-
Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013)
0.16
0.1618237 = product of:
0.4854711 = sum of:
0.24273555 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.24273555 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.32392493 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
0.24273555 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.24273555 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.32392493 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Content
- Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.03
0.034277808 = product of:
0.10283342 = sum of:
0.089029126 = weight(_text_:propose in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.089029126 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19617504 = queryWeight, product of:
5.1344433 = idf(docFreq=707, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.45382494 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.1344433 = idf(docFreq=707, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
0.013804292 = product of:
0.041412875 = sum of:
0.041412875 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041412875 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13379669 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, 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=1431)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Properties of a percentile-based rating scale needed in bibliometrics are formulated. Based on these properties, P100 was recently introduced as a new citation-rank approach (Bornmann, Leydesdorff, & Wang, 2013). In this paper, we conceptualize P100 and propose an improvement which we call P100'. Advantages and disadvantages of citation-rank indicators are noted.
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:05:18
-
Stock, W.G.: Wissenschaftsevaluation : die Bewertung wissenschaftlicher Forschung und Lehre (1994)
0.03
0.026642684 = product of:
0.1598561 = sum of:
0.1598561 = weight(_text_:forschung in 242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1598561 = score(doc=242,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1858777 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8649335 = idf(docFreq=926, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.86000687 = fieldWeight in 242, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8649335 = idf(docFreq=926, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=242)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
-
Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008)
0.03
0.02642492 = product of:
0.07927476 = sum of:
0.070647076 = weight(_text_:forschung in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.070647076 = score(doc=1934,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1858777 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8649335 = idf(docFreq=926, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.38007292 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.8649335 = idf(docFreq=926, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
0.008627683 = product of:
0.025883049 = sum of:
0.025883049 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025883049 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13379669 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Um sich einer Antwort auf die Frage anzunähern, welche Bedeutung der Nachlass eines Wissenschaftlers wie jener Paul F. Lazarsfelds (mit zahlreichen noch unveröffentlichten Schriften) für die aktuelle Forschung haben könne, kann untersucht werden, wie häufig dieser Wissenschaftler zitiert wird. Wenn ein Autor zitiert wird, wird er auch genutzt. Wird er über einen langen Zeitraum oft genutzt, ist vermutlich auch die Auseinandersetzung mit seinem Nachlass von Nutzen. Außerdem kann aufgrund der Zitierungen festgestellt werden, was aus dem Lebenswerk eines Wissenschaftlers für die aktuelle Forschung relevant erscheint. Daraus können die vordringlichen Fragestellungen in der Bearbeitung des Nachlasses abgeleitet werden. Die Aufgabe für die folgende Untersuchung lautete daher: Wie oft wird Paul F. Lazarsfeld zitiert? Dabei interessierte auch: Wer zitiert wo? Die Untersuchung wurde mit Hilfe der Meta-Datenbank "ISI Web of Knowledge" durchgeführt. In dieser wurde im "Web of Science" mit dem Werkzeug "Cited Reference Search" nach dem zitierten Autor (Cited Author) "Lazarsfeld P*" gesucht. Diese Suche ergab 1535 Referenzen (References). Werden alle Referenzen gewählt, führt dies zu 4839 Ergebnissen (Results). Dabei wurden die Datenbanken SCI-Expanded, SSCI und A&HCI verwendet. Bei dieser Suche wurden die Publikationsjahre 1941-2008 analysiert. Vor 1956 wurden allerdings nur sehr wenige Zitate gefunden: 1946 fünf, ansonsten maximal drei, 1942-1944 und 1949 überhaupt keines. Zudem ist das Jahr 2008 noch lange nicht zu Ende. (Es gab jedoch schon vor Ende März 24 Zitate!)
