Search (119 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020) 0.05 
    0.04997025 = product of:
  0.12492562 = sum of:
    0.07607185 = weight(_text_:index in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07607185 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.33795667 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
    0.04885377 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04885377 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.
    Date
    17.11.2020 12:22:59
  2. Noever, D.; Ciolino, M.: ¬The Turing deception (2022) 0.05 
    0.04908844 = product of:
  0.2454422 = sum of:
    0.2454422 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2454422 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43671587 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN
  3. Krattenthaler, C.: Was der h-Index wirklich aussagt (2021) 0.05 
    0.046003934 = product of:
  0.23001967 = sum of:
    0.23001967 = weight(_text_:index in 407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23001967 = score(doc=407,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        1.021885 = fieldWeight in 407, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=407)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Diese Note legt dar, dass der sogenannte h-Index (Hirschs bibliometrischer Index) im Wesentlichen dieselbe Information wiedergibt wie die Gesamtanzahl von Zitationen von Publikationen einer Autorin oder eines Autors, also ein nutzloser bibliometrischer Index ist. Dies basiert auf einem faszinierenden Satz der Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie, der hier ebenfalls erläutert wird.
    Content
    Vgl.: DOI: 10.1515/dmvm-2021-0050. Auch abgedruckt u.d.T.: 'Der h-Index - "ein nutzloser bibliometrischer Index"' in Open Password Nr. 1007 vom 06.12.2021 unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzM3NCwiZDI3MzMzOTEwMzUzIiwwLDAsMzQ4LDFd.
    Object
    h-index
  4. Geras, A.; Siudem, G.; Gagolewski, M.: Should we introduce a dislike button for academic articles? (2020) 0.04 
    0.04283164 = product of:
  0.1070791 = sum of:
    0.06520444 = weight(_text_:index in 5620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06520444 = score(doc=5620,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 5620, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5620)
    0.04187466 = weight(_text_:22 in 5620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04187466 = score(doc=5620,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5620, 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=5620)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    There is a mutual resemblance between the behavior of users of the Stack Exchange and the dynamics of the citations accumulation process in the scientific community, which enabled us to tackle the outwardly intractable problem of assessing the impact of introducing "negative" citations. Although the most frequent reason to cite an article is to highlight the connection between the 2 publications, researchers sometimes mention an earlier work to cast a negative light. While computing citation-based scores, for instance, the h-index, information about the reason why an article was mentioned is neglected. Therefore, it can be questioned whether these indices describe scientific achievements accurately. In this article we shed insight into the problem of "negative" citations, analyzing data from Stack Exchange and, to draw more universal conclusions, we derive an approximation of citations scores. Here we show that the quantified influence of introducing negative citations is of lesser importance and that they could be used as an indicator of where the attention of the scientific community is allocated.
    Date
    6. 1.2020 18:10:22
  5. Dederke, J.; Hirschmann, B.; Johann, D.: ¬Der Data Citation Index von Clarivate : Eine wertvolle Ressource für die Forschung und für Bibliotheken? (2022) 0.04 
    0.03764581 = product of:
  0.18822904 = sum of:
    0.18822904 = weight(_text_:index in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18822904 = score(doc=50,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.836226 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Der Data Citation Index (DCI) stellt eine durchsuchbare Sammlung bibliografischer Metadaten zu Forschungsdaten in Datensätzen und Datenstudien ausgewählter Repositorien dar. Der DCI deckt alle wissenschaftlichen Disziplinen ab.
    Object
    Data Citation Index
  6. Rae, A.R.; Mork, J.G.; Demner-Fushman, D.: ¬The National Library of Medicine indexer assignment dataset : a new large-scale dataset for reviewer assignment research (2023) 0.04 
    0.035693035 = product of:
  0.08923259 = sum of:
    0.054337036 = weight(_text_:index in 885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054337036 = score(doc=885,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 885, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=885)
    0.03489555 = weight(_text_:22 in 885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03489555 = score(doc=885,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 885, 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=885)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    MEDLINE is the National Library of Medicine's (NLM) journal citation database. It contains over 28 million references to biomedical and life science journal articles, and a key feature of the database is that all articles are indexed with NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). The library employs a team of MeSH indexers, and in recent years they have been asked to index close to 1 million articles per year in order to keep MEDLINE up to date. An important part of the MEDLINE indexing process is the assignment of articles to indexers. High quality and timely indexing is only possible when articles are assigned to indexers with suitable expertise. This article introduces the NLM indexer assignment dataset: a large dataset of 4.2 million indexer article assignments for articles indexed between 2011 and 2019. The dataset is shown to be a valuable testbed for expert matching and assignment algorithms, and indexer article assignment is also found to be useful domain-adaptive pre-training for the closely related task of reviewer assignment.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:49:49
  7. Henshaw, Y.; Wu, S.: RILM Index (Répertoire International de Littérature Musicale) (2021) 0.03 
    0.034020368 = product of:
  0.17010184 = sum of:
    0.17010184 = weight(_text_:index in 587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17010184 = score(doc=587,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.75569415 = fieldWeight in 587, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=587)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    RILM Index is a partially controlled vocabulary designated to index scholarly writings on music and related subjects, created and curated by Répertoire International de Littérature Musicale (RILM). It has been developed over 50 years and has served the music community as a primary research tool. This analytical review of the characteristics of RILM Index reveals several issues, related to the Index's history, that impinge on its usefulness. An in-progress thesaurus is presented as a possible solution to these issues. RILM Index, despite being imperfect, provides a foundation for developing an ontological structure for both indexing and information retrieval purposes.
