociological backgrounds. A corpus in the nanoscience field was broken down into research themes, using the same clustering technique on the 2 networks separately. The tool for comparison is the table of intersections of the M clusters (here M=50) built on either side. A classical visual exploitation of such contingency tables is based on correspondence analysis. We investigate a rearrangement of the intersection table (block modeling), resulting in pseudo-map. The interest of this representation for confronting the two breakdowns is discussed. The amount of convergence found is, in our view, a strong argument in favor of the reliability of bibliometric mapping. However, the outcomes are not convergent at the degree where they can be substituted for each other. Differences highlight the complementarity between approaches based on different networks. In contrast with the strong informetric posture found in recent literature, where lexical and citation markers are considered as miscible tokens, the framework proposed here does not mix the two elements at an early stage, in compliance with their contrasted logic.

Date

8. 1.2011 18:22:50

0.03237644 = product of:
  0.06475288 = sum of:
    0.06475288 = sum of:
      0.030211324 = weight(_text_:m in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030211324 = score(doc=995,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.12688358 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.2381027 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
      0.03454155 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03454155 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1785549 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50

0.03119044 = product of:
  0.06238088 = sum of:
    0.06238088 = sum of:
      0.02093102 = weight(_text_:m in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02093102 = score(doc=2758,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12688358 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.1649624 = fieldWeight in 2758, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2758)
      0.04144986 = weight(_text_:22 in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04144986 = score(doc=2758,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1785549 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2758, 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=2758)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:03:12

Footnote

Vgl. auch: Costas, R., M. Bordons u. T.N. van Leeuwen u.a.: Scaling rules in the science system: Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of individual researchers. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.740-753.

0.03119044 = product of:
  0.06238088 = sum of:
    0.06238088 = sum of:
      0.02093102 = weight(_text_:m in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02093102 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12688358 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.1649624 = fieldWeight in 326, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=326)
      0.04144986 = weight(_text_:22 in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04144986 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1785549 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 326, 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=326)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2012 19:23:32

0.03119044 = product of:
  0.06238088 = sum of:
    0.06238088 = sum of:
      0.02093102 = weight(_text_:m in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02093102 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12688358 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.1649624 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
      0.04144986 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04144986 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1785549 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2014 17:11:29

0.03119044 = product of:
  0.06238088 = sum of:
    0.06238088 = sum of:
      0.02093102 = weight(_text_:m in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02093102 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12688358 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.1649624 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
      0.04144986 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04144986 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1785549 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

0.03119044 = product of:
  0.06238088 = sum of:
    0.06238088 = sum of:
      0.02093102 = weight(_text_:m in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02093102 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12688358 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.1649624 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
      0.04144986 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04144986 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1785549 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05098903 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, 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=3211)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22