- Date
- 22. 6.2008 12:54:12
-
Weeber, M.; Klein, H.; Jong-van den Berg, L.T.W. de; Vos, R.: Using concepts in literature-based discovery : simulating Swanson's Raynaud-Fish Oil and Migraine-Manesium discoveries (2001)
0.03
0.025739681 = product of:
0.07721904 = sum of:
0.06677184 = weight(_text_:propose in 5910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06677184 = score(doc=5910,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19617504 = queryWeight, product of:
5.1344433 = idf(docFreq=707, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.3403687 = fieldWeight in 5910, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.1344433 = idf(docFreq=707, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5910)
0.0104471985 = product of:
0.031341594 = sum of:
0.031341594 = weight(_text_:29 in 5910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031341594 = score(doc=5910,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13440257 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5910, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5910)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Literature-based discovery has resulted in new knowledge. In the biomedical context, Don R. Swanson has generated several literature-based hypotheses that have been corroborated experimentally and clinically. In this paper, we propose a two-step model of the discovery process in which hypotheses are generated and subsequently tested. We have implemented this model in a Natural Language Processing system that uses biomedical Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) concepts as its unit of analysis. We use the semantic information that is provided with these concepts as a powerful filter to successfully simulate Swanson's discoveries of connecting Raynaud's disease with fish oil and migraine with a magnesium deficiency
- Date
- 29. 9.2001 14:02:05
-
He, Z.; Lei, Z.; Wang, D.: Modeling citation dynamics of "atypical" articles (2018)
0.03
0.025739681 = product of:
0.07721904 = sum of:
0.06677184 = weight(_text_:propose in 4365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06677184 = score(doc=4365,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19617504 = queryWeight, product of:
5.1344433 = idf(docFreq=707, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.3403687 = fieldWeight in 4365, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.1344433 = idf(docFreq=707, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4365)
0.0104471985 = product of:
0.031341594 = sum of:
0.031341594 = weight(_text_:29 in 4365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031341594 = score(doc=4365,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13440257 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4365, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4365)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Modeling and predicting citation dynamics of individual articles is important due to its critical role in a wide range of decisions in science. While the current modeling framework successfully captures citation dynamics of typical articles, there exists a nonnegligible, and perhaps most interesting, fraction of atypical articles whose citation trajectories do not follow the normal rise-and-fall pattern. Here we systematically study and classify citation patterns of atypical articles, finding that they can be characterized by awakened articles, second-acts, and a combination of both. We propose a second-act model that can accurately describe the citation dynamics of second-act articles. The model not only provides a mechanistic framework to understand citation patterns of atypical articles, separating factors that drive impact, but it also offers new capabilities to identify the time of exogenous events that influence citations.
- Date
- 29. 9.2018 12:40:58
-
Hicks, D.; Wang, J.: Coverage and overlap of the new social sciences and humanities journal lists (2011)
0.03
0.025708353 = product of:
0.07712506 = sum of:
0.06677184 = weight(_text_:propose in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06677184 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19617504 = queryWeight, product of:
5.1344433 = idf(docFreq=707, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.3403687 = fieldWeight in 4192, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.1344433 = idf(docFreq=707, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4192)
0.010353219 = product of:
0.031059656 = sum of:
0.031059656 = weight(_text_:22 in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031059656 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13379669 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4192, 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=4192)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- This is a study of coverage and overlap in second-generation social sciences and humanities journal lists, with attention paid to curation and the judgment of scholarliness. We identify four factors underpinning coverage shortfalls: journal language, country, publisher size, and age. Analyzing these factors turns our attention to the process of assessing a journal as scholarly, which is a necessary foundation for every list of scholarly journals. Although scholarliness should be a quality inherent in the journal, coverage falls short because groups assessing scholarliness have different perspectives on the social sciences and humanities literature. That the four factors shape perspectives on the literature points to a deeper problem of fragmentation within the scholarly community. We propose reducing this fragmentation as the best method to reduce coverage shortfalls.