  8. Fassbender, J.: Register / Indexe (2023) 0.03 
    0.031943526 = product of:
  0.15971762 = sum of:
    0.15971762 = weight(_text_:index in 785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15971762 = score(doc=785,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.7095612 = fieldWeight in 785, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=785)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Der Fokus dieses Artikels liegt auf der Indexerstellung von Publikationen, d. h. der detaillierten Indexierung der Inhalte von Dokumenten statt der Indexierung auf Dokumentebene, welche sich auf das Gesamtthema von Dokumenten beschränkt. Zu letzterer zählen z. B. das Hauptthema von Artikeln, die Sachkatalogisierung von Büchern oder die Erschließung von Objekten in der Museumsdokumentation. Die Worte Index und Register werden synonym benutzt. Das Wort Index ist nicht nur ein Homonym aus unterschiedlichen Bereichen (z. B. Finanzwesen, Mathematik), sondern auch ein Polysem im Publikationswesen, da es in romanischen Sprachen sowohl Inhaltsverzeichnis als auch Register meinen kann. Während im Finanzwesen, Mathematik u. a. die Pluralform Indizes benutzt wird, ist im bibliographischen Sinn Indexe der korrekte Plural (engl.: indexes), es sei denn, es geht um Indices zu alten Werken in lateinischer Sprache (index rerum, index nominum, index verborum). Etymologie, Bedeutung und Plural des Wortes Index erläutert Wellisch ausführlich.
  9. Araújo, P.C. de; Gutierres Castanha, R.C.; Hjoerland, B.: Citation indexing and indexes (2021) 0.03 
    0.026081776 = product of:
  0.13040888 = sum of:
    0.13040888 = weight(_text_:index in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13040888 = score(doc=444,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.5793543 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    A citation index is a bibliographic database that provides citation links between documents. The first modern citation index was suggested by the researcher Eugene Garfield in 1955 and created by him in 1964, and it represents an important innovation to knowledge organization and information retrieval. This article describes citation indexes in general, considering the modern citation indexes, including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Crossref, Dimensions and some special citation indexes and predecessors to the modern citation index like Shepard's Citations. We present comparative studies of the major ones and survey theoretical problems related to the role of citation indexes as subject access points (SAP), recognizing the implications to knowledge organization and information retrieval. Finally, studies on citation behavior are presented and the influence of citation indexes on knowledge organization, information retrieval and the scientific information ecosystem is recognized.
    Object
    Science Citation Index
  10. Digital-Index 2019 / 2020 : 86 % der Bürger sind online, die Mehrheit der Über-50-Jährigen ist es auch - Digitale Vorreiter erlangen in Deutschland relative Mehrheit - Gering Gebildeten droht der Ausschluss von gesellschaftlicher Teilhabe (2020) 0.02 
    0.02151637 = product of:
  0.10758185 = sum of:
    0.10758185 = weight(_text_:index in 5752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10758185 = score(doc=5752,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.4779429 = fieldWeight in 5752, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5752)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    "Deutschland hat Lust auf Digitalisierung". Die Initiative D 21 stellte gestern im Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie ihre Studie zum Digital-Index 2019/2020 vor. Zentrale Ergebnisse lauten: 86 Prozent der deutschen Bevölkerung sind online, mobile Endgeräte tragen entscheidend zum Anstieg bei. Der Digitalisierungsgrad steigt auf 58 von 100 Punkten: Digitale Vorreiter stellen erstmals die größte Gruppe, niedrig Gebildete sind in vielen Kompetenzbereichen abgehängt. 36 Prozent finden, dass Schulen ausreichende Digitalisierungsfähigkeiten vermitteln. Die Mehrheit der deutschen Bürger steht Veränderungen durch Digitalisierung positiv gegenüber.