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 13:21:28
-
Wan, X.; Liu, F.: Are all literature citations equally important? : automatic citation strength estimation and its applications (2014)
0.03
0.025708353 = product of:
0.07712506 = sum of:
0.06677184 = weight(_text_:propose in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06677184 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19617504 = queryWeight, product of:
5.1344433 = idf(docFreq=707, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.3403687 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.1344433 = idf(docFreq=707, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
0.010353219 = product of:
0.031059656 = sum of:
0.031059656 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031059656 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13379669 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1350, 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=1350)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Literature citation analysis plays a very important role in bibliometrics and scientometrics, such as the Science Citation Index (SCI) impact factor, h-index. Existing citation analysis methods assume that all citations in a paper are equally important, and they simply count the number of citations. Here we argue that the citations in a paper are not equally important and some citations are more important than the others. We use a strength value to assess the importance of each citation and propose to use the regression method with a few useful features for automatically estimating the strength value of each citation. Evaluation results on a manually labeled data set in the computer science field show that the estimated values can achieve good correlation with human-labeled values. We further apply the estimated citation strength values for evaluating paper influence and author influence, and the preliminary evaluation results demonstrate the usefulness of the citation strength values.
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:12:35
-
Liu, S.; Chen, C.: ¬The differences between latent topics in abstracts and citation contexts of citing papers (2013)
0.02
0.021423629 = product of:
0.064270884 = sum of:
0.055643205 = weight(_text_:propose in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055643205 = score(doc=671,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19617504 = queryWeight, product of:
5.1344433 = idf(docFreq=707, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.2836406 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.1344433 = idf(docFreq=707, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
0.008627683 = product of:
0.025883049 = sum of:
0.025883049 = weight(_text_:22 in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025883049 = score(doc=671,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13379669 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 671, 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=671)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Although it is commonly expected that the citation context of a reference is likely to provide more detailed and direct information about the nature of a citation, few studies in the literature have specifically addressed the extent to which the information in different parts of a scientific publication differs. Do abstracts tend to use conceptually broader terms than sentences in a citation context in the body of a publication? In this article, we propose a method to analyze and compare latent topics in scientific publications, in particular, from abstracts of papers that cited a target reference and from sentences that cited the target reference. We conducted an experiment and applied topical modeling techniques to full-text papers in eight biomedicine journals. Topics derived from the two sources are compared in terms of their similarities and broad-narrow relationships defined based on information entropy. The results show that abstracts and citation contexts are characterized by distinct sets of topics with moderate overlaps. Furthermore, the results confirm that topics from abstracts of citing papers have broader terms than topics from citation contexts formed by citing sentences. The method and the findings could be used to enhance and extend the current methodologies for research evaluation and citation evaluation.
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:50:00
-
Kuan, C.-H.; Liu, J.S.: ¬A new approach for main path analysis : decay in knowledge diffusion (2016)
0.02
0.021423629 = product of:
0.064270884 = sum of:
0.055643205 = weight(_text_:propose in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055643205 = score(doc=2649,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19617504 = queryWeight, product of:
5.1344433 = idf(docFreq=707, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.2836406 = fieldWeight in 2649, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.1344433 = idf(docFreq=707, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2649)
0.008627683 = product of:
0.025883049 = sum of:
0.025883049 = weight(_text_:22 in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025883049 = score(doc=2649,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13379669 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2649, 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=2649)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Main path analysis is a powerful tool for extracting the backbones of a directed network and has been applied widely in bibliometric studies. In contrast to the no-decay assumption in the traditional approach, this study proposes a novel technique by assuming that the strength of knowledge decays when knowledge contained in one document is passed on to another document down the citation chain. We propose three decay models, arithmetic decay, geometric decay, and harmonic decay, along with their theoretical properties. In general, results of the proposed decay models depend largely on the local structure of a citation network as opposed to the global structure in the traditional approach. Thus, the significance of citation links and the associated documents that are overemphasized by the global structure in the traditional no-decay approach is treated more properly. For example, the traditional approach commonly assigns high value to documents that heavily reference others, such as review articles. Specifically in the geometric and harmonic decay models, only truly significant review articles will be included in the resulting main paths. We demonstrate this new approach and its properties through the DNA literature citation network.
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 14:23:00
-
Heinz, M.: Bemerkungen zur Entwicklung der Internationalität der Forschung : Bibliometrische Untersuchungen am SCI (2006)
0.02
0.019982014 = product of:
0.119892076 = sum of:
0.119892076 = weight(_text_:forschung in 6110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.119892076 = score(doc=6110,freq=8.0), product of:
0.1858777 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8649335 = idf(docFreq=926, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.64500517 = fieldWeight in 6110, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.8649335 = idf(docFreq=926, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6110)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- In der Arbeit werden verschiedene Kennziffern zur Messung der Internationalität der Forschung untersucht. Die Grundlage bilden die Daten des Science Citation Index (SCI) von 1980 bis 2002 in der CD-ROM Version. Alle betrachteten Kennziffern weisen einen einheitlichen Gesamttrend in diesem Zeitraum auf der die Hypothese der Zunahme der Internationalität in der Forschung bestätigt. Zwei Kennziffern, der mittlere Anteil eines Landes an einem Artikel und die Diversität, gemessen durch die Shannonsche Entropie des Vektors der Anteile der Länder am SCI, zeigen eine charakteristische Verstärkung der Trends ab 1987, was für eine erhöhte Zunahme des Internationalisierungsprozesses der Forschung ab Mitte der 80er Jahre des vergangenen Jahrhunderts spricht. Darüber hinaus werden Zusammenhänge zwischen der ökonomischen Leistung eines Landes, seinem Anteil am SCI und seiner internationalen Forschungskooperation aufgezeigt.
-
Springer, M.: Erlahmt die Forschung? (2023)
0.02
0.019982014 = product of:
0.119892076 = sum of:
0.119892076 = weight(_text_:forschung in 985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.119892076 = score(doc=985,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1858777 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8649335 = idf(docFreq=926, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.64500517 = fieldWeight in 985, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8649335 = idf(docFreq=926, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=985)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
-
Ball, R.: Wissenschaftsindikatoren im Zeitalter digitaler Wissenschaft (2007)
0.02
0.019527573 = product of:
0.058582716 = sum of:
0.049955033 = weight(_text_:forschung in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049955033 = score(doc=875,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1858777 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8649335 = idf(docFreq=926, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.26875216 = fieldWeight in 875, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8649335 = idf(docFreq=926, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=875)
0.008627683 = product of:
0.025883049 = sum of:
0.025883049 = weight(_text_:22 in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025883049 = score(doc=875,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13379669 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 875, 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=875)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Die Bereitstellung und Nutzung digitaler Bibliotheken entwickelt sich allmählich zum Standard der Literatur und Informationsversorgung in Wissenschaft und Forschung. Ganzen Disziplinen genügt oftmals die verfügbare digitale Information, Printmedien werden besonders im STM-Segment zu einem Nischenprodukt. Digitale Texte können beliebig eingebaut, kopiert und nachgenutzt werden, die Verlinkung zwischen Metadaten und Volltexten bringt weitere Nutzungsvorteile. Dabei sind die Angebote von Digital Libraries Bestandteil eines ganzheitlichen digitalen Ansatzes, wonach die elektronische Informations- und Literaturversorgung integraler Bestandteil von E-Science (Enhanced Science) oder Cyberinfrastructure darstellt. Hierbei verschmelzen dann Produktion, Diskussion, Distribution und Rezeption der wissenschaftlichen Inhalte auf einer einzigen digitalen Plattform. Damit sind dann nicht nur die Literatur- und Informationsversorgung (Digital Libraries), sondern auch die Wissenschaft selbst digital geworden. Diese dramatische Veränderung in der Wissenschaftskommunikation hat direkte Auswirkungen auf die Messung der Wissenschaftskommunikation, also auf die Evaluation von wissenschaftlichem Output. Bisherige Systeme der Wissenschaftsvermessung basieren hauptsächlich auf bibliometrischen Analysen, d.h. der Quantifizierung des Outputs und dessen Rezeption (Zitierhäufigkeit). Basis dafür sind insbesondere im STM-Bereich die international anerkannten Datenbanken des ISI (Thomson Scientific) insbesondere der Science Citation Index, SCI) oder vielleicht zukünftig das Konkurrenzprodukt SCOPUS des Wissenschaftskonzerns Reed Elsevier. Die Digitalisierung der Wissenschaft in ihrem kompletten Lebenszyklus, die