  11. ¬Der Student aus dem Computer (2023) 0.02 
    0.019541508 = product of:
  0.09770754 = sum of:
    0.09770754 = weight(_text_:22 in 1079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09770754 = score(doc=1079,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1079, 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=1079)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    27. 1.2023 16:22:55
  12. Haley, M.R.: ¬A simple paradigm for augmenting the Euclidean index to reflect journal impact and visibility (2020) 0.02 
    0.018442601 = product of:
  0.092213005 = sum of:
    0.092213005 = weight(_text_:index in 5676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.092213005 = score(doc=5676,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 5676, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5676)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This article offers an adjustment to the recently developed Euclidean Index (Perry and Reny, 2016). The proposed companion metric reflects the impact of the journal in which an article appears; the rationale for incorporating this information is to reflect higher costs of production and higher review standards, and to mitigate the heavily truncated citation counts that often arise in promotion, renewal, and tenure deliberations. Additionally, focusing jointly on citations and journal impact diversifies the assessment process, and can thereby help avoid misjudging scholars with modest citation counts in high-level journals. A combination of both metrics is also proposed, which nests each as a special case. The approach is demonstrated using a generic journal ranking metric, but can be adapted to most any stated or revealed preference measure of journal impact.
  13. Asula, M.; Makke, J.; Freienthal, L.; Kuulmets, H.-A.; Sirel, R.: Kratt: developing an automatic subject indexing tool for the National Library of Estonia : how to transfer metadata information among work cluster members (2021) 0.02 
    0.018442601 = product of:
  0.092213005 = sum of:
    0.092213005 = weight(_text_:index in 723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.092213005 = score(doc=723,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 723, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=723)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Manual subject indexing in libraries is a time-consuming and costly process and the quality of the assigned subjects is affected by the cataloger's knowledge on the specific topics contained in the book. Trying to solve these issues, we exploited the opportunities arising from artificial intelligence to develop Kratt: a prototype of an automatic subject indexing tool. Kratt is able to subject index a book independent of its extent and genre with a set of keywords present in the Estonian Subject Thesaurus. It takes Kratt approximately one minute to subject index a book, outperforming humans 10-15 times. Although the resulting keywords were not considered satisfactory by the catalogers, the ratings of a small sample of regular library users showed more promise. We also argue that the results can be enhanced by including a bigger corpus for training the model and applying more careful preprocessing techniques.
  14. Liu, X.; Bu, Y.; Li, M.; Li, J.: Monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration (2024) 0.02 
    0.018442601 = product of:
  0.092213005 = sum of:
    0.092213005 = weight(_text_:index in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.092213005 = score(doc=1202,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Collaboration across disciplines is a critical form of scientific collaboration to solve complex problems and make innovative contributions. This study focuses on the association between multidisciplinary collaboration measured by coauthorship in publications and the disruption of publications measured by the Disruption (D) index. We used authors' affiliations as a proxy of the disciplines to which they belong and categorized an article into multidisciplinary collaboration or monodisciplinary collaboration. The D index quantifies the extent to which a study disrupts its predecessors. We selected 13 journals that publish articles in six disciplines from the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) database and then constructed regression models with fixed effects and estimated the relationship between the variables. The findings show that articles with monodisciplinary collaboration are more disruptive than those with multidisciplinary collaboration. Furthermore, we uncovered the mechanism of how monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration by exploring the references of the sampled publications.