zunehmende Nutzung und Akzeptanz von Dokumentenrepositorien, Institutsservern und anderen elektronischen Publikationsformen im Rahmen von E-Science erfordern und ermöglichen zugleich den Nachweis von Output und Rezeption durch neue bibliometrische Formen, etwa der Webometrie (Webmetrics). Im vorliegenden Paper haben wir hierzu Analysen durchgeführt und stellen eine Abschätzung vor, wie sich der Anteil von webometrisch erfassbarer und zugänglicher wissenschaftlicher Literatur im Vergleich zu Literatur, die mit den Standardsystemen nachgewiesen werden kann im Laufe der letzten Jahre verändert hat. Dabei haben wir unterschiedliche Disziplinen und Länder berücksichtigt. Zudem wird ein Vergleich der webometrischen Nachweisqualität so unterschiedlicher Systeme wie SCI, SCOPUS und Google Scholar vorgestellt.
- Date
- 23.12.2007 19:22:21
-
Stock, W.: Informetrische Vermessung der Forschung und Entwicklung eines Landes : beispielhafte Resultate und Probleme (1992)
0.02
0.016651679 = product of:
0.099910066 = sum of:
0.099910066 = weight(_text_:forschung in 342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.099910066 = score(doc=342,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1858777 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8649335 = idf(docFreq=926, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.5375043 = fieldWeight in 342, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8649335 = idf(docFreq=926, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=342)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
-
Walter, P.: Wie (un)zuverlässig ist die Forschung? (2017)
0.02
0.016651679 = product of:
0.099910066 = sum of:
0.099910066 = weight(_text_:forschung in 3455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.099910066 = score(doc=3455,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1858777 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8649335 = idf(docFreq=926, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.5375043 = fieldWeight in 3455, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8649335 = idf(docFreq=926, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3455)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
-
Dederke, J.; Hirschmann, B.; Johann, D.: ¬Der Data Citation Index von Clarivate : Eine wertvolle Ressource für die Forschung und für Bibliotheken? (2022)
0.02
0.016651679 = product of:
0.099910066 = sum of:
0.099910066 = weight(_text_:forschung in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.099910066 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1858777 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8649335 = idf(docFreq=926, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.5375043 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8649335 = idf(docFreq=926, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990)
0.02
0.016178101 = product of:
0.09706861 = sum of:
0.09706861 = product of:
0.14560291 = sum of:
0.073130384 = weight(_text_:29 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.073130384 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13440257 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
0.072472535 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.072472535 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13379669 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:29
-
Leginus, M.; Zhai, C.X.; Dolog, P.: Personalized generation of word clouds from tweets (2016)
0.02
0.015738275 = product of:
0.09442965 = sum of:
0.09442965 = weight(_text_:propose in 2886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09442965 = score(doc=2886,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19617504 = queryWeight, product of:
5.1344433 = idf(docFreq=707, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.48135406 = fieldWeight in 2886, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.1344433 = idf(docFreq=707, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2886)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- Active users of Twitter are often overwhelmed with the vast amount of tweets. In this work we attempt to help users browsing a large number of accumulated posts. We propose a personalized word cloud generation as a means for users' navigation. Various user past activities such as user published tweets, retweets, and seen but not retweeted tweets are leveraged for enhanced personalization of word clouds. The best personalization results are attained with user past retweets. However, users' own past tweets are not as useful as retweets for personalization. Negative preferences derived from seen but not retweeted tweets further enhance personalized word cloud generation. The ranking combination method outperforms the preranking approach and provides a general framework for combined ranking of various user past information for enhanced word cloud generation. To better capture subtle differences of generated word clouds, we propose an evaluation of word clouds with a mean average precision measure.
-
Tay, W.; Zhang, X.; Karimi , S.: Beyond mean rating : probabilistic aggregation of star ratings based on helpfulness (2020)
0.02
0.015738275 = product of:
0.09442965 = sum of:
0.09442965 = weight(_text_:propose in 5917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09442965 = score(doc=5917,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19617504 = queryWeight, product of:
5.1344433 = idf(docFreq=707, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.48135406 = fieldWeight in 5917, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.1344433 = idf(docFreq=707, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5917)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- 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.
-
Wettlauf der Wissenschaft (2004)
0.02
0.015622057 = product of:
0.04686617 = sum of:
0.039964024 = weight(_text_:forschung in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039964024 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1858777 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8649335 = idf(docFreq=926, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.21500172 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8649335 = idf(docFreq=926, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
0.006902146 = product of:
0.020706438 = sum of:
0.020706438 = weight(_text_:22 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020706438 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13379669 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.038207654 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Content
- "Jahrzehntelang galt die USA als Platzhirsch in der Forschungswelt. Egal ob es um Patente oder Nobelpreise ging, ihre Adressaten lebten und arbeiteten zumeist in Nordamerika. Jüngste Zahlen zeigen aber, dass diese Vormachtstellung am Bröckeln ist und Europa und vor allem Asien aufholen. Die globale US-Dominanz könnte zumindest im wissenschaftlichen Bereich bald der Vergangenheit angehören. Während in Österreich gerade die Forschungsförderung restrukturiert wird, machen sich die USA trotz rekordverdächtiger Förderbudgets Sorgen um ihre wissenschaftliche Schlagkraft. Nach einem Artikel in der NewYork Times büsst die USA ihre Führungsrolle in Forschung und Entwicklung zusehends ein. Zwar kommen weiterhin die meisten Patente aus Nordamerika, doch sank deren Anteil an den weltweit angemeldeten Patenten von 60,2% (1980) auf 51,8% (2003). Besonders erfolgreich in diesem Feld sind die asiatischen Ländern, allen voran Japan, das seinen Anteil in den letzten 20 Jahren beinahe verdoppeln konnte. Auch bei den wissenschaftlichen Publikationen holt die nicht englischsprachige WeIt auf. So sank zum Beispiel der Anteil US-amerikanischer Autoren bei Physical Reviewvon über 60% in den 80er Jahren auf unter 30% im letzten Jahr. Auch hier holen besonders Forscher aus Asien stark auf. Allein China reicht jedes Jahr über 1.000 Beiträge bei Physical Review ein, sagt Martin Blume, Herausgeber der Zeitschriften der American Physical Society. Der Anteil der USA an den jährlich vergebenen Nobelpreisen sank in den letzten 30 Jahren ebenfalls deutlich auf knapp über 50%. Asien holt auf: Während Europa die amerikanische Führungsrolle eher vorsichtig herausfordert, hat sich in Asien ein regelrechter Boom entwickelt. Die Zahl der abgeschlossenen naturwissenschaftlichen und techni schen Doktorate verdoppelte sich in Asien in nur zehn Jahren, während die Abschlüsse in Europa und den USA stagnieren oder sogar zurückgehen. Steigender Lebensstandard in den Zentren aller Weltregionen und mobilitätsfeindliche Einreisebestimmungen als Folge des "Kriegs gegen den Terror" führen auch dazu, dass Jungwissenschaftler aus China, Indien oder Taiwan nach Abschluss ihrer Ausbildung in den USA verstärkt in ihre Heimatregion zurückkehren. Die amerikanische Wirtschaft reagiert auf diesen Trend zunehmend mit der Auslagerung von Forschungseinrichtungen in diese Länder. In Zeiten der Globalisierung zeigt sich daran aber auch die Schwäche nationalstaatlich orientierter Statistiken."
- Source
- Online Mitteilungen. 2004, Nr.79, S.22-23 [=Mitteilungen VÖB 57(2004) H.2]