  15. Jaeger, L.: Wissenschaftler versus Wissenschaft (2020) 0.02 
    0.016749864 = product of:
  0.08374932 = sum of:
    0.08374932 = weight(_text_:22 in 4156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08374932 = score(doc=4156,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4156, 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=4156)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    2. 3.2020 14:08:22
  16. Ibrahim, G.M.; Taylor, M.: Krebszellen manipulieren Neurone : Gliome (2023) 0.02 
    0.016749864 = product of:
  0.08374932 = sum of:
    0.08374932 = weight(_text_:22 in 1203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08374932 = score(doc=1203,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1203, 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=1203)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2023, H.10, S.22-24
  17. Golub, K.; Tyrkkö, J.; Hansson, J.; Ahlström, I.: Subject indexing in humanities : a comparison between a local university repository and an international bibliographic service (2020) 0.02 
    0.015368836 = product of:
  0.07684418 = sum of:
    0.07684418 = weight(_text_:index in 5982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07684418 = score(doc=5982,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 5982, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5982)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    As the humanities develop in the realm of increasingly more pronounced digital scholarship, it is important to provide quality subject access to a vast range of heterogeneous information objects in digital services. The study aims to paint a representative picture of the current state of affairs of the use of subject index terms in humanities journal articles with particular reference to the well-established subject access needs of humanities researchers, with the purpose of identifying which improvements are needed in this context. Design/methodology/approach The comparison of subject metadata on a sample of 649 peer-reviewed journal articles from across the humanities is conducted in a university repository, against Scopus, the former reflecting local and national policies and the latter being the most comprehensive international abstract and citation database of research output. Findings The study shows that established bibliographic objectives to ensure subject access for humanities journal articles are not supported in either the world's largest commercial abstract and citation database Scopus or the local repository of a public university in Sweden. The indexing policies in the two services do not seem to address the needs of humanities scholars for highly granular subject index terms with appropriate facets; no controlled vocabularies for any humanities discipline are used whatsoever. Originality/value In all, not much has changed since 1990s when indexing for the humanities was shown to lag behind the sciences. The community of researchers and information professionals, today working together on digital humanities projects, as well as interdisciplinary research teams, should demand that their subject access needs be fulfilled, especially in commercial services like Scopus and discovery services.
  18. Tausch, A.: Zitierungen sind nicht alles : Classroom Citation, Libcitation und die Zukunft bibliometrischer und szientometrischer Leistungsvergleiche (2022) 0.02 
    0.015368836 = product of:
  0.07684418 = sum of:
    0.07684418 = weight(_text_:index in 827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07684418 = score(doc=827,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 827, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=827)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Der Beitrag soll zeigen, welche fortgeschrittenen bibliometrischen und szientometrischen Daten für ein bewährtes Sample von 104 österreichischen Politikwissenschaftler*innen und 51 transnationalen Verlagsunternehmen enge statistische Beziehungen zwischen Indikatoren der Präsenz von Wissenschaftler*innen und transnationalen Verlagsunternehmen in den akademischen Lehrveranstaltungen der Welt (Classroom Citation, gemessen mit Open Syllabus) und anderen, herkömmlicheren bibliometrischen und szientometrischen Indikatoren (Libcitation gemessen mit dem OCLC Worldcat, sowie der H-Index der Zitierung in den vom System Scopus erfassten Fachzeitschriften der Welt bzw. dem Book Citation Index) bestehen. Die statistischen Berechnungen zeigen, basierend auf den Faktorenanalysen, die engen statistischen Beziehungen zwischen diesen Dimensionen. Diese Ergebnisse sind insbesondere in den Tabellen 5 und 9 dieser Arbeit (Komponentenkorrelationen) ableitbar.
  19. Safder, I.; Ali, M.; Aljohani, N.R.; Nawaz, R.; Hassan, S.-U.: Neural machine translation for in-text citation classification (2023) 0.02 
    0.015368836 = product of:
  0.07684418 = sum of:
    0.07684418 = weight(_text_:index in 1053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07684418 = score(doc=1053,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 1053, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1053)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The quality of scientific publications can be measured by quantitative indices such as the h-index, Source Normalized Impact per Paper, or g-index. However, these measures lack to explain the function or reasons for citations and the context of citations from citing publication to cited publication. We argue that citation context may be considered while calculating the impact of research work. However, mining citation context from unstructured full-text publications is a challenging task. In this paper, we compiled a data set comprising 9,518 citations context. We developed a deep learning-based architecture for citation context classification. Unlike feature-based state-of-the-art models, our proposed focal-loss and class-weight-aware BiLSTM model with pretrained GloVe embedding vectors use citation context as input to outperform them in multiclass citation context classification tasks. Our model improves on the baseline state-of-the-art by achieving an F1 score of 0.80 with an accuracy of 0.81 for citation context classification. Moreover, we delve into the effects of using different word embeddings on the performance of the classification model and draw a comparison between fastText, GloVe, and spaCy pretrained word embeddings.
  20. Positionspapier der DMV zur Verwendung bibliometrischer Daten (2020) 0.02 
    0.015214371 = product of:
  0.07607185 = sum of:
    0.07607185 = weight(_text_:index in 5738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07607185 = score(doc=5738,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.33795667 = fieldWeight in 5738, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5738)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Object
    h-index

Authors

Languages

  • e 85
  • d 34

Types

  • el 21
  • p 1
  • More… Less…

Themes